BOOT on the other foot

[PeterAlan]

FWIW, I think it is SB's "turn to call" at the moment the TD gives him the option to accept the BOOT, and it ceases to be his turn to call immediately after he declines that option if he does.

I would certainly agree that it becomes E's 'turn to call' once he has accepted the BOOT; notwithstanding your assertion, it's not at all clear to me that this is the case until then. Your argument that it becomes E's 'turn to call' "at the moment the TD gives him the option to accept the BOOT" seems like a very flimsy cover for an already chosen position, with an artificial-seeming and arbitrary trigger point.

 

The process that follows a COOT (let's generalise; not just a BOOT) is set out in Law 29:

 

[A] Following a call out of rotation offender’s LHO may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification.

 

Unless A applies, a call out of rotation is cancelled and the auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call. ...

There's nothing here conferring a right to ask questions before arriving at the election under A, so the only Law that permits questions about the COOT remains Law 20F1. One can argue (and I would) that the reference in B to "the player whose turn it was to call" is no more than a identifying description (it conveniently embraces all three possible cases), and, in the absence of any explicit denotation that it becomes the 'turn to call' of the player after the caller-out-of-turn, it seems to me that this status is in abeyance until either

 

• that player determines the position by deciding to call (thus accepting the COOT); accepting the COOT without yet having called; or rejecting the COOT; or
  
• is pre-empted by his/her partner making a call to which Law 28B applies.
  

In a nutshell, it becomes that player's 'turn to call' when (s)he decides (s)he's going to call, and not before.

 

If this is so, then it follows that the player after the COOT may not ask questions about the COOT (or the opponents' prior auction) before deciding whether or not to accept it.

[steve2005]

SB would proudly admit to using legal games and would regard it as a compliment. However, the Laws do not seem to prevent someone from having a double shot in deciding whether to accept or not accept an IB, if they have been misinformed. Unless you think that his decision to accept the IB was SEWog and unrelated to the infraction ... Do you?

I don't know if someone BOOT and it's the opener's hand isn't not accepting the bid the bridge equivalent of the death penalty! Should almost always refuse to accept.

[lamford]

If this is so, then it follows that the player after the COOT may not ask questions about the COOT (or the opponents' prior auction) before deciding whether or not to accept it.

You are therefore arguing that a player cannot obtain the meaning of an alerted BOOT prior to deciding whether to accept it. In addition, if someone opened with a BOOT in second seat (which I define as being to the left of the dealer just as I define third seat as being opposite the dealer), you would allow the dealer, whose turn it is to call, to ask questions before his partner decided whether to accept the BOOT. I think this interpretation is wrong, and if I offered it, others would say that "lamford reads the law literally when everyone knows what it means".

 

It would be interesting to find out from TDs whether they allow a player to find out what the opponent's auction means before deciding whether to accept the BOOT. I cannot see how a defender can make an informed decision until he has been advised of "all matters" relating to the rectification. The TD can explain the legal aspects; only the opponents cane explain the bridge aspects.

[campboy]

The opportunity to open 1NT after two passes was clearly "available" to NS prior to North opening 1NT out of turn, so East was quite entitled to ask about what the sequence Pass-Pass-1NT would have meant. Sorry, campboy, this is far below your usual standard.

No it wasn't. In order for North to be able to open 1NT after two passes, there have to be two passes in front of him. At no point was that the case. Had the auction developed normally, a third-hand 1NT might have become available, but equally it might not, and it certainly hasn't done so yet.

 

I agree that the laws ought to allow East to ask about pass-pass-1NT, but I don't believe they currently do.

[campboy]

As for the "turn to call" business, I don't see anything in the laws to say that it can only be one player's turn to call at once. East can call now and it will be considered to be in rotation; I think that makes it his turn to call regardless of whether it is also someone else's turn to call.

[lamford]

No it wasn't. In order for North to be able to open 1NT after two passes, there have to be two passes in front of him. At no point was that the case. Had the auction developed normally, a third-hand 1NT might have become available, but equally it might not, and it certainly hasn't done so yet.

