Pass of Multi

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=shqjt942dqj64c432&w=sak543ha53d2ckt76&n=s9872hdkt98753c85&e=sqjt6hk876dacaqj9&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2d(multi)2sp(originally%20out%20of%20turn)2n(good%20raise)p3cp4n(RKCB)p5c(3)p6s7ddppp]399|300[/hv]

Matchpoints. Table Result 7♦*-3 EW+500. Lead A♠

 

This was a potential Law 23 adjustment from Tuesday's duplicate at a North London Club. Charlie the Chimp was South and opened a Multi and before West could call, the Rabbit, his partner, passed. RR suspected his partner had a weak two in hearts, not spades, and felt that playing in 2♦ was reasonable. The TD was called, and correctly observed that it was a pass of an artiificial call and read out the relevant law (31A). East declined to accept it. West bid 2♠ and RR elected to repeat his pass, and South, ChCh was also forced to pass on his next turn. There was no further rectification and East-West reached their cold spade slam. However, ChCh was not done yet, and guessed that if his partner wanted to pass a multi, 7D rated to be cheap, and so it proved, getting a complete top and even beating the solitary pair whose opponents missed slam.

 

SB, West, was unhappy. "We need the director". "I think there was a breach of Law 16D, in that information from the repeated pass was UI to South, and this demonstrably suggested the save", he claimed. "But the call was not withdrawn," replied ChCh, "it was cancelled and then repeated". SB tried again: "In that case, we have to fall back on Law 23 in that RR could have known that passing the multi out of rotation could well damage the non-offenders". "RR could not know anything", replied ChCh."And it would have been incredibly far-sighted of anyone to think at that stage there would be a save at the seven level"

 

How do you rule?

[pran]

 

This was a potential Law 23 adjustment from Tuesday's duplicate at a North London Club. Charlie the Chimp was South and opened a Multi and before West could call, the Rabbit, his partner, passed. RR suspected his partner had a weak two in hearts, not spades, and felt that playing in 2♦ was reasonable. The TD was called, and correctly observed that it was a pass of an artiificial call and read out the relevant law. East declined to accept it. West bid 2♠ and RR elected to repeat his pass, and South, ChCh was also forced to pass on his next turn. There was no further rectification and East-West reached their cold spade slam. However, ChCh was not done yet, and guessed that if his partner wanted to pass a multi, 7D rated to be cheap, and so it proved, getting a complete top and even beating the solitary pair whose opponents missed slam.

 

SB, West was unhappy. "We need the director". "I think there was a breach of Law 16D, in that information from the repeated pass was UI to South, and this demonstrably suggested the save", he claimed. "But the call was not withdrawn," replied ChCh, "in fact it was repeated". SB tried again: "In that case, we have to fall back on Law 23 in that RR could have known that passing the multi out of rotation could well damage the non-offenders". "RR could not know anything", replied ChCh."And it would have been incredibly far-sighted of anyone to think at that stage there would be a save at the seven level"

 

How do you rule?

I need not bother with Law 23 here.

The pass out of turn by North is a clear indication to South that North believes they will be better off with a contract in Diamonds than whatever South's hand might suggest. This belief is UI to South, and South obviously sacrifices in 7♦ based on this UI. So I should cancel the 7♦ sacrifice.

 

On a side comment: the pass out of turn by North was not withdrawn - it was cancelled. And the fact that North again passed later during the auction could not provide information similar to the one from his first pass (as it no longer showed willingness to play in Diamonds).

[sanst]

The 7♦ bid is almost certainly based on the POOT. But Law 23 can't be ignored. N asumes that S has a weak hand, since that is far more likely than a strong one. Or maybe their multi is always weak. I know some people that play the multi that way. Not very wise, but not illegal under Durch rules, anyway.

So N could reason that S's hand is weak with hearts and his very weak, which might lead EW to bidding a spades slam. In that case there is a chance that S has a hearts trick and he one in trumps, so it might be advantageous for NS if S is forced to pass. Such reasoning is covered by Law 23, in which 'could have been aware' plays an important role.

