BudH

I was called (by dummy) immediately after the defender’s LOOT. Now that I’ve looked at the laws thoroughly, I think I should have enforced the LOOT and additionally penalized declarer’s side one matchpoint (on a 7 top) as dummy should have known better.

As director in an ACBL open club game (still in progress as I am typing this), I am called to the table and learn dummy called me about a defender's lead out of turn early in the play. I asked if any of the other three players drew attention to the lead out of turn before I was called. None of the other three players had drawn attention to the defender's lead out of turn. I ruled (apparently incorrectly) that the lead out of turn stood and declarer did not have the option to accept it or not. Then I looked (during the next round) at Law 43B3 and saw the "play continues as though no irregularity had occurred" only applies after a violation of Law 43A2 (exchange hands, leave seat, or look at defender' hand) and not after a violation of Law 43A1 (which includes dummy drawing attention improperly to an irregularity). The violations of Law 43B1 only mentions Law 90 (Procedural Penalties) for the penalty of this violation. It appears you might be able to apply Law 90A ("Director’s Authority - The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score."). It seems to me that in some cases, the results for both sides won't change, but in other cases, the defense might start a defensive crossruff which would not have occurred. (In my case, dummy was on lead and it was declarer's RHO who led out of turn.) What is the ruling you would give if (1) it didn't matter how many tricks each side won or (2) it cause the defenders to score at least one extra trick if the lead out of turn was allowed to stand?

In my opinion, if I sat down with a random very good expert, and I held this 1=3=5=4 hand on this auction, I would bid 2NT and I think my partner would work it out. The only thing that makes sense is 4 clubs and 5+ diamonds, OR both red suits (with minors much more likely).

Note responder knows the opponents have at least an 8-card fit and often longer. Why make it easy for opponents? LHO is likely to transfer to spades over responder's call. It's actually very unlucky opener has ♠KJ9x. Looks like a good candidate for a bidding poll on Bridgewinners.

Playing day 3 of an ACBL regional tournament with a very good partner (but the first time we've ever played together) in Round 3 of a top flight knockout event, white vs. red, I pass as dealer holding ♠10 ♥Jxx ♦AKJxx ♣T8xx Pass - Pass - 1♣ - 1NT 2NT - Pass - Pass - Pass Obviously I am not expecting partner to pass my 2NT bid as it was intended as showing the minors. Which of course was not explicitly discussed before we played but I thought was "expert standard". The opponents ask my partner (who held ♠KJ9x ♥AQ10 ♦9x ♣J9xx) about the meaning of 2NT and he tells them "natural, to play". Am I required to correct the explanation for something not discussed but might be considered as "expert standard"?

This topic has made me aware that when I give the five options to the presumed declarer, when I say "you may accept the lead and either put your hand down as dummy or see dummy before playing second to the trick", then I should also include "if you chose one of those two options, your LHO is allowed to use any information connected to the card illegally led."

[hv=pc=n&s=sq6ha852dcak86532&w=sj953h7dqt762cj97&n=sat84hkq9dkj9cqt4&e=sk72hjt643da8543c]399|300|6C by South<br>1. H7, K, 3, 2<br>2. D9, A C2, 2<br>3. C3, 7, Q, D4<br>4. "low spade", K, ...........[/hv] Many of you may remember the board above as Board 4 with Joanna Stansby declaring 6♣ from the Spring 1999 Vanderbilt and being famous for the "Oh, sh" ruling. The present wording of Law 45C4(b) for changing an unintended played card from dummy includes the following: "Declarer may correct an unintended designation of a card from dummy until he next plays a card from either his own hand or dummy. A change of designation may be allowed after a slip of the tongue, but not after a loss of concentration or a reconsideration of action." The play was (1) singleton heart led to dummy's king, (2) low diamond from dummy to RHO's ace and ruffed by declarer, (3) low club to dummy's queen, and (4) declarer calls "low spade", RHO plays the ♠K, declarer says "Oh, Sh", etc. (more below on the "etc") Under the present laws, it appears clear to me if declarer, before playing any card from her hand following RHO's ♠K, calls the Director, this appears to be a clear cut use of Law 45C4(b) with declarer being allowed to change the "low spade" to a "low club". However, let's assume instead that declarer knows she could now claim 12 tricks and absentmindedly calls "low spade" at Trick 4, but this time she does NOT notice RHO's ♠K, and then places the ♣A on the table and is about to claim when dummy says "no spades, partner?", quickly followed by declarer realizing what has happened and calling the Director. It appears the ♣A is a played card, even though it will need to be replaced to follow suit, which would mean dummy's mis-called card cannot be corrected, and RHO is then free to give LHO a heart ruff to beat 6♣. I personally dislike this part of the new wording of this law, and think it should be re-worded such that if the next trick has not started as in this case, that dummy's called card (first or second card played to the trick) can be corrected - however, it appears in my hypothetical example, declarer can't correct dummy's called card. Does my interpretation appear correct?