All calls are "available" in the sense that they are "at someone's disposal" in the context of this Law. So, the sequence Pass-Pass-1NT was "available" to North-South at the start of the auction, and, more importantly, "relevant" to East's decision now, or East could ask about all sequences, which would be ridiculous. Let us say that someone opens 1C and rebids 1NT and this differs in meaning from opening 1D followed by rebidding 1NT. They might show different balanced ranges, or the latter might be unbalanced, as some pairs play. If you were to ask about the two sequences, and it was relevant, then you would allow an opponent to refuse to answer a question about the sequence that did not occur, because only the first call of it was "available". You correctly reject PeterAlan's definition of "turn to call", so it is surprising that you choose such a restrictive definition of "available".

 

It could also be argued that "You play strong in third, don't you?" is a question about North-South's basic system, and that question is always allowed, however you interpret "available".

[campboy]

All calls are "available" in the sense that they are "at someone's disposal" in the context of this Law. So, the sequence Pass-Pass-1NT was "available" to North-South at the start of the auction, and, more importantly, "relevant" to East's decision now, or East could ask about all sequences, which would be ridiculous. Let us say that someone opens 1C and rebids 1NT and this differs in meaning from opening 1D followed by rebidding 1NT. They might show different balanced ranges, or the latter might be unbalanced, as some pairs play. If you were to ask about the two sequences, and it was relevant, then you would allow an opponent to refuse to answer a question about the sequence that did not occur, because only the first call of it was "available". You correctly reject PeterAlan's definition of "turn to call", so it is surprising that you choose such a restrictive definition of "available".

If all calls were "available", irrespective of whether the opponents are kind enough to give you the opportunity to use them, the word would add nothing to the law, so why is it there? What the law actually says is "relevant alternative calls available that were not made", and the only plausible interpretation of this I can think of is that it is talking about relevant calls which the player had an opportunity to make, but chose not to.

 

As for your other example, you are certainly allowed to ask about the 1♦ opening, which was an available alternative to 1♣. In particular you are entitled to ask which balanced ranges it includes, and, where this overlaps with those included in 1♣, how opponents might decide between the two possible openings.

[campboy]

It could also be argued that "You play strong in third, don't you?" is a question about North-South's basic system, and that question is always allowed, however you interpret "available".

Wher do you get that idea from? The phrase "basic system" does not appear in the laws. It only appears in the Blue Book in the context of when you're permitted to play two different basic systems (and the index). It only appears in the White Book in the description of "EBU simple system".

 

What is true is that this information will appear on N/S's convention card, and East is permitted to look at that. Had he done so, instead of asking, he wouldn't have confused South into changing his announcement and there wouldn't be anything to discuss.

[lamford]

Where do you get that idea from? The phrase "basic system" does not appear in the laws. It only appears in the Blue Book in the context of when you're permitted to play two different basic systems (and the index). It only appears in the White Book in the description of "EBU simple system".

I have frequently been asked and have frequently asked the opponents either at the start or during the auction what their basic system is. Are you saying that this question is not permitted?

 

I think it comes under: "He is entitled to know <snip> about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding." which does not require the person to ask about "available" calls, and the question can be about the system as a whole and how this sequence fits into it. Now that we have seemingly established that it is East's turn to call, despite PeterAlan's suggestion otherwise, perhaps we can establish that East is entitled to ask about any relevant inferences that South might have about the auction "1NT out of turn by third seat". These must include what Pass-Pass-1NT would have meant, as one possibility is that North might have thought this was the auction.

 

In any case, South corrected his explanation to "15-17" by his own choice. If he was unsure whether the question was permitted, he could have asked the director whether he was obliged to answer. Whether South was confused into changing his announcement is irrelevant. He provided MI and must suffer the consequences. SB took his action based on the MI and was potentially damaged in that North might well have punted 3NT opposite an Eustacian partner. Are you suggesting that South's changed announcement is not MI?

[RSliwinski]

I would certainly agree that it becomes E's 'turn to call' once he has accepted the BOOT; notwithstanding your assertion, it's not at all clear to me that this is the case until then. Your argument that it becomes E's 'turn to call' "at the moment the TD gives him the option to accept the BOOT" seems like a very flimsy cover for an already chosen position, with an artificial-seeming and arbitrary trigger point.

