2C out of turn

[blackshoe]

Because it has the same purpose (forcing a response from partner to describe a feature of his hand)?

We are supposed to be liberal in applying Law 23. I think this is too much of a stretch though.

 

How would one apply Law 29C to this case?

If a call out of rotation is artificial' date=' the provisions of Laws 30, 31 and 32 apply to the denomination(s) specified, rather than the denomination named.[/quote']

Seems to me a 2♣ opener doesn't specify any denominations. That would be done later in the auction. Does that mean the provisions apply to all denominations? If so, does this include clubs?

[lamford]

NB : opener's partner cannot pass because he thinks partner will not have a comparable call. The fact that partner made a call out of turn is authorised. the fact that partner made a 2♣ call out of turn is unauthorised.

The opener should pretend that partner made a BOOT which he has not seen. He can conclude that opening 1NT will make it very unlikely that partner can make a comparable call and pass may therefore be the only LA. He is allowed to make the best of a bad job, as it is the information from the BOOT that is UI not the fact that a BOOT occurred. The TD can always adjust if he thinks the offenders have gained from the BOOT, but they do not have to go lemming-like to collect 0% or -13 IMPs. And when polling, we should NOT ask people what they would open as dealer with this hand. We should poll them with the AI that partner made a BOOT which you have not seen and the TD has ruled that if partner makes a comparable call the auction continues normally, but otherwise you will be silenced (for one round).

 

If partner opened at the one-level, and you now open 1NT there will be no comparable call, as a transfer to the suit opened will not be a subset of the original bid. Similarly at the two level. Pass is probably the only LA with a weak NT, as you now know partner is very likely to be able to make a comparable call whatever she opened.

[BudH]

The opener should pretend that partner made a BOOT which he has not seen. He can conclude that opening 1NT will make it very unlikely that partner can make a comparable call and pass may therefore be the only LA. He is allowed to make the best of a bad job, as it is the information from the BOOT that is UI not the fact that a BOOT occurred. The TD can always adjust if he thinks the offenders have gained from the BOOT, but they do not have to go lemming-like to collect 0% or -13 IMPs. And when polling, we should NOT ask people what they would open as dealer with this hand. We should poll them with the AI that partner made a BOOT which you have not seen and the TD has ruled that if partner makes a comparable call the auction continues normally, but otherwise you will be silenced (for one round).

 

If partner opened at the one-level, and you now open 1NT there will be no comparable call, as a transfer to the suit opened will not be a subset of the original bid. Similarly at the two level. Pass is probably the only LA with a weak NT, as you now know partner is very likely to be able to make a comparable call whatever she opened.

 

Law 31B1 says Law16C2 applies to dealer’s call.

 

Law 16C2 says due to the UI (knowledge that partner tried to open out of turn AND what bid he tried to make) you can’t choose a call demonstrably suggested by the UI.

 

Seems clear to me dealer is required to make his call as if he took his cards out of the board with no other (prior attempted) calls in the auction, i.e., not knowing anything about a withdrawn partner’s call.

 

I don’t see Law 16A1(c ) (information specified in a law) changing that.

 

Same for Law 10C4 (appropriate for offenders to make any call advantageous to their side ....), because it says “subject to Law 16C2...”.

[barmar]

How would one apply Law 29C to this case?

Seems to me a 2♣ opener doesn't specify any denominations. That would be done later in the auction. Does that mean the provisions apply to all denominations? If so, does this include clubs?

I don't think it matters. Nothing in those 3 laws refers to the denomination named or shown in the call. It seems like that sentence is left over from the previous version of the Laws. But Law 31 was changed to refer to offender making a comparable call, rather than repeating the denomination of the original bid, so 29C no longer has anything to refer to.

[lamford]

Seems clear to me dealer is required to make his call as if he took his cards out of the board with no other (prior attempted) calls in the auction, i.e., not knowing anything about a withdrawn partner’s call.

That is not what the Laws say. The information arising from the BOOT is unauthorised and that includes what the call was (Law 16C2). The fact that partner made a BOOT is authorised, and the fact that partner will have to make a comparable call to avoid silencing you next round is authorised, as this has been explained to you by the TD. You would not bid Stayman or Blackwood if partner had to pass at his next call. This is hardly any different.

 

16A1(c) states: A player may use that information, if <snip> 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.

 

The player must select from logical alternatives one not suggested by the information arising from the 2C bid, but he can, when considering LAs, take into account that his partner has bid something out of turn, and will have to make a comparable call to avoid silencing the opener.

 

At least that is my interpretation.

[lamford]

The fact that partner made a call out of turn is authorised.

