Standard operating procedure

[Vampyr]

There is nothing in the laws, it seems to me, that gives players the right to know now what their opponents' future bids might mean.

 

Well, if you are speaking in general terms, players have the right to know their opponents' entire system.

 

But in type of case, are we to deny knowledge of the opponents' past bids as well? I am coming around to the position that the opponents are entitled to know what the IBer was trying to do, because if they accept the IB, it becomes part of the legal auction and the OS are obligated to explain the meaning.*

 

I suppose this may mean that only after LHO has accepted the bid do we do as Lamford suggests and send partner of the IBer away so that the "explanation" can be given. In any case it must be done at some point, and I cannot believe that no one has realised this before.

 

* this also eliminates the fact that if everyone is required to guess, partner will have a much better chance of guessing correctly.

[lamford]

There is nothing in the laws, it seems to me, that gives players the right to know now what their opponents' future bids might mean.

I shall quote you when opponents arrive and say, "I am Bill and my partner is Anne. We play strong NT and 5-card majors. And you?"

 

I will reply:

"There is nothing in the laws that gives players the right to know now what their opponents' future bids might mean."

[campboy]

The only law that gives players a right to know what future bids mean is this one.

Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done.

The RA has specified that this should be done by exchanging completed convention cards. To give opponents the gist of your system verbally, and spare them the trouble of reading it, is simply a courtesy. What is true is that there is nothing in the laws that gives players the right to ask specific questions about future bids. All you get is what is (or rather should be) on the CC.

 

Anyway, all the opponents are entitled to is the partnership understandings. Most partnerships have no understandings about insufficient bids beyond "we try not to make them".

[blackshoe]

Well, if you are speaking in general terms, players have the right to know their opponents' entire system.

 

But in type of case, are we to deny knowledge of the opponents' past bids as well? I am coming around to the position that the opponents are entitled to know what the IBer was trying to do, because if they accept the IB, it becomes part of the legal auction and the OS are obligated to explain the meaning.*

 

I suppose this may mean that only after LHO has accepted the bid do we do as Lamford suggests and send partner of the IBer away so that the "explanation" can be given. In any case it must be done at some point, and I cannot believe that no one has realised this before.

 

* this also eliminates the fact that if everyone is required to guess, partner will have a much better chance of guessing correctly.

Players have an obligation to complete a system card IAW RA regulations. Their opponents have a right to see those cards before beginning play with them. They do not have a right to ask questions during the auction or play periods about possible future calls.

 

Players are not "obligated to explain the [intended] meaning" of an IB, whether the IB becomes part of the legal auction or not. They are obligated to explain the agreed meaning. There can be no agreement about the meaning of an IB. So there's nothing to explain except the agreed meaning of the bid, even if it doesn't match the hand or the bidder's intent.

 

I will grant that if a player frequently makes a particular IB, always or nearly always with the same intended meaning, that his partner is obligated to explain both the tendency and the implied understanding, but he also must make it clear that this is implicit, and also give the explicit meaning. Assuming there is one.

 

I shall quote you when opponents arrive and say, "I am Bill and my partner is Anne. We play strong NT and 5-card majors. And you?"

 

I will reply:

"There is nothing in the laws that gives players the right to know now what their opponents' future bids might mean."

Not a constructive reply, sir. I am sure you know damn well what I meant. Campboy did (see below).

 

The only law that gives players a right to know what future bids mean is this one.

 

The RA has specified that this should be done by exchanging completed convention cards. To give opponents the gist of your system verbally, and spare them the trouble of reading it, is simply a courtesy. What is true is that there is nothing in the laws that gives players the right to ask specific questions about future bids. All you get is what is (or rather should be) on the CC.

 

Anyway, all the opponents are entitled to is the partnership understandings. Most partnerships have no understandings about insufficient bids beyond "we try not to make them".

Thank you, Campboy. I was in fact referring to the process of asking questions, and not to the only law which refers to "prior disclosure".

[lamford]

Anyway, all the opponents are entitled to is the partnership understandings. Most partnerships have no understandings about insufficient bids beyond "we try not to make them".