 

The process that follows a COOT (let's generalise; not just a BOOT) is set out in Law 29:

 

 

There's nothing here conferring a right to ask questions before arriving at the election under A, so the only Law that permits questions about the COOT remains Law 20F1. One can argue (and I would) that the reference in B to "the player whose turn it was to call" is no more than a identifying description (it conveniently embraces all three possible cases), and, in the absence of any explicit denotation that it becomes the 'turn to call' of the player after the caller-out-of-turn, it seems to me that this status is in abeyance until either

 

• that player determines the position by deciding to call (thus accepting the COOT); accepting the COOT without yet having called; or rejecting the COOT; or
  
• is pre-empted by his/her partner making a call to which Law 28B applies.
  

In a nutshell, it becomes that player's 'turn to call' when (s)he decides (s)he's going to call, and not before.

 

If this is so, then it follows that the player after the COOT may not ask questions about the COOT (or the opponents' prior auction) before deciding whether or not to accept it.

I think the situation with COOT is similar to LOOT.

Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee held in Philadelphia PA, 8th October 2010

16. The words “next in turn” in Law 55A were considered. The chairman had informed an enquirer that the ‘next in turn’ refers to the LHO of the offending hand and this had been disputed. The committee confirmed that the LHO of the offending hand is meant. Observation was made that Law 53A has the effect of moving the turn to the left of the lead out of turn and it remains there unless and until that lead is rejected.(my underlining)

 

So by analogy, Law 29A has the effect of moving the turn to the left of the call out of turn and it remains there unless and until that call is rejected.

[PhilKing]

Our friend the Secretary Bird was hardly duped as to the range of 1NT, since if he did not know that North intended it as 12-14 (and therefore South had corrected the range in error), he would not have allowed the OBOOT.

 

But if is allowed to trap the opposition is this way, South's correct strategy might be to change his description to 15-17 (as he did), and then change it back to 12-14 after SB allows the OBOOT. SB would now be allowed to change his call, but perhaps not his decision to allow the call.

[lamford]

But if [one] is allowed to trap the opposition is this way, I think South's correct strategy was to change his description to 15-17 (as he did), and then change it back to 12-14 after SB allows the OBOOT. SB would now be allowed to change his call, but perhaps not his decision.

Indeed he would not have been allowed to change his decision, and he would not have wanted to change his call. However, both RMB1 and campboy correctly assert that North's BOOT is AI, so whether South changes his announcement or not, he can still pass. SB is claiming that his decision to accept the BOOT was based on MI. He judged that if he accepted the call, when South thought North had a strong NT, there was a good chance NS would reach 3NT, and he thought that would probably fail. If he thought North had a weak NT, then they were much less likely to reach game and he would have made North guess the final contract, hoping that he gambled 3NT.

 

This smacks of deliberate MI by South, who announced 15-17 knowing that it was probably 12-14, and the fact that he passed with a hand that would always bid game opposite a strong NT is further evidence that the MI was deliberate. Possible PP for South and adjusted score must come into consideration?

[campboy]

I have frequently been asked and have frequently asked the opponents either at the start or during the auction what their basic system is. Are you saying that this question is not permitted?

During most auctions you can, since if an opponent has either opened the bidding or had a chance to do so and passed then you can ask about alternative calls he might have made (i.e. opening bids). However, part-way through an auction where your side has opened in first seat I don't think you're entitled to ask opponents about the opening bids they never had a chance to make.

 

I think asking about opponents' system (basic or otherwise) at the start is covered by 40A1b.

[PhilKing]

This smacks of deliberate MI by South, who announced 15-17 knowing that it was probably 12-14, and the fact that he passed with a hand that would always bid game opposite a strong NT is further evidence that the MI was deliberate. Possible PP for South and adjusted score must come into consideration?

 

But there was no MI - there was only an incorrect announcement. SB still knew North was 12-14, so was not materially misinformed as to the opponent's methods.

 

By changing his announcement back to 12-14, South can simply use the Nunes defence and say he temporarily lost his mind.

[lamford]

But there was no MI - there was only an incorrect announcement. SB still knew North was 12-14, so was not materially misinformed as to the opponent's methods.

