Using alternate call to keep it comparable

[BudH]

Under the new laws, assume I pass out of turn when my partner is the dealer and has yet to call. My pass is not accepted. Director reminds my partner of the obligation to not use UI from my pass. Partner opens 1♦ and RHO passes. I hold the following hand:

 

♠KJxx

♥Q9xx

♦xx

♣AJx

 

Knowing if I bid the "normal" 1♥, it will not be a comparable call to my withdrawn pass (so my partner will be required to pass once), I jump to 2NT (invitational) instead as a comparable call. Partner, holding a 2=4=4=3 14 HCP hand raises to 3NT which makes 9 tricks. Nearly all other tables reach 4♥ in a 4-4 fit which fails on a 4-1 or 5-0 split.

 

Do I get to keep my great score in 3NT? Or should the Director use Law 23C "without the assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged, he shall award an adjusted score."

 

Notice it says "outcome ... different" AND "non-offending side is damaged". Both must be true.

 

Is the non-offending side really "damaged" by this "rub of the green"?

[steve2005]

How is 2N comparable to pass and 1H not?Neither shows opening values.

[hirowla]

How is 2N comparable to pass and 1H not?Neither shows opening values.

 

1H is an unlimited number of points, 2 NT shows less than an opening hand. Therefore 1 H is not comparable to an opening pass but 2NT is.

[hirowla]

Under the new laws, assume I pass out of turn when my partner is the dealer and has yet to call. My pass is not accepted. Director reminds my partner of the obligation to not use UI from my pass. Partner opens 1♦ and RHO passes. I hold the following hand:

 

♠KJxx

♥Q9xx

♦xx

♣AJx

 

Knowing if I bid the "normal" 1♥, it will not be a comparable call to my withdrawn pass (so my partner will be required to pass once), I jump to 2NT (invitational) instead as a comparable call. Partner, holding a 2=4=4=3 14 HCP hand raises to 3NT which makes 9 tricks. Nearly all other tables reach 4♥ in a 4-4 fit which fails on a 4-1 or 5-0 split.

 

Do I get to keep my great score in 3NT? Or should the Director use Law 23C "without the assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged, he shall award an adjusted score."

 

Notice it says "outcome ... different" AND "non-offending side is damaged". Both must be true.

 

Is the non-offending side really "damaged" by this "rub of the green"?

 

I'd say that 2NT is a reasonable bid rather an 1H (not my style but could be for others). Hence I would allow the result. Nobody would complain if 4H makes and you get a bad score. Based on the hands you always end up in game - you got lucky.

[steve2005]

1H is an unlimited number of points, 2 NT shows less than an opening hand. Therefore 1 H is not comparable to an opening pass but 2NT is.

true but 2N is like 11 points. Many people will do 2N on 12 which is opening points. Many people open on 11 especially with 5H like you have.

1H only guarantees 6 pts. That you don't have 12 points will be revealed on your next bid.

If you cant bid 1H on a hand with 6-10 similar to this are you saying you would have to bid 1N because 1N can't be an opening hand? I'd rather be barred than have 1N as my only choice.

 

 

[hirowla]

true but 2N is like 11 points. Many people will do 2N on 12 which is opening points. Many people open on 11 especially with 5H like you have.

1H only guarantees 6 pts. That you don't have 12 points will be revealed on your next bid.

If you cant bid 1H on a hand with 6-10 similar to this are you saying you would have to bid 1N because 1N can't be an opening hand? I'd rather be barred than have 1N as my only choice.

 

Well, if you don't like the options given don't pass out of turn! Or just pass again. Those are the rules and those are your choices.

[blackshoe]

Please show how 2NT meets the definition of "comparable call" in Law 23A.

[sfi]

Please show how 2NT meets the definition of "comparable call" in Law 23A.

 

Seriously?? It seems self-evident that it falls under point 2.

[barmar]

Law 23C could come into play here. If the only reason you avoided the ill-fated 4♥ contract is because you were forced to substitute a comparable call instead of making the normal call, the TD can adjust the score.

[blackshoe]

"Forced"?

[steve2005]

Well, if you don't like the options given don't pass out of turn! Or just pass again. Those are the rules and those are your choices.

2N is a ridiculous bid. 1♥ is comparable.

Is a free world so you want to bid 2N go ahead, but I see no reason that you are compelled to.

Budh despite being a director is wrong, 1♥ is as comparable a bid to pass as 2N.

Comparable does not mean exact. No bid including 2N would be exact.

 

[BudH]

"Forced"?

 

I was being mildly sarcastic when I said I was "forced" to bid 2NT. Since I know the law and know the only reasonable comparable call I can make is 2NT with the given hand, I choose that call. Nothing in the laws says I have to make the bid I would usually make (1♥) when I know it is not a comparable call but I know 2NT is a comparable call (to my withdrawn pass thinking I was dealer).

