Taking advantage of a 'Law' situation

[661_Pete]

OK.

 

I might also add, that whole session was peppered with 'irregularities' - most of them the oppos' fault. We had a lead out of turn (accepted); a defender played two cards at once (same suit - accidentally - I decided that his partner hadn't seen the extra card so I let him pick it up). And another defender revoked - but corrected it quickly. Again I did not insist on a penalty card (it would have made no difference).

 

And to cap it all, we played one board the wrong way around (I took the South cards instead of the North cards, and so on). My fault! We only noticed midway through the auction, and after some discussion (not involving the TD - he'd probably had enough of us by then!) we decided to carry on as we were, seeing as it 'doesn't make much difference'. Yes we should have called the TD for that one - but we all agreed not to. Lucky that we play with oblong boards rather than square, so there's less chance of accidentally picking up the East or West cards in mistake for North!

 

Trouble is that little 'mishaps' like these can tend to put one off one's play. Leastways, our final score was right down in the pits.... :(

[pescetom]

This is not true. 1C-(1S)-1H can be replaced with a double (assuming negative doubles played in the usual way).

 

Could this still be replaced with a double if the pair in question play do negative doubles but also guarantee a 5-card suit at 1-level after interence over 1m?

[sfi]

Could this still be replaced with a double if the pair in question play do negative doubles but also guarantee a 5-card suit at 1-level after interence over 1m?

That's probably not relevant. If responder was trying to show 4+ hearts and 6+ points with the 1H bid, the relevant question is whether double is "comparable". It wouldn't be completely equivalent since some hands would bid 2H now, but if the double shows 4 hearts and 6+ points or 5+ hearts and 6-9 points, it qualifies as a subset of the hands that would bid 1H. That makes both it and 2H comparable (although 2H is allowed under 27B1(a) anyway).

 

What their agreement is in a situation like 1C - (1D) - 1H is does not come into play, because the question is what responder was trying to do with the 1H bid. To find that out, the director should take the person away from the table and ask. If they did think the overcall was 1D, then you are right that a double (with the normal agreements) would not be truly comparable. The director might allow it as mostly comparable and assess whether the non-offending side was damaged, using 23C. I probably would, but I don't have a good grasp of how the majority of directors would rule in that situation.

[pescetom]

That's probably not relevant. If responder was trying to show 4+ hearts and 6+ points with the 1H bid, the relevant question is whether double is "comparable". It wouldn't be completely equivalent since some hands would bid 2H now, but if the double shows 4 hearts and 6+ points or 5+ hearts and 6-9 points, it qualifies as a subset of the hands that would bid 1H. That makes both it and 2H comparable (although 2H is allowed under 27B1(a) anyway).

Ok, but my question was about the case when responder is trying (if in good faith) to show 5+ hearts and 6+ points with the 1H bid, and the double shows 4+ hearts and 6+ points. Showing 5+ after interference is quite common around here.

[sfi]

Ok, but my question was about the case when responder is trying (if in good faith) to show 5+ hearts and 6+ points with the 1H bid, and the double shows 4+ hearts and 6+ points. Showing 5+ after interference is quite common around here.

 

That's covered in the last paragraph:

 

[...] then you are right that a double (with the normal agreements) would not be truly comparable. The director might allow it as mostly comparable and assess whether the non-offending side was damaged, using 23C. I probably would, but I don't have a good grasp of how the majority of directors would rule in that situation.

[gordontd]

Could this still be replaced with a double if the pair in question play do negative doubles but also guarantee a 5-card suit at 1-level after interence over 1m?

It seems as likely to me that the player failed to notice the overcall at all as that they thought they were responding over a lower level overcall.

[Cyberyeti]

This is not true. 1C-(1S)-1H can be replaced with a double (assuming negative doubles played in the usual way). The law in this respect is more detailed than you have suggested, which is why it is important to call the TD.

 

I'm REALLY surprised by this as X covers lots of hands that would start with 1♦ rather than 1♥, seems reasonable for 1♦-(1♠)-1♥ but not starting with 1♣.

[pescetom]

It seems as likely to me that the player failed to notice the overcall at all as that they thought they were responding over a lower level overcall.

Perhaps - but the Director is supposed to ascertain what they thought they were doing, correct?

[gordontd]

Perhaps - but the Director is supposed to ascertain what they thought they were doing, correct?

No, not in my opinion. The basis for ruling in comparable call cases is what meanings are attributable, not what meaning was intended.

[pescetom]

No, not in my opinion. The basis for ruling in comparable call cases is what meanings are attributable, not what meaning was intended.

