Pay Attention Partner!

[lamford]

The issue isn't that they pointed out the irregularity, it's the manner in which they did it. A simple, calm "It's not your turn" doesn't suggest much, but an annoyed "Pay attention, partner!" might indicate that they have a hand that really wanted to open.

Indeed. Occam's Razor suggests that the reason he was annoyed is that he knew there was a game on and the bid out of turn had hampered the chances of reaching that. To think "partner will now open 3NT and I do not want that" is a much less likely scenario.

[billw55]

Indeed. Occam's Razor suggests that the reason he was annoyed is that he knew there was a game on and the bid out of turn had hampered the chances of reaching that. To think "partner will now open 3NT and I do not want that" is a much less likely scenario.

Perhaps. But then, if partner is expected to have a strong hand, perhaps opener is being ethical by bidding only 3NT?

 

Anyway, none of this seems to matter. Everyone seems to agree that an out of turn NT call is virtually always replaced by 3NT. So what difference does UI make? Basically, if all peers always choose 3NT, there is no LA, so no adjustment.

[barmar]

Perhaps. But then, if partner is expected to have a strong hand, perhaps opener is being ethical by bidding only 3NT?

 

Anyway, none of this seems to matter. Everyone seems to agree that an out of turn NT call is virtually always replaced by 3NT. So what difference does UI make? Basically, if all peers always choose 3NT, there is no LA, so no adjustment.

Quite right. Although in the heat of the moment, I can appreciate why the NOS might be concerned. It seems like the excited tone suggests something, and if the guess works out well it's natural to think that at gave an advantage.

 

It would be more obvious if the player made a weird bid. For instance, the outburst could have been because the player had a distributional hand, and now he won't be able to show his long suit. If the BOOTer jumped to game in his short suit, THAT would seem to be catering to his partner's tone. But it's still a guess -- I think it would be hard to say that the tone demonstrably suggests which suit he held.

[lamford]

If one were to accept that the comment provided UI demonstrably suggesting bidding 3NT (which I do not), I think a poll of players who were asked what they would call if they knew that their partner was barred, but not for what reason, would find that pass is not a logical alternative.

I think a poll of players familiar with Law 16B who were asked what they would call if they knew that their partner was barred would select a mixture of Pass and 3NT. The strong player, not a disciple of King, at the table actually chose Pass (I told you that it was broadly true and I was interested in what would have happened if he had chosen 3NT). The other interesting point is that the IBidder now knows that the person sitting over does not want to accept 1NT. Presumably his LHO's game-theory strategy is to accept 1NT most of the time when he does not want you to reach game, and to not accept it most of the time when he wants to double 3NT. Your game-theory strategy cannot therefore be to bid 3NT 100% of the time, as King suggests.

 

Whether the UI demonstrably suggests values is unclear. If it does then it does demonstrably suggest 3NT.

[PhilKing]

Then you are illegally communicating with your partner who will pass when you are very annoyed, and open 3NT when you are less so.

 

 

In the situation you describe I would certainly adjust and give a PP. In the actual situation, an adjustment would be terrible and it seems logical to assume you agree.

[ggwhiz]

Presumably his LHO's game-theory strategy is to accept 1NT most of the time when he does not want you to reach game, and to not accept it most of the time when he wants to double 3NT. Your game-theory strategy cannot therefore be to bid 3NT 100% of the time, as King suggests.

 

I disagree. Not accepting the 1nt call simply bars your lho from finding whatever... the making game or a slam as opposed to you smashing 3nt.

 

An astute pard should probably strain to bid on nothing in front of North. Lead directing if the UI was so obvious but it isn't.

[PhilKing]

I think a poll of players familiar with Law 16B who were asked what they would call if they knew that their partner was barred would select a mixture of Pass and 3NT. The strong player, not a disciple of King, at the table actually chose Pass (I told you that it was broadly true and I was interested in what would have happened if he had chosen 3NT). The other interesting point is that the IBidder now knows that the person sitting over does not want to accept 1NT. Presumably his LHO's game-theory strategy is to accept 1NT most of the time when he does not want you to reach game, and to not accept it most of the time when he wants to double 3NT. Your game-theory strategy cannot therefore be to bid 3NT 100% of the time, as King suggests.

 

Whether the UI demonstrably suggests values is unclear. If it does then it does demonstrably suggest 3NT.

 

FWIW I don't agree with any of your GTO conclusions.

[mycroft]

Indeed. Occam's Razor suggests that the reason he was annoyed is that he knew there was a game on and the bid out of turn had hampered the chances of reaching that. To think "partner will now open 3NT and I do not want that" is a much less likely scenario.