I would award a score of 6♠ made to both sides and a PP to NS for the use of UI by S and the possible misuse of the POOT by N.

The excuse that the call was the same, is totally irrelevant. The meaning of both calls are different. The two of hearts is the two of hearts, but it's quite different if the card is played in a hearts trick or a spades trick while hearts are trump.

[lamford]

On a side comment: the pass out of turn by North was not withdrawn - it was cancelled. And the fact that North again passed later during the auction could not provide information similar to the one from his first pass (as it no longer showed willingness to play in Diamonds).

I agree it was not withdrawn. However Law 16 only provides: "For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information."

 

So, it seems that there is no bar on using the information from a "cancelled" call, although of course there should be. Law 16D should say "cancelled or withdrawn call" I think. Otherwise we have, under authorised information:

 

"it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations." It clearly arose from the procedure in Law 31, which confirms Pran's statement that the call was cancelled not withdrawn.

 

It would also be interesting how to rule if East had accepted the POOT, and the auction had continued, with South again sacrificing successfully. The pass now becomes part of the authorised auction, and the only possible adjustment would be under Law 23. Any pass out of turn could always damage the non-offending side, in that it conveys different information when it is cancelled and then replaced with a further pass. But we only adjust when someone "could have been aware".

[lamford]

So N could reason that S's hand is weak with hearts and his very weak, which might lead EW to bidding a spades slam. In that case there is a chance that S has a hearts trick and he one in trumps, so it might be advantageous for NS if S is forced to pass. Such reasoning is covered by Law 23, in which 'could have been aware' plays an important role.

I don't think that North can believe that silencing South for one round will gain at all. And he would not expect EW to bid a spade slam necessarily. Far more likely that they will play a club slam from North's point of view. And, if South has a weak two in hearts, then he won't be bidding anyway if West overcalls and North passes. Silencing his partner will work very badly when partner has a weak two in spades, and obviously disastrously when partner has the 22-23 balanced which was the strong option, I am told. So, anyone who thinks that silencing your partner here is likely to gain is mistaken. The way it did gain was most unlikely.

[pran]

I agree it was not withdrawn. However Law 16 only provides: "For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information."

 

So, it seems that there is no bar on using the information from a "cancelled" call, although of course there should be. Law 16D should say "cancelled or withdrawn call" I think. Otherwise we have, under authorised information:

 

"it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations." It clearly arose from the procedure in Law 31, which confirms Pran's statement that the call was cancelled not withdrawn.

 

It would also be interesting how to rule if East had accepted the POOT, and the auction had continued, with South again sacrificing successfully. The pass now becomes part of the authorised auction, and the only possible adjustment would be under Law 23. Any pass out of turn could always damage the non-offending side, in that it conveys different information when it is cancelled and then replaced with a further pass. But we only adjust when someone "could have been aware".

Withdrawn — actions said to be ‘withdrawn’ include actions that are ‘cancelled’ and cards that are ‘retracted’.

No comments necessary?

[lamford]

Withdrawn — actions said to be ‘withdrawn’ include actions that are ‘cancelled’ and cards that are ‘retracted’.

No comments necessary?

Good discovery. So, if East accepted the POOT, it would become AI?

[StevenG]

I don't see anything in Law 16A1 that makes RR's initial pass AI to partner, so I fail to see the relevance of the rest of this discussion (the only way it could become authorised is if the POOT had been accepted, as noted above).

[blackshoe]

I was beginning to wonder if anyone would notice that "cancelled" and "withdrawn" are effectively the same in law.

[pran]

I was beginning to wonder if anyone would notice that "cancelled" and "withdrawn" are effectively the same in law.

While the effects are essentially the same only the Director can "cancel" an action by a player and only a player can "withdraw" his own action (on permission by the Director).

[pran]

Good discovery. So, if East accepted the POOT, it would become AI?

Yes. Accepting a call out of sequence makes that call legal for all purposes in the law.

[blackshoe]

While the effects are essentially the same only the Director can "cancel" an action by a player and only a player can "withdraw" his own action (on permission by the Director).

