partnership agreements

[lorysanne]

1Club (better minor) Opener    2Club next player  = Michaels
1 Club (short club)   Opener    Alert by partner    2 Club by next player  = Michaels
1 Club (short club) opener       Pass by next  player       Alert by openers partner  (late)    2 club by player who previously passed = Club suit
Is this an allowable partenership bidding agreement?

[Chris]

I'm not really sure about the question - are these 3 separate scenarios ?

[Matthew McManus]

Law 21B1(a) is the relevant law. The Director may allow a player to change their call if he judges that the decision to make a certain call may have been influenced by misinformation from the opponents. The law goes on to say that failure to alert promptly as required by regulation is deemed misinformation.

Here we have misinformation, so the Director may allow a change of call. He asks the overcaller if his decision to pass would have been different had 1C been alerted. In the scenario presented (where the overcaller has a club suit), the answer is clearly no. Had 1C been alerted then he still would not have made a bid - 2C would have been Michael's. Therefore, such an agreement is not permitted. The case indicates the importance of calling the director when an infraction occurs. If the players were to make their own ruling without the director, then it is possible that the players could "solve" the matter illegally as described in the question and no one would know any better.