BOOT on the other foot

[Vampyr]

I thought it was actually pretty common in the UK, at least in tournaments. This seems to be a frequent distinction made between EBU and ACBL practices.

 

The CCs are given to the opponents or are available to them (for instance, are located under the bidding boxes), but more often than not the opponents don't peruse them. And sometimes you have to ask for a basic description of their system, but it is pretty unusual to begin play before you have heard it.

[Vampyr]

The Laws Committee minute is puzzling as it puts people who have a more thoroughly filled-out convention card at a disadvantage. I wonder why they wanted to do this.

 

A side issue to the main topic of the thread is that it makes sense to create agreements with partner about various actions over a BOOT. Probably simplest to show a few specific hand-types with direct action, and otherwise don't accept.

 

This is not, of course, as important as agreements over an IB, because there it is your turn and you are required to do something.

[barmar]

The Laws Committee minute is puzzling as it puts people who have a more thoroughly filled-out convention card at a disadvantage. I wonder why they wanted to do this.

This is a frequent complaint: players who follow the rules more diligently can be at a disadvantage of those who are lax, since the latter are not usually penalized.

A side issue to the main topic of the thread is that it makes sense to create agreements with partner about various actions over a BOOT. Probably simplest to show a few specific hand-types with direct action, and otherwise don't accept.

 

This is not, of course, as important as agreements over an IB, because there it is your turn and you are required to do something.

Unless you're in ACBL territory, which prohibits altering your agreements after an infraction (regardless of which side committed it). However, players often apply bridge logic to make inferences from whether a player accepts or declines an IB or BOOT.

[barmar]

So what those minutes essentially say is that "relevant" means that the call is available in the auction that actually occurred up to that point. Calls in some other potential auction are not relevant.

[campboy]

I have just realised that this is wrong. SB could have refused to accept the BOOT, and the auction would have reverted to the dealer, who would have had to Pass, second hand would have passed, and North could have opened 1NT after two passes.

It is still true that at no point in the auction so far was pass-pass-1NT available. Yes, it might subsequently have become available, but even if it did it would be a third-seat 1NT opposite a partner who was silenced throughout, which probably has a different meaning.

[barmar]

It is still true that at no point in the auction so far was pass-pass-1NT available. Yes, it might subsequently have become available, but even if it did it would be a third-seat 1NT opposite a partner who was silenced throughout, which probably has a different meaning.

Exactly. If a pair plays Gambling 3NT, but one of them bids 3NT when he knows his partner is barred, you would not expect him to to necessarily hold a long, solid minor. When a player bids opposite a barred partner, the explanation should be something like "We normally play that this shows X, but since he knows I'm barred he's probably just guessing at a final contract".

[Vampyr]

Unless you're in ACBL territory, which prohibits altering your agreements after an infraction (regardless of which side committed it).

 

Yeah, I think we all knew this. Sorry for not mentioning in my post that it did not apply to the ACBL. I had assumed that ACBL players were smart enough to know that methods prohibited by their jurisdiction were not available to them.

 

I guess I have made an ass out of u and me.

[lamford]

When a player bids opposite a barred partner, the explanation should be something like "We normally play that this shows X, but since he knows I'm barred he's probably just guessing at a final contract".

That makes sense, but I think campboy is arguing that the opponents have no right to know what the bid would mean if it was not out of turn, but was made in turn after two passes. He will correct me if that is not the case.

[campboy]

That makes sense, but I think campboy is arguing that the opponents have no right to know what the bid would mean if it was not out of turn, but was made in turn after two passes. He will correct me if that is not the case.

I'm not talking about right to know so much as right to ask. If East did reject the BOOT and the auction proceeded p p 1NT, he would only be permitted to ask about the meaning of 1NT (or alternative calls) opposite a silenced partner. In the unlikely event that NS have a specific agreement about this, South can describe that agreement. If they don't, however, the correct answer is going to be along the lines that barmar describes.

[Vampyr]

I'm not talking about right to know so much as right to ask. If East did reject the BOOT and the auction proceeded p p 1NT, he would only be permitted to ask about the meaning of 1NT (or alternative calls) opposite a silenced partner. In the unlikely event that NS have a specific agreement about this, South can describe that agreement. If they don't, however, the correct answer is going to be along the lines that barmar describes.

 

I don't think that such an agreement is permitted anywhere, even though the Laws, bizarrely, allow an RA to permit it.

[pran]

Wouldn't it be common bridge knowledge that a player who's partner is required by Law to pass is free to make whatever (legal) Call he wants regardless of existing agreements and/or partnership understandings?

 

Consequently the correct explanation by a barred player on his partner's Calls (after he became barred) is "no agreement" (or words to that effect).

 

I even doubt that a player is entitled to request explanations from a barred player on Calls made by his partner after he became barred.

[lamford]

I'm not talking about right to know so much as right to ask.

East is presumably allowed to look at the CC and find out whether they play strong in third before making his decision. If the opponents do not have CCs, or have a CC with insufficient detail, as often happens in club bridge, one should not be disadvantaged.

[campboy]

East is presumably allowed to look at the CC and find out whether they play strong in third before making his decision. If the opponents do not have CCs, or have a CC with insufficient detail, as often happens in club bridge, one should not be disadvantaged.

East shouldn't be disadvantaged, since he can simply say to the TD "opponents don't have a CC and I want to consult it".

