[nige1]

Match pointed Swiss pairs. West alerted East's Pass. South didn't ask about the alert and passed. West said "I withdraw my alert" and passed.

South called the director, who ascertained the facts. He ruled that the auction was over but North-South could ask what it meant. According to East, his Pass was forcing, so the alert was correct,

Out of earshot of the table, South told the director that if West hadn't alerted, then he might have bid. He suggested that the director might consider winding back the auction so that he had the option of changing his call. Was South's behaviour OK -- in spite of potential UI? The director told him to play on.

How should the director handle a case like this?

In fact, North made 1♠. The question of recalling the director did not arise as NS suffered no damage. But suppose that NS felt that they were damaged?

---

[pran]

nige1, on 2017-February-11, 15:54, said:

Match pointed Swiss pairs. West alerted East's Pass. South didn't ask about the alert and passed. West said "I withdraw my alert" and passed.

South called the director, who ascertained the facts. He ruled that the auction was over but North-South could ask what it meant. According to East, his Pass was forcing, so the alert was correct,

Out of earshot of the table, South told the director that if West hadn't alerted, then he might have bid. He suggested that the director might consider winding back the auction so that he had the option of changing his call. Was South's behaviour OK -- in spite of potential UI? The director told him to play on.

How should the director handle a case like this?

In fact, North made 1♠. The question of recalling the director did not arise as NS suffered no damage. But suppose that NS felt that they were damaged?

---

Alerts are part of disclosures so a missing alert is equivalent to misinformation. Depending on regulations an alert where alert is not required may also constitute misinformation.

Now "withdrawing an alert" is certainly equivalent to changing an explanation and subject to Law 20F4. The player must immediately call the Director who shall apply Law 21B (or Law 40B4).

According to the description the auction was not over and should have been rolled back to South who then could ask about the auction and possibly replace his pass with a different call. If South then selected to maintain his pass the auction would be over.

[Vampyr]

What is the pair's actual agreement? I think that when there is no convention card and a disagreement the ruling should tilt strongly in favour of the opponents.

[blackshoe]

South was the last player of his side to call in this auction, so whether the auction is "over" is irrelevant to the question whether the auction can be rolled back to South. It can be in either case.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-12, 11:39, said:

South was the last player of his side to call in this auction, so whether the auction is "over" is irrelevant to the question whether the auction can be rolled back to South. It can be in either case.

There are two prerequisites for rolling back the auction:
1: The partner must not subsequently have called, and
2: The auction period must not have ended.

Law 22B1 said:

1. The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn then see Law 54). The interval between the end of the auction and the end of the auction period is designated the Clarification Period.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2017-February-12, 12:29, said:

There are two prerequisites for rolling back the auction:
1: The partner must not subsequently have called, and
2: The auction period must not have ended.

The auction period has not ended yet, as there has been no opening lead.