 

1. 1♥ not comparable because strength is unlimited

2. 2NT is comparable because it is a subset of all hands that would pass the bidding. (Said another way, the combination of my withdrawn pass and my 2NT bid gives no more information to my partner than the 2NT bid itself.)

 

The laws say my great score can be taken away if the result might well have been different AND ADDITIONALLY the opponents were damaged. I think it can be easily argued the opponents were not damaged. They were just very unlucky. The words "damaged" and "unlucky" are not the same. We've all seen an insufficient bidder take a wild guess with his partner required to pass and bid 3NT and then get a very lucky lie of the cards to allow the contract to make for a top and a bottom for the opponents. The "unlucky" opponents. Not "damaged" opponents.

[BudH]

2N is a ridiculous bid. 1♥ is comparable.

Is a free world so you want to bid 2N go ahead, but I see no reason that you are compelled to.

Budh despite being a director is wrong, 1♥ is as comparable a bid to pass as 2N.

Comparable does not mean exact. No bid including 2N would be exact.

 

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand how the new Comparable Call Law 23 works. You have to describe your hand with ONE SINGLE CALL as much as your withdrawn illegal call. I agree there are many auctions where if you were able to make TWO calls, they together would describe your hand as much as your withdrawn call. And perhaps that will be in the 2027 laws. But the 2017 law says simply your next call (singular) needs to describe your hand as much the withdrawn call so your partner knows no more about your hand from the two calls (one illegal and the other legal) than he does from the legal call by itself.

 

In the example I have given, my pass (thinking I was opening the auction) was withdrawn. When partner opens, to be a comparable call, I need to make a call that only would be made by a hand that would not open the bidding as dealer. If 1♦ is the opening bid by partner and RHO passes, then here are some comparable calls:

 

1. 1NT (6-10 HCP)

2. 2D (only if it shows a limited hand, traditionaly 6-10 HCP)

3. 2NT (11-12 HCP, invitational and non-forcing)

4. 3D (if non-forcing - it could be be weak or invitational)

5. Jump shifts if weak and you play them so weak you wouldn't open them a weak 2-bid

 

New suits, because they don't limit the strength of the hand and can be made by game forcing hands, are not comparable calls. (Partner now has improper information because he knows one of my suits and he should not know the upper limit of my hand, but in this case he would know, improperly, I hold less than opening bid values.)

[hirowla]

2N is a ridiculous bid. 1♥ is comparable.

Is a free world so you want to bid 2N go ahead, but I see no reason that you are compelled to.

Budh despite being a director is wrong, 1♥ is as comparable a bid to pass as 2N.

Comparable does not mean exact. No bid including 2N would be exact.

 

I'm afraid Budh is actually correct and his explanation of it is quite correct.

 

The reason 1H is not comparable can be shown as follows:

 

* A normal 1H bid shows a minimum of 6 points and 4 hearts. It could have 20+ points.

* An illegal opening pass shows approximately less than 13 points

* A 1H bid after an illegal pass now shows a range of 6-11 points and 4+ hearts

* Because of the illegal pass, partner of the passer now has information he is not entitled to have (i.e that his partner does not have a point range of 12-20 points).

* From this, the bid cannot be comparable.

 

However 2NT shows a within the boundaries of a passed hand and doesn't reveal any additional information to their partner - they knew from the illegal pass that they have less than 13 points, and 2NT indicates that too (it's actually more specific).

 

The other bids mentioned 1NT, 2D, 3D, a weak jump shift also would be bid by a hand that wouldn't open the bidding. I'd probably allow a weak jump shift even if strong enough to open a weak 2, as it may be a judgement call not to open a weak 2 without partner having anything.

 

Regards,

 

Ian

[weejonnie]

As I understand it, a side can NOW vary its understandings after its own irregularity: Law 40 tells us what an RA can do:

 

(iv) may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following an irregularity committed by the opponents.

 

Compared to

 

3. The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity.

 

 

Thus if you have an agreement that any call made after a pass out of turn also denies opening values then this would seem to be a way of getting around the problem. (I believe the law is intended to allow players to make a call knowing partner will have to pass it.) I don't think Law 16C covers this.

 

2. 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 a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.

 

This means only that your partner may not USE the fact that your call shows less than opening valuse

 

I hope this is not going to be the case.

[Tramticket]

However 2NT shows a within the boundaries of a passed hand and doesn't reveal any additional information to their partner - they knew from the illegal pass that they have less than 13 points, and 2NT indicates that too (it's actually more specific).

 

I guess that it would depend on partnership agreements, but suppose:

(i) 2NT shows 11-12 points as suggested above;

(ii) The partnership would open with all (or almost all) 12-counts - this is surely the case for most pairs?