True, but irrelevant.

[barmar]

While the effects are essentially the same only the Director can "cancel" an action by a player and only a player can "withdraw" his own action (on permission by the Director).

Hence the "effectively" qualifier.

 

Basically, the law just gives different names to the same action depending on who performs it, the director or the player. But once it takes place, it doesn't matter which it was.

[mycroft]

But all of this is irrelevant, Shirley?

 

LAW 31 BID OUT OF ROTATION

When a player has bid out of rotation' date=' has passed artificially or has passed partner's artificial call (see Law 30C) and the call is canceled, the option in Law 29A not having been exercised, the following provisions apply:

[list']A RHO's Turn

When the offender has called at his RHO's turn to call, then:

1. if that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call out of rotation. When that call is legal there is no rectification.
   
2. if that opponent makes a legal* bid, double or redouble, offender may make any legal call. When this call
   
   1. repeats the denomination of his bid out of rotation, offenders partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23).
      
   2. does not repeat the denomination of his bid out of rotation, or if the call out of rotation was an artificial pass or a pass of partner's artificial call, the lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23).

(my emphasis)

 

Director's error, 6♠= both sides, sorry about that.

 

Per the actual argument, Charlie is now trying to SB (and not very well; he must not have read the FLB recently). A cancelled call is withdrawn (Definitions: "Cancelled: see Withdrawn." "Withdrawn: Actions said to be withdrawn include actions that are cancelled and cards that are retracted." In fact, because the replacement pass is "A call repeated with a much different meaning", even if it didn't say so in Law 31A2b, Law 26 would have applied to 6♠, and if it only made because of a throw-in to the Chimp and a forced diamond lead ruff-sluff, guess what?

[lamford]

But all of this is irrelevant, Shirley?

 

(my emphasis)

 

Director's error, 6♠= both sides, sorry about that.

 

Per the actual argument, Charlie is now trying to SB (and not very well; he must not have read the FLB recently). A cancelled call is withdrawn (Definitions: "Cancelled: see Withdrawn." "Withdrawn: Actions said to be withdrawn include actions that are cancelled and cards that are retracted." In fact, because the replacement pass is "A call repeated with a much different meaning", even if it didn't say so in Law 31A2b, Law 26 would have applied to 6♠, and if it only made because of a throw-in to the Chimp and a forced diamond lead ruff-sluff, guess what?

ChCh pointed out that he and RR had an agreement, carefully shown on the CC, that a pass of the Multi had exactly the same meaning as a Pass if the Multi were doubled or overcalled. Therefore the replacement pass had exactly the same meaning.

[mycroft]

So 2♦-4♥-p means "I have diamonds, partner?" and random zero-count has to double or bid 4♠? If "no, obviously not at the 4 level", even over 2♠ this can not be a playable agreement.

 

Over a double, I can see it. I don't believe it, but I've seen stupider agreements. Over an overcall, I overcall BS.

 

Also, once partner is silenced, even for one round, one's normal agreements no longer apply, and that (should be) obvious to all (although I have had someone opposite a forced-to-pass partner make a cuebid before).

 

Having said that, all is negated by L31A2b, which doesn't care what the replacement pass "means".

[lamford]

So 2♦-4♥-p means "I have diamonds, partner?" and random zero-count has to double or bid 4♠? If "no, obviously not at the 4 level", even over 2♠ this can not be a playable agreement.

No, they pass the multi with any hand that cannot make game opposite a weak two in a major. But you are right, it does not matter whether the substituted pass has exactly the same meaning.

[mycroft]

I don't believe that, either, or the Chimp would never have taken the sac with QJxx opposite "any hand that won't make game opposite a weak 2 in a major". I also don't believe that anybody plays 2♦ mini-multi - pass as "I'd rather play the 1-1 fit, even at favourable, than play in the suit you advertised and I know we have a fit in". But now we're taking our pick of the smallest hairs, never mind pulling out the splitting knife...