That is all the opponents are wanting, partnership understandings. You and I both know that it is nothing to do with understanding about insufficient bids. If the auction goes 1NT-(2S)-2D, then, before deciding whether to accept 2D, the player is entitled to know whether 2D without the 2S overcall would be a transfer, and also whether 3H instead of 2D would be game-forcing, or whether they are playing 2NT as artificial. He is not entitled to know whether the player should have gone to Specsavers and thought 2S was actually 2C. If he is not entitled to ask and get the information about methods, before deciding whether to accept the IB, then this falls way, way, short of "all matters with regard to rectification".

 

Anyway, if the card is silent on these matters, and the non-offender is surely allowed to consult the card before making the decision, he can just claim breach of 40A1b, and damage as a result.

[blackshoe]

That is a very different example from the one in the OP.

[lamford]

That is a very different example from the one in the OP.

Indeed it is; because in the original example, no penalty-free correction is available for an OBOT by 4th seat. The thread has indeed changed theme. But the principle of making sure the non-offenders have ALL the information they need is the same.

[gordontd]

That is all the opponents are wanting, partnership understandings. You and I both know that it is nothing to do with understanding about insufficient bids. If the auction goes 1NT-(2S)-2D, then, before deciding whether to accept 2D, the player is entitled to know whether 2D without the 2S overcall would be a transfer, and also whether 3H instead of 2D would be game-forcing, or whether they are playing 2NT as artificial. If he is not entitled to ask and get this information, before deciding whether to accept the IB, then this falls way, way, short of "all matters with regard to rectification".

Certainly a player is entitled to ask all these things before making his decision. That was explicitly stated in the original EBU document I linked to in #36. However, that's not the same thing as saying, as I thought you and vampyr were, that the TD should question the player away from the table and come back to tell you whether it was his opinion that they had a replacement call available.

 

It seems strange to me that this keeps coming up when, as far as I know, no-one used to demand that they be told under the old laws whether or not their opponents had a natural sufficient call available that would not bar them.

[RMB1]

That is all the opponents are wanting, partnership understandings. You and I both know that it is nothing to do with understanding about insufficient bids. If the auction goes 1NT-(2S)-2D, then, before deciding whether to accept 2D, the player is entitled to know whether 2D without the 2S overcall would be a transfer, and also whether 3H instead of 2D would be game-forcing, or whether they are playing 2NT as artificial. If he is not entitled to ask and get this information, before deciding whether to accept the IB, then this falls way, way, short of "all matters with regard to rectification".

 

The original EBU operating procedure for the current Law 27 did acknowledge that the non-offender could ask about the opponents (in order to determine for themselves if there were non-silencing calls available) before deciding whether to accept.

 

The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to guess!). However, he is entitled to know full details of his opponents system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) and he is entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification of the Law from the Tournament Director

 

I am not sure whether the TD should routinely invite the non-offender to ask questions about the opponent's system before deciding whether to accept.

 

Some players and some TDs think the TD should tell the non-offender whether there are non-silencing calls, or what they are.

[lamford]

Certainly a player is entitled to ask all these things before making his decision. That was explicitly stated in the original EBU document I linked to in #36. However, that's not the same thing as saying, as I thought you and vampyr were, that the TD should question the player away from the table and come back to tell you whether it was his opinion that they had a replacement call available.

 

It seems strange to me that this keeps coming up when, as far as I know, no-one used to demand that they be told under the old laws whether or not their opponents had a natural sufficient call available that would not bar them.

I think the old (relevant) law was basically just 27B1a, but I do not have a copy to hand. I certainly found out on at least two occasions whether a bid a level higher would be artificial before deciding whether to accept. It does seem unfair now that the Laws expert can work out from the opponents' methods what the TD will judge, while the average player (and the average TD it seems) will not have a clue. Yes, I do think that the opinion of the TD as to whether the player has a replacement call available should be conveyed to the non-offender before he makes his decision. That comes under "all matters" as far as I am concerned.

[RMB1]

It seems strange to me that this keeps coming up when, as far as I know, no-one used to demand that they be told under the old laws whether or not their opponents had a natural sufficient call available that would not bar them.