 

Surely a 2NT bid in these circumstances must be specifically 11 points? In this case it isn't a subset?

[barmar]

I guess that it would depend on partnership agreements, but suppose:

(i) 2NT shows 11-12 points as suggested above;

(ii) The partnership would open with all (or almost all) 12-counts - this is surely the case for most pairs?

 

Surely a 2NT bid in these circumstances must be specifically 11 points? In this case it isn't a subset?

The definition of Compable Call says "same or similar meaning". I think a 1-point difference like this is close enough to be "similar", so it's allowed.

[Tramticket]

The definition of Compable Call says "same or similar meaning". I think a 1-point difference like this is close enough to be "similar", so it's allowed.

I'm not a director - just a punter - so I might be missing it. My reading is that 23.A.1 uses the wording "same or similar meaning" - but 2NT clearly doesn't have a similar meaning to "pass". 23.A.2 doesn't say "same or similar" - it says "defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call".

 

This definition is a bit fuzzy - it is "possible" (but unlikely in the year 2017) to define a pass as any hand with fewer than 13 points. Come to that, it is a "possible" meaning of pass to define it as 0-15 HCP. Any takers?

[blackshoe]

Partner passes out of turn. Now you open 1m. it gets around to partner and he bids 2NT. What's the difference?

 

When partner passes, he's showing any distribution, and fewer than whatever your agreed minimum point count is for an opening bid (the point count may vary based on distribution). Let's say minimum 12, or 10 maybe with distribution.

 

When partner bids 2NT, he's showing a balanced hand and say 11 to a bad 12 points, and denying (for most people) a four card major. So what he's showing is a subset of the hands he showed when he passed. This meets the criterion of new Law 23A2, so it's a comparable call. The fact that he has two four card majors, so that his hand doesn't quite fit the partnership agreement for the bid, is not relevant. Nor is the fact that if they have a major suit fit, they're likely to miss it.

[Vampyr]

As I understand it, a side can NOW vary its understandings after its own irregularity: Law 40 tells us what an RA can do:

 

(iv) may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following an irregularity committed by the opponents.

 

Apparently a Regulatory Authority does not now even have the option to disallow prior agreements after a side's own irregularities. So as long as you have worked out good agreements, you are losing out if you don't commit irregularities frequently. This is going to be fun.

[sfi]

Apparently a Regulatory Authority does not now even have the option to disallow prior agreements after a side's own irregularities. So as long as you have worked out good agreements, you are losing out if you don't commit irregularities frequently. This is going to be fun.

 

Surely the RA can simply designate such an agreement as a "special partnership understanding". One can certainly argue that having such agreements is not "readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament" (40B1(b)). Then 40B2(a)(i) lets the RA ban it outright.

[pran]

This definition is a bit fuzzy - it is "possible" (but unlikely in the year 2017) to define a pass as any hand with fewer than 13 points. Come to that, it is a "possible" meaning of pass to define it as 0-15 HCP. Any takers?

It is certainly possible, but be aware that if a system allows PASS in an opening position to show more HCP than any opening bid at the one-level in the same position then the system is automatically HUM.

[weejonnie]

Apparently a Regulatory Authority does not now even have the option to disallow prior agreements after a side's own irregularities. So as long as you have worked out good agreements, you are losing out if you don't commit irregularities frequently. This is going to be fun.

Fortunately law 72B is there to help

 

B. Infraction of Law

 

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

 

So it appears there is no reason why you can't have agreements in place to help you following your own irregularity, but you must not intentionally commit an irregularity so you can use them. I think having a recorder form completed whenever a pair with this sort of agreement ever commits an irregularity is de rigeur.

 

(And what is the difference between having an agreement that if a comparable call is not available, all responses to 1NT are natural, not a transfer? Otherwise you get this.

 

(after a pass out of turn, not accepted)

 

1NT : Pass : 2♦ * announced as 'Hearts' : All Pass.

 

Obviously the description of the hand is incorrect (unless the pair are idiots), but can the NT caller (in a different auction where opponents compete) assume partner has diamonds instead of hearts AND, since the NT bidder will be forbidden from leading a suit not specified in the legal auction, can he be forbidden from leading diamonds (which have technically not been shown in the auction) or hearts (which have been shown in the auction but every one knows their partner does not have?)

[blackshoe]

It is certainly possible, but be aware that if a system allows PASS in an opening position to show more HCP than any opening bid at the one-level in the same position then the system is automatically HUM.

Especially in the ACBL, where HUM is not a regulatory concept at all (except that highly unusual methods must be alerted).

[pran]

Especially in the ACBL, where HUM is not a regulatory concept at all (except that highly unusual methods must be alerted).

Does this mean that HUM is permissible at ordinary club levels? (By regulation we only allow HUM at the very highest levels like national finals)