Exactly.

[BudH]

The fact that partner made a call out of turn is authorised. the fact that partner made a 2♣ call out of turn is unauthorised.

Can weejonnie or lamford give us a law reference supporting the claim that the fact partner made a COOR (call out of rotation) is AI in connection with offender’s partner choosing his call before offender makes his (potentially comparable) call?

 

(I think it is UI, not AI, for reasons I have already stated.)

[pran]

Can weejonnie or lamford give us a law reference supporting the claim that the fact partner made a COOR (call out of rotation) is AI in connection with offender’s partner choosing his call before offender makes his (potentially comparable) call?

 

(I think it is UI, not AI, for reasons I have already stated.)

I think it follows from

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 (but see B1 following); or

as it is part of the information given by the Director during the rectification procedure.

[lamford]

Can weejonnie or lamford give us a law reference supporting the claim that the fact partner made a COOR (call out of rotation) is AI in connection with offender’s partner choosing his call before offender makes his (potentially comparable) call?

 

(I think it is UI, not AI, for reasons I have already stated.)

I did give Law 16A1c, and pran has confirmed that he agrees.

[BudH]

I did give Law 16A1c, and pran has confirmed that he agrees.

I guess we will agree to disagree on this one, since Law 16A1c to me means I am allowed to know all of the laws and regulations, including what happens and the procedure the Director will follow if partner makes a COOR.

 

But when, after the Director explains to the table the proper procedure, including offender’s partner being informed not to use UI from the withdrawn call and that he will need to pass once if offender does subsequently NOT use a comparable call, in my opinion even knowing offender called out of turn, even if not knowing the SPECIFIC withdrawn call, should not be information allowed to be used by offender’s partner. (That is, offender's partner should not allowed to "be cute" to make it easier for offender's partner to use a comparable call.)

 

But as I said, we agree to disagree. Yet another question needing official answering by the laws commissions.

 

Note the difference when offender (not the offender’s PARTNER) gets creative to keep his partner in the auction, such as withdrawn pass, then with partner as dealer 1D-Pass-2NT invitational holding two 4-card majors as a comparable call to keep partner in the auction, which presumably is allowed and not to be adjusted by the Director if a great result not obtainable otherwise occurs.

 

If all of the examples of these types discussed on here, Bridgewinners, and other major forums worldwide were covered in detail by the laws commissions and published, hopefully by this summer, it would be EXTREMELY beneficial.

[blackshoe]

I did give Law 16A1c, and pran has confirmed that he agrees.

Not for nothin', so do I.

[WellSpyder]

I have only seen 1NT-4NT treated as Blackwood by beginners, and in a sense by experts who play that if opener moves on he shows aces at the five level and a five-card suit at the six-level.

Curiously, one of my partnerships uses 1N - 4N as B/W (or at least, that is the agreement - I don't think we have actually ever used it). Quantitative invites go via 2S.

[WellSpyder]

The opener should pretend that partner made a BOOT which he has not seen. He can conclude that opening 1NT will make it very unlikely that partner can make a comparable call and pass may therefore be the only LA. He is allowed to make the best of a bad job, as it is the information from the BOOT that is UI not the fact that a BOOT occurred.

I agree with this.

 

But if had a normal 1N opening available to describe my hand and I thought there was a significant risk that I might be barred on the next round of the auction, I would be very tempted to tell partner what I had by opening 1N, so that he had a decent chance of guessing the best final contract. So I'm not entirely sure that the initial pass was suggested by the UI.

[helene_t]

The law says "same or similar meaning". A 1-2 point difference could be considered close enough for "similar".

Yes but there's still the UI issue.

[lamford]

But if had a normal 1N opening available to describe my hand and I thought there was a significant risk that I might be barred on the next round of the auction, I would be very tempted to tell partner what I had by opening 1N, so that he had a decent chance of guessing the best final contract. So I'm not entirely sure that the initial pass was suggested by the UI.

It could be argued that opening 1NT when you have a weak NT would take advantage of the fact that partner's BOOT was 2C and she will now be better placed to decide the final contract. If you pass, which must surely be an LA, partner will be fine if LHO passes, but in trouble if, say, he psyched 1NT on balanced garbage. Now partner's double would not be a comparable call as it does not define a subset of the meanings attributable to the withdrawn call (hands with 15-20 would double but would not open 2C). It could therefore be argued that opening 1NT is not allowed unless it is the only LA. Perhaps no call can ever be demonstrably suggested.

