27A1 vs 21B1a

[McBruce]

ACBL Sectional.

 

North opens 2NT.

East passes.

South places the 2♦ card on the table.

Almost immediately (1 second maximum), North announces 'transfer'.

But even more immediately, West has passed.

 

TD is called at this point by East.

 

27A1 says that "any insufficient bid ... is accepted if [offenders LHO] calls."

 

21B1a says that a call made can be changed (as long as partner has not subsequently called) "when the TD judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent...failure to alert is deemed misinformation."

 

One law says the insufficient bid is accepted once LHO makes a call. The other says that the call can be changed if there is misinformation. Which prevails? Should we even give a West who passes before an auctioneer could say "transfer" a second shot?

[RMB1]

I think Law 21 does not apply for two reasons.

 

West knows that some alert or announcement is likely for NT-♦ so should give North time to make the alert or announcement. To call too quickly means that the timely announcement is not "failure to alert prompty".

 

Secondly, NS have no agreement about 2NT-2♦ so no alert/announcement/explanation is needed and there is no misinformation.

[mjj29]

27A1 says that "any insufficient bid ... is accepted if [offenders LHO] calls."

 

21B1a says that a call made can be changed (as long as partner has not subsequently called) "when the TD judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent...failure to alert is deemed misinformation."

In this case I don't think it's relevant, since of course they play some sort of transfers after 2NT and if you pass that quickly then what do you expect, but - I think it's perfectly reasonable to rule that the IB has been accepted, but that the pass can be replaced with another call - with no option to now reject the IB. Those laws would not seem to be contradictory.

[campboy]

Even if there was a failure to alert promptly, which there was not, the law would only give West the right to change his call to a different one, not to a non-call. So even if he were to change the call the IB would still have been accepted.

[bluejak]

I think there is a little confusion here.

 

Suppose the bidding goes (2NT) p (3♦) and you wait a few seconds to see if there is any alert or announcement [or any other comment!]. Nothing happens, so you pass. Now opener says "Sorry, I should have announced that as a transfer." According to Law 21B1A you may now change your pass if it is because of the MI.

 

Suppose the bidding goes (2NT) p (2♦) and you wait a few seconds to see if there is any alert or announcement [or any other comment!]. Nothing happens, so you pass. Now opener says "Sorry, I should have announced that as a transfer." According to Law 21B1A you may now change your pass if it is because of the MI.

 

There is no difference. Of course, as Robin says, you could argue that the pair have no agreement about 2♦ but there seem to me to be three problems with that. First, it is not illegal - well, in some jurisdictions anyway - to have such an agreement, so they might have. Second, the WBFLC thinking on insufficient bids for many years seems to be based on the insufficient bid having a meaning in defiance of reason. Third, if the pair say they have an agreement I see no reason to say they have not.

 

So I believe Law 21B1A allows a change because of MI whether it is an insufficient bid or not. However, a separate argument is whether a pair is misinformed if they give a player too little time to alert or announce. Certainly there have been rulings in England that suggest it is not MI in such a case.

 

Finally, any call by the next player over the insufficient bid "accepts" the bid. Of course, it means it is treated as though it was legal and sufficient. But legal and sufficient bids are subject to Law 21B1A.

[blackshoe]

If "normal tempo" is 2-3 seconds, and West has bid in less than 1 second, then West has broken tempo. Not only has he accepted the IB, he has passed UI to his partner!

 

21B1 speaks of failure to alert. There was no failure to alert. Because of that, I would rule that 21B1 does not apply in this case. I might rule differently in a different case.

[peachy]

ACBL Sectional.

 

North opens 2NT.

East passes.

South places the 2♦ card on the table.

Almost immediately (1 second maximum), North announces 'transfer'.

But even more immediately, West has passed.

 

TD is called at this point by East.

Unless West always makes his calls under 1 second - which I doubt - the superfast Pass is difficult to explain or investigate, without going on the slippery slope of subjecting oneself to scrutiny or sanctions for public cheating accusations. So deal with the other aspects of the case and leave West's transmission of UI out of it?

[blackshoe]

Transmission of UI is not in itself an infraction (unless done deliberately with the intent to convey information) so I wouldn't do more than remind his partner of his obligations when in receipt of UI (Laws 16 and 73).

[bluejak]

Law 21B1A refers to MI. Yes, it gives an example of failing to alert. But failing to announce is MI as well, so 21B1A applies just as much to failing to announce.

 

:ph34r:

 

It is not difficult to investigate a superfast pass, and reporting a situation to a TD is not a public accusation of cheating. You might just as well say that every time a player is accused of hesitating it is a public accusation of cheating: of course it is not.

 

If a player breaks tempo, there are certain effects in Law. It is always reasonable to tell a TD you think a player has broken tempo and for a TD to investigate whether this is the case.

 

As a matter of personal experience, many players seem to think that if they call over some sort of infraction the player is stuck with it, so they call very quickly over such an infraction deliberately to try to make it unchangeable. It is quite normal, and quite unnecessary. In many situations the next player can accept it anyway, so there is no need for speed. And where they cannot, the speedy call has availed them nothing.