Thanks. I received an apparently opposite opinion in another recent thread, hence my question.

 

 

You give insufficient information to answer the question of comparability. What was the IB’er thinking when he made the call, does double show both hearts and clubs in their system, if it was an overcall, how many hearts and how many hcp are shown etc. It’s up to the TD to decide whether the double is comparable and therefore admissible or not.

[sfi]

No, not in my opinion. The basis for ruling in comparable call cases is what meanings are attributable, not what meaning was intended.

In Australia the advice from the senior national directors is to take the person aside and ask them what they were trying to do. This make a lot of sense to me, since it gives the table the best chance of achieving a normal result on the hand.

[gordontd]

In Australia the advice from the senior national directors is to take the person aside and ask them what they were trying to do. This make a lot of sense to me, since it gives the table the best chance of achieving a normal result on the hand.

The important point is that, in order for it to be comparable, the player’s partner should have no more information after the replacement call has been made than if it had been made in the first place.

[sfi]

I agree, but to do so you have to know what information they were trying to convey in the first place. The essential question is whether the "information" is what the bidder intended or the full set of possible intentions that may have led to the insufficient bid. The advice we have received is that the bidder's intent is the relevant information in question.

 

For example, if the bidding starts 1NT - (2S) - 2D, I as director need to find out whether the person intended to show diamonds or hearts. Clarifying that does not in itself count as giving partner additional information, so once I know this I can rule on whether 3D or 3H is allowed by 21B1(a). I do all of this away from the table so the player can consider their options, outline their system and obtain clarification on what a comparable call is.

 

Once the person makes their decision and changes it to 4H, their partner knows that 2D was intended as a transfer. But that's ok according to the reading of the law used here.

[gordontd]

I agree, but to do so you have to know what information they were trying to convey in the first place. The essential question is whether the "information" is what the bidder intended or the full set of possible intentions that may have led to the insufficient bid. The advice we have received is that the bidder's intent is the relevant information in question.

 

For example, if the bidding starts 1NT - (2S) - 2D, I as director need to find out whether the person intended to show diamonds or hearts. Clarifying that does not in itself count as giving partner additional information, so once I know this I can rule on whether 3D or 3H is allowed by 21B1(a). I do all of this away from the table so the player can consider their options, outline their system and obtain clarification on what a comparable call is.

 

Once the person makes their decision and changes it to 4H, their partner knows that 2D was intended as a transfer. But that's ok according to the reading of the law used here.

I don’t see why you need to know what the player’s intention was. Either diamonds or hearts are attributable meanings, which is what the law itself asks us to consider, so a replacement with either of those meanings should be allowed. Note that they won’t be any better off after making the replacement call than if they had made that call in the first place.

[pescetom]

I don’t see why you need to know what the player’s intention was. Either diamonds or hearts are attributable meanings, which is what the law itself asks us to consider, so a replacement with either of those meanings should be allowed. Note that they won’t be any better off after making the replacement call than if they had made that call in the first place.

In the case of hearts, they would be worse off, as they now wrongsided the contract.

Although I presume you would allow them to substitute 2D with 4D if that was agreed to have the same purpose (transfer to hearts).

[barmar]

In the case of hearts, they would be worse off, as they now wrongsided the contract.

I think Gordon meant "no better off in terms of what information they've conveyed to partner".

[gordontd]

In the case of hearts, they would be worse off, as they now wrongsided the contract.

Although I presume you would allow them to substitute 2D with 4D if that was agreed to have the same purpose (transfer to hearts).

Yes I would certainly allow that. I expressed myself badly when I talked of not being better off: what I should have said is that the player’s partner doesn’t know more about their hand after making the replacement bid (whether it shows hearts or diamonds) than if they had made that same call in the first place.

[gordontd]

I think Gordon meant "no better off in terms of what information they've conveyed to partner".

Yes indeed.

[blackshoe]

I might also add, that whole session was peppered with 'irregularities' - most of them the oppos' fault. We had a lead out of turn (accepted); a defender played two cards at once (same suit - accidentally - I decided that his partner hadn't seen the extra card so I let him pick it up). And another defender revoked - but corrected it quickly. Again I did not insist on a penalty card (it would have made no difference).

The emphasis is mine. The first thing players should learn about the rules of this game is that one is required to follow suit if possible. The second thing is that players do not make rulings. That's the director's job. If there's an irregularity, call him. If he's playing, and so it takes some time, too bad. Call him. BTW, when I was a playing director, I always dropped what I was doing — unless it was answering an earlier director call — to respond to the call. I really think that's the right way to go, even if it slows things down at my table.