 

I think the only way is to poll five strong experts on the laws - the EBU panel will do - and ask them what call they would make and what they would also consider. You have to tell them that partner has opened with a BOOT, but it only just cleared the box and nobody saw it, but the player has since shown it to the two opponents and the TD prior to it not being accepted. The lawyers should be given this excellent sheet before they decide:

http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/articles/comparable-calls.pdf

[blackshoe]

There is an implication in that document that if the comparable call (27B1{b}) is at a higher level than the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination (27B1{a}), the former law cannot be applied. It's in this example:

 

eg 1NT – (3♥) – 2♥ replaced by 3♠ or 4♦; we would allow an insufficient Jacoby transfer bid to be replaced by a sufficient natural 3♠ bid or even a South African Texas 4♦ transfer bid (though only if a natural 3♠ is not available, as that would be a lower sufficient bid), since all specify spades.

I don't understand this implication. it seems to me it's saying that 27B1{b} applies only if 27B1{a} cannot apply, but I don't read it that way. Comments?

[lamford]

There is an implication in that document that if the comparable call (27B1{b}) is at a higher level than the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination (27B1{a}), the former law cannot be applied. It's in this example:

eg 1NT – (3♥) – 2♥ replaced by 3♠ or 4♦; we would allow an insufficient Jacoby transfer bid to be replaced by a sufficient natural 3♠ bid or even a South African Texas 4♦ transfer bid (though only if a natural 3♠ is not available, as that would be a lower sufficient bid), since all specify spades.

 

I don't understand this implication. it seems to me it's saying that 27B1{b} applies only if 27B1{a} cannot apply, but I don't read it that way. Comments?

I think that it means in this example, if after 1NT-(3♥) if the pair play that 3♠ is natural, as do most pairs, then they cannot now bid 4♦ as a transfer to spades

[blackshoe]

I think that it means in this example, if after 1NT-(3♥) if the pair play that 3♠ is natural, as do most pairs, then they cannot now bid 4♦ as a transfer to spades

If you mean they can't replace their insufficient 2♥ with 4♦ instead of replacing it with 3♠, that's how I read it. But I don't think the law says that.

[lamford]

If you mean they can't replace their insufficient 2♥ with 4♦ instead of replacing it with 3♠, that's how I read it. But I don't think the law says that.

That document covers both comparable calls after insufficient bids and comparable calls after BOOTs. I agree with you that after a BOOT, the requirement to make the lowest sufficient comparable call (to avoid silencing partner) does not apply. One can choose between any comparable calls.

[blackshoe]

I was only looking at Law 27A1. So was Gordon's paper, at least for the example I cited.

[lamford]

I was only looking at Law 27A1. So was Gordon's paper, at least for the example I cited.

Therein lies the problem. You need to look at Law 27B1, which Gordon's paper quotes in full for the example you cited. Assuming that the above is a typo, I do agree that the paper seems wrong in that a comparable call does not need to be the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination. I must confess I previously had thought it did; perhaps the EBU can clarify whether the paper is wrong, or the law is wrongly worded. In the example quoted, 1NT-(3H)-2H, the interpretation of the majority of TDs is that spades is "specified" by the IB, and therefore the player can substitute either 3S or 4D, if the latter is a transfer to spades.

[VixTD]

Therein lies the problem. You need to look at Law 27B1, which Gordon's paper quotes in full for the example you cited. Assuming that the above is a typo, I do agree that the paper seems wrong in that a comparable call does not need to be the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination. I must confess I previously had thought it did; perhaps the EBU can clarify whether the paper is wrong, or the law is wrongly worded. In the example quoted, 1NT-(3H)-2H, the interpretation of the majority of TDs is that spades is "specified" by the IB, and therefore the player can substitute either 3S or 4D, if the latter is a transfer to spades.

If they have sufficient bids of 3♠ and 4♦ available that show spades, they can only correct (without further rectification) an insufficient transfer to 3♠ under law 27B1(a) ("the lowest legal bid which specifies the same denomination"), but if 4♦ is deemed to be a comparable call that could be allowed under law 27B1(b).

[blackshoe]

Therein lies the problem. You need to look at Law 27B1, which Gordon's paper quotes in full for the example you cited. Assuming that the above is a typo, I do agree that the paper seems wrong in that a comparable call does not need to be the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination. I must confess I previously had thought it did; perhaps the EBU can clarify whether the paper is wrong, or the law is wrongly worded. In the example quoted, 1NT-(3H)-2H, the interpretation of the majority of TDs is that spades is "specified" by the IB, and therefore the player can substitute either 3S or 4D, if the latter is a transfer to spades.

Yes, a typo. 27B1.