 

Under the old Law 27, some TDs would investigate tell the table whether the insufficient bid was (not) natural {based on the apparent meaning of the bid), whether the minimum correction was (not) natural (based on the offender's system or by asking one of the offending side at the table), and therefore whether the minimum correction would (not) silence partner; before giving the option to accept.

[gordontd]

I think the old laws were basically just 27B1a, but I do not have a copy to hand. I certainly found out on at least two occasions whether a bid a level higher would be artificial before deciding whether to accept.

And did you berate the TD for not doing it for you?

 

It does seem unfair now that the Laws expert can work out from the opponents' methods what the TD will judge, while the average player (and the average TD it seems) will not have a clue. Yes, I do think that the opinion of the TD as to whether the player has a replacement call available should be conveyed to the non-offender before he makes his decision. That comes under "all matters" as far as I am concerned.

In many instances I don't think it's necessary for the TD to find that out, let alone pass it on. I explain the three possibilities that will apply, if the call is not accepted, to all the players, but add that if they think of choosing the 27B1b option it might be a good idea for us to go away from the table to discuss it. Of course in some cases it's completely obvious that they will have a non-barring replacement bid available - 1C - (1S) - 1H springs to mind, whether or not we know what that call will be.

 

As a player though, I'm not sure I would ever be very interested in this. I often accept IBs and always do so on the basis of whether it is convenient for me, not whether it will make life difficult for the opponents. The trouble with forcing them to guess is that sometimes we will be fixed and get a terrible score by having made them guess, which I imagine was one of the considerations behind the changes that came in in 2007.

[lamford]

In many instances I don't think it's necessary for the TD to find that out, let alone pass it on. I explain the three possibilities that will apply, if the call is not accepted, to all the players, but add that if they think of choosing the 27B1b option it might be a good idea for us to go away from the table to discuss it. Of course in some cases it's completely obvious that they will have a non-barring replacement bid available - 1C - (1S) - 1H springs to mind, whether or not we know what that call will be.

 

As a player though, I'm not sure I would ever be very interested in this. I often accept IBs and always do so on the basis of whether it is convenient for me, not whether it will make life difficult for the opponents. The trouble with forcing them to guess is that sometimes we will be fixed and get a terrible score by having made them guess, which I imagine was one of the considerations behind the changes that came in in 2007.

The obvious cases are less of an issue. And I can indeed usually work out what will happen if I refuse to accept the IB, but someone less familiar with the Laws may not do so. I often accept an IB as well, but solely if I think that not accepting it is worse on average. I certainly will not whinge if I make them guess and they guess right! But I expect to be told exactly what rectification will occur, rather than have to work it out. And I bet that, in the example you quoted, knowing the offender can substitute a negative double is beyond the average player; I also think most pairs have not discussed the meanings of accepting the IB and then bidding 1S, accepting and bidding 2S, doubling 1H, and bidding 2S after the correction, as well as bidding 2H immediately and after the correction. The serious Laws exploiter will have discussed all these ramifications with their regular partner, although I understand it has to be "system off" in the ACBL who do not allow such agreements? SB at our club holds seminars on the subject.

[WellSpyder]

I bet that, in the example you quoted, knowing the offender can substitute a negative double is beyond the average player.

[Perhaps proving lamford's point about the average player....]

Will the TD necessarily allow a negative double to be substituted here without penalty? Not everyone plays that a negative double guarantees 4♥s, particularly if the hand is strong. I thought perhaps Gordon was thinking of 2♥ as a bid that could be substituted without penalty.

[gordontd]

But I expect to be told exactly what rectification will occur, rather than have to work it out.

My emphasis.

 

Well you'll be disappointed if you expect that, since the player doesn't have to decide what to do until after you have decided whether or not to accept the bid.

[gordontd]

[Perhaps proving lamford's point about the average player....]

Will the TD necessarily allow a negative double to be substituted here without penalty? Not everyone plays that a negative double guarantees 4♥s, particularly if the hand is strong. I thought perhaps Gordon was thinking of 2♥ as a bid that could be substituted without penalty.