The "subset law" does have a few quirks in that although the very large majority of possible hands meet the criteria, there are a few that do not. For example, in the given auction after partner opens 1♥ after responder passed out of turn, 2♥ would be deemed comparable. However, opener does have some information he is not supposed to hold, in that he knows partner does not hold ♠KQ98xx ♥Qxx ♦xxx ♣x which would likely have been opened 2♠.

Technically, the UI law is NOT in effect once you judge offender made a comparable call. However, if the small amount of extra information offender's partner may possess ends up mattering, then you have Law 23C to use to adjust the score.

Thanks, Ed. I screwed up my negatives and re-worded my original post. Thanks for posting my error so I could correct it.

South dealer, North passes out of rotation, not accepted. then 1♥ - (2♣) - ? I informed South of her responsibility to not use UI from the withdrawn pass out of rotation, then the auction above occurred. As has been discussed here (and other forums) several times, any call that would be made only by hands that would pass in first seat would be comparable: 2♥ or 3♥ (non-forcing) 2NT (natural and non-forcing) 2♦ or 2♠ if non-forcing (negative free bids) However, while speaking with North away from the table, he wanted to know if 4♥ would be comparable. After giving it a few seconds thought, I informed North I would judge it comparable only if he could provide evidence that the partnership meaning of the bid was "weak" and would not be made with opening bid values. Would you consider 4♥ comparable? Under what conditions?

Much of the original problems that occurred when the new laws began to be used was in determining what information offender's LHO is allowed to have before deciding whether to accept the insufficient bid or call out of rotation. Finally, we now have some guidance that the Director does not tell offender's LHO if offender has one or more calls that would keep offender's partner from being required to pass. However, offender's LHO can ask offender's partner questions about their system to help him guess the intended meaning of the illegal call to help him decide whether to accept it. (By the way, I've found that offender's LHO often should accept the illegal call so that offender's partner is often at a guess at what offender was trying to do. If he doesn't accept it, offender often gets to clear up the ambiguity.)

The only reason for South to not explain North's double as negative (majors) was (1) knowing West wasn't showing clubs and/or looking at the convention card. (Did he look at the West's convention card after West's bid and North's bid?) The large majority of the time, South would assume West's club bid was natural and therefore North's double would be explained as negative.

But was South's pass alerted? If South had realized by that point he had accidentally opened 2♣, he is required to alert as if he had intended to open 2♣. (Plus, he can't change his call once South passes.)

Note that offender's partner, if allowed to use information that partner made a withdrawn call out of rotation, even if not allowed to know WHICH call was withdrawn, would be able to deliberately pass with a clear but minimum opening bid, often making it easier for his partner to make a comparable call. But he's not allowed to pass for that reason (without the threat of an adjusted score), due to the information above.

Here is the key quote from Matt Smith in that document: "Opening 1NT will give his partner (offender) many more options to make a call that won't bar him ..... The argument in favor of this kind of action being permissible is that a player is using his knowledge of the laws, not the knowledge from the withdrawn call. However, it is not knowledge of the rules alone, but also the knowledge of what partner's call meant that causes the UI problem. 16C2 refers to “information arising” from its own withdrawn action. The withdrawn action is not just the call and what it meant. The partner of a caller out of turn should therefore not have an advantage over law abiding players at other tables where there was no call out of turn. He has a very good idea of what his partner holds before his first call following the infraction. They do not. So no, a player may not distort his bidding before his partner has had a chance to make a replacement call in order to maximize his side's chances of avoiding penalties. To do so is an infraction according to 16C2. If he does distort his call and the opponents are damaged as a result, the score should be adjusted as described above (note again the prohibition in 12C1(c ) when making a weighted ruling). When advising a player of his rights and responsibilities, the director should make mention to the partner of the caller out of turn that he should make his normal call so as not to run afoul of unauthorized information rules."