[weejonnie]

Is the pass artificial? All it states is that the passer wishes to play in the suit last called. The fact that the suit last called is artificial is surely irrelevant. It certainly does not 'unexpectedly convey values', nor 'specify suit holdings'.

[helene_t]

Lead restrictions may apply, no? OK it is moot here since North is probably on lead. Just checking.

[lamford]

Is the pass artificial? All it states is that the passer wishes to play in the suit last called. The fact that the suit last called is artificial is surely irrelevant. It certainly does not 'unexpectedly convey values', nor 'specify suit holdings'.

It is not the pass that has to be artificial to silence partner throughout. As mycroft points out it is a pass of partner's artificial call, so partner should have been silenced throughout. The other question is, having wrongly only silenced South for one turn, there is director error, and NS should get the result from 7D. South should have been told that the original pass of the multi was UI to him, as that call was cancelled, which is the same as withdrawn. I think NS keep their top, and EW get their 60% or so from making 6S=.

[pran]

Is the pass artificial? All it states is that the passer wishes to play in the suit last called. The fact that the suit last called is artificial is surely irrelevant. It certainly does not 'unexpectedly convey values', nor 'specify suit holdings'.

"is surely irrelevant" :huh: ??? Carefully read:

When the offender has called at his RHO's turn to call, then:

1: if that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call out of rotation. When that call is legal there is no rectification.

2: if that opponent makes a legal* bid, double or redouble, offender may make any legal call. When this call

a: repeats the denomination of his bid out of rotation, offenders partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23).

b: does not repeat the denomination of his bid out of rotation, or if the call out of rotation was an artificial pass or a pass of partner's artificial call, the lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23).

[RMB1]

Lead restrictions may apply, no? OK it is moot here since North is probably on lead. Just checking.

The lead restrictions would still apply when South first got on lead, no?

[lamford]

The lead restrictions would still apply when South first got on lead, no?

They would, but that would be after trick 12 on the actual hand. In any case, NS were not told about lead restrictions, nor that RR's original pass was UI to South, so the TD cannot impose those when they were not stated when making the original ruling. RR stated afterwards that if he had known his first pass would have been UI to ChCh, he would have jumped to 7♦ at his first turn, to take the pressure off his partner, and to make the best of a bad job. If the TD now adjusts to 6S= for both sides, RR is deprived of the best result possible by TD error.

 

ChCh quoted 84C: If a Law gives a player a choice of rectification the Director explains the options and sees that the choice is made and implemented.

[mycroft]

Lamford: You can't give N/S any part of the table result, that's Reveley (even if the infraction was triggered by the TD's misexplanation). If N/S are advised correctly of their requirements, unless RR(!) is going to bid 7♦ all on his own (which I can see, but not once he admits that he knew it was Multi. If he forgot, of course, he might bid the 13-trump sacrifice!) I don't think that "treating N/S as non-offending" is going to make it likely enough that RR will take the sacrifice (after 2♠ or 6) to get any credit for it; if anything, 25% at most?

 

I don't believe RR's comment, that's classic self-serving commentary based on knowledge of the hand and the result. Swap the ♦Q and A and we'd be hearing "I got my hand across with my pass, why would I ever bid again!" Swap a couple of the diamonds for black cards, and the opponents wouldn't get to 6, never mind make it; and 7♦ would be 800 at least into game. He could have "taken the pressure" off partner 3 different times and chose to pass.

 

In general: that is the issue with the lead restrictions. With this hand it's irrelevant, but if it turned out that 6♠ was bad (no ♥K, say), but "Win the opening lead, cash the diamond if necessary, pull enough trump to know what's going on (and, with RR's current shape, play enough clubs. Let's pretend the trumps are 3-1, along with no ♥K), and duck a heart into south, force a diamond for the ruff-sluff, make 6", then E/W would get a large percentage (likely 100) of that line, and N/S would still get a large percentage (50+%) of that to go with the 6♠-1, *because after the POOT, even being generous to the "non-offenders" under L82C, this is an obvious line of play*. Doesn't matter that 6♠ can't actually make without the lead restriction. "treated as non-offending" does not equal "gets a good score", even if it's the TD's fault.