We all know that at least one of them will do. And even if we know that both of them are possible, we won't know which (if either) the player would select until after we've made our decision as to whether or not to accept.

[lamford]

My emphasis.

 

Well you'll be disappointed if you expect that, since the player doesn't have to decide what to do until after you have decided whether or not to accept the bid.

The rectification is the restriction which will be placed on the offender (or his partner). That I do expect to know before I decide whether or not to accept the bid. I am aware of the chronology of the decision-making process. That was included in "all matters" told to me by the competent TD.

[lamford]

We all know that at least one of them will do. And even if we know that both of them are possible, we won't know which (if either) the player would select until after we've made our decision as to whether or not to accept.

Not necessarily; if someone is playing negative free bids, weak jump shifts, and double as neither denying nor promising four hearts (hopeless methods, but never mind), will they still be allowed a penalty-free correction under the new lenient regulations?

[gordontd]

Not necessarily; if someone is playing negative free bids and double as neither denying nor promising four hearts (hopeless methods, but never mind), will they still be allowed a penalty-free correction under the new lenient regulations?

Sure -they could bid 2H.

[lamford]

Sure -they could bid 2H.

They can, even though the system bid with a game force with four hearts would be double, and 2H shows six hearts non-forcing? If their partner now moves with a minimum or does not support hearts with three, does the TD take any action?

[campboy]

They can, even though the system bid with a game force with four hearts would be double, and 2H shows six hearts non-forcing? If their partner now moves with a minimum or does not support hearts with three, does the TD take any action?

Yes, because 1♥ and 2♥ are both non-artificial (27B1a). The TD might subsequently adjust under 27D.

[gordontd]

The rectification is the restriction which will be placed on the offender (or his partner). That I do expect to know before I decide whether or not to accept the bid. I am aware of the chronology of the decision-making process. That was included in "all matters" told to me by the competent TD.

Indeed. I'll have told you this when I listed the three possibilities and consequences of each. But I don't have to have asked them what they might do any more than I would check, in cases where lead restrictions apply, whether the player has any cards of the suit to lead.

[Vampyr]

More important, IMO, in opposition to your idea that the PARTNER of the IB'r should be the one called away from the table --- is this:

 

Only the guy who did it truly knows what he thought when it happened. We should not be encouraging his partner to speculate on something which might have the same or more precise meaning than the IB when we really don't want him considering it at all.

 

I fail to see how it makes any difference. The player is just as likely to speculate on what his partner originally thought while the offender is away from the table.

 

Yes. The question is really whether the opponents should be forced to speculate, when they will have a lot less knowledge about the players, the system etc.

 

Players have an obligation to complete a system card IAW RA regulations. Their opponents have a right to see those cards before beginning play with them. They do not have a right to ask questions during the auction or play periods about possible future calls.

 

You have never seen a pair whose convention cards are inadequately completed? And during the auction, should a pair with more thorough convention cards be penalised?

Players are not "obligated to explain the [intended] meaning" of an IB, whether the IB becomes part of the legal auction or not. They are obligated to explain the agreed meaning. There can be no agreement about the meaning of an IB. So there's nothing to explain except the agreed meaning of the bid, even if it doesn't match the hand or the bidder's intent.

 

This is rather disingenuous. The application of this law depends on the meaning that was in the IBer's head. Whatever it was, it will have been a systemic bid. So the opponents (if they have accepted the bid) are entitled to know the agreement upon which the call was based in the fictitious auction that the IBer imagined.

[blackshoe]

Yes. The question is really whether the opponents should be forced to speculate, when they will have a lot less knowledge about the players, the system etc.

 

 

 

You have never seen a pair whose convention cards are inadequately completed? And during the auction, should a pair with more thorough convention cards be penalised?

 

 

This is rather disingenuous. The application of this law depends on the meaning that was in the IBer's head. Whatever it was, it will have been a systemic bid. So the opponents (if they have accepted the bid) are entitled to know the agreement upon which the call was based in the fictitious auction that the IBer imagined.

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

[gordontd]

So the opponents (if they have accepted the bid) are entitled to know the agreement upon which the call was based in the fictitious auction that the IBer imagined.

I can't think where you get that idea from.