[pran]

East is presumably allowed to look at the CC and find out whether they play strong in third before making his decision. If the opponents do not have CCs, or have a CC with insufficient detail, as often happens in club bridge, one should not be disadvantaged.

This is obvious.

 

But it is also clear that North made his opening bid (out of turn) believeing that he was dealer.

 

Any suggestion otherwise implies an accusation that North violated

A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

so I cannot see how the correct announcement by South can be anything else than describing an opening bid 1NT being issued by first hand (and definitely not by third hand).

[lamford]

East shouldn't be disadvantaged, since he can simply say to the TD "opponents don't have a CC and I want to consult it".

If that were to happen at some clubs, including the Acol, then the TD would be called five times a round. Accepted practice is to ask about anything that would be on a CC, but is not, or there is no CC.

[lamford]

But it is also clear that North made his opening bid (out of turn) believing that he was dealer.

No it isn't. Prior to bidding, one normally looks at the board and sees who the dealer is. The dealer was clearly shown as South, so why did North think it was him? One also looks at the auction. It is equally likely that North thought that there had been two passes, more so because the pass cards and felt at this particular North London club are both green.

 

Any suggestion otherwise implies an accusation that North violated [Law 72B1]

so I cannot see how the correct announcement by South can be anything else than describing an opening bid 1NT being issued by first hand (and definitely not by third hand).

I agree. In which case South should not have changed his announcement to "15-17". SB only asked "You play a strong NT in third, don't you". He did not ask whether the announcement "12-14" was correct, nor suggest it was wrong. He was merely finding out what 1NT would have meant if North had thought there had been two prior passes, an equally likely explanation for the BOOT. He is clearly entitled to that information, if necessary by consulting a CC or complaining to the TD that NS do not have one, or do not have that sequence on the CC, so campboy's argument that he cannot ask because 1NT was not available after two passes seems unnecessary nitpicking to me.

[blackshoe]

SB is a consumate nitpicker. I don't see nitpicking in defense against the SB as necessarily a bad thing. B-)

 

One could argue, I think, that the primary purpose of the system card is to meet the law's requirement for prior disclosure of a partnership's methods. Prior to what? Well, the law doesn't really say, but I suppose prior to starting a round. One could infer then that if a player did not look at (or for) his opponent's system card at the beginning of the round, and then complains later because his opponent does not have one, he doesn't have much of a case. In a culture where lack of cards is widespread, and complaining about that at the beginning of the round is non-existant, you pretty much have a "regulation" that system cards are not required. If you don't like this situation, as a director or club owner/manager you should start educating the players about the need, and tell them to call at the beginning of the round when their opponents don't have one, and then enforce whatever regulation is in place (if there isn't one, put one in place) regarding failure to have one. Most people would suggest this is too draconian. So be it. You get what you ask for. As a player, if you don't like it, ask for the opponent's card at the beginning of every round, and when they don't have one, call the TD. Again, you'll get a bad rep in a club where this is "just not done". Your choice. :ph34r:

[barmar]

more so because the pass cards and felt at this particular North London club are both green.

SB has been waiting a long time for this to work in his favor :)

[Vampyr]

If that were to happen at some clubs, including the Acol, then the TD would be called five times a round. Accepted practice is to ask about anything that would be on a CC, but is not, or there is no CC.

 

Played at the Acol tonight. Didn't see evidence of any convention cards, at least in the possession of the NS players.

[campboy]

He is clearly entitled to that information, if necessary by consulting a CC or complaining to the TD that NS do not have one, or do not have that sequence on the CC, so campboy's argument that he cannot ask because 1NT was not available after two passes seems unnecessary nitpicking to me.

Did NS actually have a CC? I would hope, if South is a club director, they are likely to. If they do not have a CC then SB's question, while technically illegal, is understandable and might well be condoned. If they do, however, the fact that his question was illegal and he could legally have looked at the CC instead seems quite relevant.

[lamford]

Did NS actually have a CC? I would hope, if South is a club director, they are likely to. If they do not have a CC then SB's question, while technically illegal, is understandable and might well be condoned. If they do, however, the fact that his question was illegal and he could legally have looked at the CC instead seems quite relevant.

As I wrote "a more interesting constructed version occurred at a North London club last week", I cannot answer whether NS had a CC, but for the purposes of ruling I will say that they did not. Perhaps 50% of the pairs at the North London club in question do. We also disagree on whether the question was illegal. I think the sequence Pass-Pass-1NT is still "available", and "alternative", and quite probable, at the time that SB had to make his decision, the first of the two passes being enforced. In addition, the sequence was "available" and "alternative" just after the players took their cards out of the wallet and before North made a BOOT.

[lamford]

SB has been waiting a long time for this to work in his favor :)

Just one of the many ruses he has stored up for potential future use. As in "Building a Better Mousetrap" by Woolsey.

[barmar]

Just one of the many ruses he has stored up for potential future use. As in "Building a Better Mousetrap" by Woolsey.

Justice Scalia has given me a new word to use to refer to SB's ruses: jiggery-pokery.

[Vampyr]

Justice Scalia has given me a new word to use to refer to SB's ruses: jiggery-pokery.

 

Sounds racist and sexually obscene. Just saying.

[barmar]

Sounds racist and sexually obscene. Just saying.

I think one of the late night comics (Larry Wilmore?) said about the same thing. OK, I'll use Scalia's other insult: SB is full of applesauce. :)