 

As to South changing his announcement, he can simply use the Nunes defence and say he temporarily lost his mind.

SB is quite entitled to believe the (corrected) announcement. If he had looked at the CC and found that the opponents played a weak NT in all positions, and he wanted to bid, and his defence was different against each NT range, he would assume the announcement was correct. It is the same as a failure to alert, where a person is entitled to assume the call does not fall into an alertable category. I cannot recall an AC where a defence was offered that someone knew the explanation they received was wrong and therefore should have ignored it. Indeed the director is to assume misinformation rather than mistaken call in the absence of evidence to the contrary, but the opponent assumes the information is correct and the TD rules on the basis of misinformation. And for 21B1a he only needs to decide that the decision to pass by East, accepting the BOOT, could well have been based on MI.

[axman]

 

 

I agree that the laws ought to allow East to ask about pass-pass-1NT, but I don't believe they currently do.

 

I think that the law ought to permit asking (in this case) about P-P-1N when a hand is not in progress. Which has nothing to do with a player being aware (as in before the hand) of it or anything else.

[lamford]

However, part-way through an auction where your side has opened in first seat I don't think you're entitled to ask opponents about the opening bids they never had a chance to make.

 

I think asking about opponents' system (basic or otherwise) at the start is covered by 40A1b.

In theory both sides exchange convention cards at the start of the round and quickly explain their methods. That almost never happens in club bridge, and rarely happens in tournaments. In practice people ask what they need to know. In this example SB is asking about inferences that South can draw from the BOOT which SB is entitled to glean. One of those inferences is what the sequence Pass-Pass-1NT would mean, as this is a possible auction from North's point of view. The main problem is that the disclosure laws necessarily address normal auctions rather than opening bids out of turn. Sheltering behind some interpretation of Law 20 contravenes the principle of full disclosure.

 

And, what is the difference between "relevant alternative calls available that were not made" and "relevant alternative calls that were not made?" I cannot see how the word "available" adds to the meaning at all; another example of Grattanese?

[barmar]

In theory both sides exchange convention cards at the start of the round and quickly explain their methods. That almost never happens in club bridge, and rarely happens in tournaments.

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.

And, what is the difference between "relevant alternative calls available that were not made" and "relevant alternative calls that were not made?" I cannot see how the word "available" adds to the meaning at all; another example of Grattanese?

I agree with you here. The only calls that are not "available" are those prohibited by law: insufficent bids (did we ever reach concensus on this?), inadmissable double/redouble, and double/redouble when prohibited by 30B2b. So you're basically not allowed to ask what it would mean if he'd tried to make an illegal call.

[blackshoe]

I agree with you here. The only calls that are not "available" are those prohibited by law: insufficent bids (did we ever reach concensus on this?), inadmissable double/redouble, and double/redouble when prohibited by 30B2b. So you're basically not allowed to ask what it would mean if he'd tried to make an illegal call.

You're also not allowed to ask — or more precisely your opponent cannot be required to answer — questions about a call that is not relevant.

[barmar]

You're also not allowed to ask — or more precisely your opponent cannot be required to answer — questions about a call that is not relevant.

True, although how is an opponent supposed to know what's relevant? And what does it even mean for it not to be relevant? I guess that means a bid that's impossible in their system, so what's the difference between not answering and saying "impossible" or "no meaning"?

[RSliwinski]

All calls are "available" in the sense that they are "at someone's disposal" in the context of this Law. So, the sequence Pass-Pass-1NT was "available" to North-South at the start of the auction, and, more importantly, "relevant" to East's decision now, or East could ask about all sequences, which would be ridiculous. Let us say that someone opens 1C and rebids 1NT and this differs in meaning from opening 1D followed by rebidding 1NT. They might show different balanced ranges, or the latter might be unbalanced, as some pairs play. If you were to ask about the two sequences, and it was relevant, then you would allow an opponent to refuse to answer a question about the sequence that did not occur, because only the first call of it was "available". You correctly reject PeterAlan's definition of "turn to call", so it is surprising that you choose such a restrictive definition of "available".

 

It could also be argued that "You play strong in third, don't you?" is a question about North-South's basic system, and that question is always allowed, however you interpret "available".