I agree, but I would (and have, oddly enough) suggest that the Occam possibility has nothing to do with his cards and everything to do with partner's chronic lack of attention this session, of which this is the least part. Much lower in my list would be either of your choices above.

 

And really, you found anybody willing to pass this hand with partner barred? 1NT I can see, but pass?

[Vampyr]

And really, you found anybody willing to pass this hand with partner barred? 1NT I can see, but pass?

 

In real life there was no comment at all. It happened near the beginning of a 24-board match; the player probably thought that if there was a game on, there would be plenty of time to make up the IMPs; if there was no game, he could be bringing back a silly score on a nothing board.

 

When you have a strong NT, it is significantly odds against that you will have a game, perhaps 30%; additionally if you have a game, it might not be in NT.

 

Now opening 1NT is an interesting idea. If it is your hand and you make 9 tricks, you will have made up a few of the IMPs that the opponents gained by being in game. Of course the opponents can compete rather freely, since you will not find out whether your side have the assets to double them (potentially) into game.

[Vampyr]

Accepting the call out of turn ensures a normal bridge auction, although not the same auction as would otherwise have taken place.

 

Right, and since there is no rectification available if I do this (apart from L23, which is a little far-fetched) I would rather not randomise my result. Naturally it will be randomised anyway, but if my opponents have to guess, it might not be too bad for me.

 

And if I have teammates, I am under an obligation to them to try to maximise my score on every hand. They will not be impressed if I refuse to take the penalty available because I am "a nice guy". But I play in games where calling the director and receiving rulings, including accepting advantages that they may involve, is not considered less nice than simply letting things go.

[gordontd]

Right, and since there is no rectification available if I do this (apart from L23, which is a little far-fetched) I would rather not randomise my result. Naturally it will be randomised anyway, but if my opponents have to guess, it might not be too bad for me.

 

And if I have teammates, I am under an obligation to them to try to maximise my score on every hand. They will not be impressed if I refuse to take the penalty available because I am "a nice guy". But I play in games where calling the director and receiving rulings, including accepting advantages that they may involve, is not considered less nice than simply letting things go.

Nobody suggested you should do anything to be considered a nice guy. Indeed, nobody suggested you do anything. I pointed out that there are some players who are inclined to accept such calls because they believe they are more likely to get a real bridge auction that way than through the randomness of making their opponents guess at their first call.

[gnasher]

Accepting the call out of turn ensures a normal bridge auction, although not the same auction as would otherwise have taken place.

 

Right, and since there is no rectification available if I do this (apart from L23, which is a little far-fetched) I would rather not randomise my result. Naturally it will be randomised anyway, but if my opponents have to guess, it might not be too bad for me.

It's a shame that the laws don't allow us to have a normal auction starting with the player who would normally open the bidding, but with suitable protection for the non-offenders. (Sorry if that was a bit Nigel-like.)

[lamford]

Nobody suggested you should do anything to be considered a nice guy. Indeed, nobody suggested you do anything. I pointed out that there are some players who are inclined to accept such calls because they believe they are more likely to get a real bridge auction that way than through the randomness of making their opponents guess at their first call.

I think such players are not following the chief object which is to obtain a higher score than the opponent(s). You are never going to get a real bridge auction, because somebody has opened out of turn. Indeed I could not enter the actual auction using BBO software. There are some players who waive a revoke, who tell people to pick up penalty cards and allow misbids to be corrected. It is nothing to do with a real bridge auction. They are just being magnanimous.

 

I think that the correct action is to have an agreement regarding the 1NT bid out of turn. Best, I think, is to allow it with 0-7 points, and to disallow it with 8+. If it is corrected to 3NT, you should double with 12+ and pass with 8-11. That way when the Kingites bid 3NT after it is not accepted, they will usually be doubled when it is going off. I think that the Pass is alertable, but the refusal to accept the bid out of turn is not. I think that some RAs do not allow agreements over the opponents' infractions, but perhaps some one here will clarify that.

 

I would be disappointed if any teammate accepted a bid out of turn, just to get "a real bridge auction".

[gordontd]

I think such players are not following the chief object which is to obtain a higher score than the opponent(s).

Then I think you are wilfully misunderstanding what I said.

 

You are never going to get a real bridge auction, because somebody has opened out of turn. Indeed I could not enter the actual auction using BBO software.

This is now the measure of a real bridge auction?

 

There are some players who waive a revoke, who tell people to pick up penalty cards and allow misbids to be corrected. It is nothing to do with a real bridge auction. They are just being magnanimous.

They are not the people I am talking about, and that is not a strategy I ever advise.