Here's the key quote from that document, where 1H is opened out of rotation when partner is dealer: "Opening bid out of turn at partner's turn; 31B1, which includes reference to 16C2 regarding the withdrawn 1H call. In other words, South isn't allowed to know about the 1H call just yet so isn't allowed to distort his own bidding - this under the UI laws, nothing to do with 23C. Once we've got over that hurdle, then we can apply 31A2 upon North and the reference to comparable calls therein etc. etc."

If anyone can find some official type document (which I thought I saw late last year but can't seem to find now) that offender's partner (before offender's first call after the withdrawn call) is not allowed to deliberately select his call to make it easier for offender's call to be comparable, I would greatly appreciate knowing what document that information came from.

There is a big difference between knowledge of Laws 23 and 31 (Comparable Call and Bid Out of Rotation) and having UI that you know partner made a (withdrawn) bid out of rotation, let alone that you know what that withdrawn call happened to be. Offender's partner is not allowed to be "cute" trying to make it easier on his partner to make a comparable call. He's not allowed to know partner's withdrawn call. He isn't allowed to even KNOW there was a withdrawn call. (Except that with a close decision between two or three calls, he must choose the one that is least advantageous if it is a logical alternative.) The offender, however, IS allowed to be cute to prevent his partner from being barred for one round, e.g., if offender had passed illegally and then responded 1NT instead of 1 of a suit to keep it a comparable call.

[hv=pc=n&s=s65ha843dk96cq652&w=s987hkt5dj72ct973&n=sakt432h2dt53caj8&e=sqjhqj976daq84ck4&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1h1np4sppp]399|300|North opened 1S out of turn, not accepted by East who opened 1H. South's 1NT bid with 9 HCP is natural and systemically shows 15-18 HCP,[/hv] From Board 26 of the Monday March 4 afternoon Common Game (http://thecommongame.com/Results/20190304Rank.html#tab_board_26). North opened 1♠ out of turn, not accepted by dealer East who opened 1♥. South overcalled 1NT (natural, 15-18 HCP) with a 9 HCP hand. North jumped to 4♠ which was passed out. (You can comment if you'd like if 4♠ is comparable to the withdrawn 1♠ opening. I believe it is.) Declarer makes 11 tricks after an opening lead of the ♠Q by East. Assume that there is no UI from either North or South. No hesitations, no voice inflections, etc. by either one. 1. Do you let the result (650 for N/S) stand with no other action taken? 2. If South tells the table (either after the play ends or when putting dummy down) she bid 1NT to try to make it easier for North to select a comparable call to prevent South from being barred for one round, does this change your ruling?

Being that it was a 2-level overcall, 2♣ being close to a minimum opening bid (at least) and showing 5+ clubs is a subset of hands with 3+ or 4+ clubs, so this is clearly comparable and the auction continues normally with no enforced passes (or any lead penalties if becoming defenders).

Bidding 6NT after an in tempo 4H, likely because of not being certain if 4H is natural, is "authorized panic" and is legal. However, after a long hesitation before the 4H bid, opener is going to find it difficult to justify the 6NT bid as not being "unauthorized panic".

The WBF Laws Commission likely has a less liberal view of “all matters”.

The recently released WBF commentary on the laws says offender’s LHO may ask questions about meanings of possible (replacement) calls But nothing else, so it is implied LHO has to judge for himself. There should have been explicit text in the commentary to tell us the Director shall not inform offender’s opponents about existence (or non-existence) of one or more calls that will avoid offender’s partner from being required to pass.

Unfortunately, one of the most common and simple questions we had after the 2017 laws became available for inspection was not answered in the recent commentary on the new laws: 1♠ opening on dealer's left not accepted. then 1♥ - (1♠) - ? Is 1♠ comparable? You check the convention (system) card and find their range for the overcall is: (1) 5-17 HCP (2) 7-17 HCP (3) 9-17 HCP I was hoping this frequent question would have be answered, probably by saying (3) is comparable and (1) is not, and (2) would likely have very little information given to us (meaning it's Director judgement, and because we are supposed to be liberal, we'd often allow it with a 7 HCP minimum overcall range).