 

I think the following Minutes of the Law Committee are relevant.

 

Minutes of a meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Beijing on Friday, 10th October, 2008.

3 […] 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An “alternative” call is not the same call with another meaning – for example, if the reply to an opponent is that “5D shows diamonds preference”, any reply to a further question “what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?” is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.)

 

 

Minutes of Laws Committee meeting in Sao Paulo on Friday 4th September 2009.

7. A previous minute of the committee (10th September 2008, re Law 20F1) had been questioned. The law states that in response toquestions during the auction and play a player is entitled to be told about “calls actually made, relevant alternative calls not made, and relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding”. The minute had clarified that an ‘alternative’ call is not the same call with a different meaning. Thus if systemically after 4NT a response of 5D shows preferred minor the response here to Blackwood is not an available alternative call systemically and the player has no entitlement to information as to what it would mean.

Mr. Weinstein was inclined to the opinion that since a player is entitled generally (Laws 40A1(b) and 40A2) to know the opposing partnership’s understandings arising from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal, when asking questions during the auction and play he should not be restricted by the terms of the specific Law 20F1. The Secretary was of the opposite opinion.

The meeting engaged in a lengthy discussion and the Chairman decided that the subject should be continued when the committee reconvened.

 

Minutes of Laws Committee meeting in Sao Paulo on Tuesday, 8th September 2009.

13. The committee returned to the matter regarding Law 20F1 that was the subject of its minute dated 10th October 2008. After further discussion it was agreed to abide by the 2008 minute.

[lamford]

I think the following Minutes of the Law Committee are relevant.

 

Minutes of a meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Beijing on Friday, 10th October, 2008.

3 […] 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An “alternative” call is not the same call with another meaning – for example, if the reply to an opponent is that “5D shows diamonds preference”, any reply to a further question “what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?” is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.)

Thanks for that. I think that the meaning of Pass-Pass-1NT is "a relevant inference from the choice of action" of the OBOOT of 1NT in third seat, but others may disagree. And even if SB is not entitled to ask this question, the WBFLC seem to be saying that a response can be given voluntarily. The corrected announcement would still constitute MI, as would an incorrect voluntary response to a question there is no requirement to answer.

[blackshoe]

Thanks for that. I think that the meaning of Pass-Pass-1NT is "a relevant inference from the choice of action" of the OBOOT of 1NT in third seat, but others may disagree. And even if SB is not entitled to ask this question, the WBFLC seem to be saying that a response can be given voluntarily. The corrected announcement would still constitute MI, as would an incorrect voluntary response to a question there is no requirement to answer.

No. If the question is "what's the range of your third-seat 1NT opening?" the answer "15-17" is most emphatically not MI. It is an accurate description of the partnership agreement.

 

If the question is "what does your partner's 1NT bid show?" the answer should be "in first and second seat 1NT shows 12-14, in third and fourth it shows 15-17. We have no agreement about what it shows when the bid is out of turn".

 

I think the lesson learned here is "don't let the <expletive deleted> Secretary Bird lead you down the garden path with his questions".

[lamford]

No. If the question is "what's the range of your third-seat 1NT opening?" the answer "15-17" is most emphatically not MI. It is an accurate description of the partnership agreement.

 

If the question is "what does your partner's 1NT bid show?" the answer should be "in first and second seat 1NT shows 12-14, in third and fourth it shows 15-17. We have no agreement about what it shows when the bid is out of turn".

 

I think the lesson learned here is "don't let the <expletive deleted> Secretary Bird lead you down the garden path with his questions".

I agree entirely, except that SB only asked one question; the response to the question was not MI. However, South did also blunder by changing his announcement, and that was the MI. If he had just said "Yes", to the question "You play a strong NT in third, don't you", then he would have survived. Mind you nobody has actually answered the OP which asks "How would you rule?" I suspect that is because they will only rule in favour of SB through gritted teeth.

[lamford]

I think the key word is "available". At no point in the auction was a 1NT opening after two passes available, so it doesn't seem to matter how relevant it is.

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. The interesting secondary issue is what the new announcement should be, and what default agreement is assumed. I think the only legal announcement is "no agreement", but that infringes the Blue Book.