 

I think that the correct action is to have an agreement regarding the 1NT bid out of turn. Best, I think, is to allow it with 0-7 points, and to disallow it with 8+. If it is corrected to 3NT, you should double with 12+ and pass with 8-11. That way when the Kingites bid 3NT after it is not accepted, they will usually be doubled when it is going off. I think that the Pass is alertable, but the refusal to accept the bid out of turn is not. I think that some RAs do not allow agreements over the opponents' infractions, but perhaps some one here will clarify that.

The Orange Book says:

Under Law 40B3 (d) a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its

understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity by

either side, except that following its own insufficient bid a partnership may not

change by prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so that it is brought

within the criteria of Law 27B1 (b).

 

 

I would be disappointed if any teammate accepted a bid out of turn, just to get "a real bridge auction".

You'd be glad if they did it and you got the normal 4S-1 contract rather than the abnormal 3NT=.

[gnasher]

I think such players are not following the chief object which is to obtain a higher score than the opponent(s).

That might be your chief objective, but that doesn't mean it's everybody's chief objective. Many people play bridge primarily for enjoyment.

[Zelandakh]

When you have a strong NT, it is significantly odds against that you will have a game, perhaps 30%.

If we have 16 points, partner's expected strength is 8 points (24/3) and our expected total is 24. Does that make you want to reconsider your 30% figure?

[lamford]

Then I think you are wilfully misunderstanding what I said.

No, I was fully aware that you did not advocate their approach. I think you are the one misunderstanding. I thought "I think such players" would have been the giveaway.

 

You'd be glad if they did it and you got the normal 4S-1 contract rather than the abnormal 3NT=.

On this hand, yes. But on far more hands it will be an advantage to be given a second bite at the cherry. But then you knew that.

[lamford]

That might be your chief objective, but that doesn't mean it's everybody's chief objective. Many people play bridge primarily for enjoyment.

I think one can play for enjoyment as well, but the chief objective under 72A is to do better than the opponent. Surely this forum must assume that aim.

[lamford]

If we have 16 points, partner's expected strength is 8 points (24/3) and our expected total is 24. Does that make you want to reconsider your 30% figure?

I have done a simulation and get 41.2% for the chance of 3NT making. One thing that shocked me was how bad a bid 3NT really is. Assuming the opponents will double you when they have 17 points between their hands, bidding 3NT had an EV of -66.21 and bidding 1NT had an EV of +87.62. I am pretty sure that the right bid is 1NT, not Pass or 3NT. I would imagine a conversion to IMPs would be even worse for the 3NT bidder.

 

And here the opponents were doubling when one or other had a 10 count. I think a "strategy" would do even better. And the opponents do not have to worry about a redouble.

[lamford]

When partner opens a strong no trump out of turn, you know that he is going to correct it to 3NT exactly 100% of the time. If I had a balanced 3-count, I would be this annoyed - :angry: :angry: :angry:. With a balanced 13, on which I would have simply raised to 3NT, much less so B-) .

Do you still think it is right to open 3NT 100% of the time? If so, we should have a challenge match where you open 3NT and I open 1NT all the time, on that North hand, with the other hands randomly dealt. Despite your superior skill, I would expect to be quids in.

[PhilKing]

Do you still think it is right to open 3NT 100% of the time? If so, we should have a challenge match where you open 3NT and I open 1NT all the time, on that North hand, with the other hands randomly dealt. Despite your superior skill, I would expect to be quids in.

 

Really? I will try a sim.

[lamford]

Really? I will try a sim.

If the opponents never double 3NT it is narrowly right to bid it, +105.54 against +87.62. But there were 12 -1400s in my sim, which was 1000 trials.

[gnasher]

I think one can play for enjoyment as well, but the chief objective under 72A is to do better than the opponent. Surely this forum must assume that aim.

Sorry, I hadn't realised that "chief object" was a quote from the Laws.

 

Anyway, I don't see why it is relevant. Law 72A doesn't require a player to try to maximise his score in any particular set of circumstances.

[lamford]

Sorry, I hadn't realised that "chief object" was a quote from the Laws.

 

Anyway, I don't see why it is relevant. Law 72A doesn't require a player to try to maximise his score in any particular set of circumstances.

It requires the player to bear in mind that this is the chief object. So, dumping is fine, but condoning a bid out of turn to get a "normal bridge auction" when it is not in the player's interests would seem to contravene the main aim of playing bridge. To win.

[gordontd]

It requires the player to bear in mind that this is the chief object. So, dumping is fine, but condoning a bid out of turn to get a "normal bridge auction" when it is not in the player's interests would seem to contravene the main aim of playing bridge. To win.

Those who do this have made the assessment that they are more likely to win when they avoid the randomising effect of a barred opponent. You may disagree with this, but to suggest it's a breach of L72A is ridiculous.