[trevahound]

Hi,

ACBL-land, fairly strong club game.

This is probably a very simple ruling, but I have carefully read and re-read my 2008 Lawbook and 2008 Duplicate Decisions and plain English doesn't seem to be coming to my rescue.

At our club game last Tuesday night, we had an unusual situation come up more than once, and found we were not happy with our reading of the appropriate laws. I think maybe we're missing something somewhere. Guidance appreciated.

At one table, with South dealer, and East and South chatting (everyone friends), West pulled the 1c card out of the bid box, reached for the table, then noticed he wasn't dealer and withdrew it instantly. Neither E nor S noticed, but N (who was chatting with W) noticed and saw what it was -- and N also knows that E/W are playing a big club. Even though they shouldn't have, they both said not a word while waiting for S to open, so that if S had passed there would be no problem. However, S opened a nebulous diamond (they're also big clubbers), and now W called the director, and explained the situation without mentioning first what they intended to open (to reduce UI if possible).

Law 31A was read, and 29C referenced, but neither seem to say what to do when no strain is shown by the artificial call. In multiple places the lawmakers seem to go out of their way to say what happens if a pass is artificial, and could easily have said what happens if a bid is artificial, but it appears they did not. The non-offenders won the evening, so the ruling hardly matters, but no one felt confident what it should be.

Could someone please point me to something authoritarian showing what happens when someone accidentally opens a strong artificial opening in 2nd seat, not accepted, and 1st seat opens?

Also, just out of curiousity, in another scenario completely, would it be non-slimy for 1st seat to psyche an opening bid with garbage knowing 2nd seat had a big artificial opening in this sort of scenario? That isn't at all what happened (South wasn't even aware of West's actions until the director call), but what propriety or law addresses this?

Thanks!

Brian Zaugg

[jeffford76]

First off, from your description this doesn't sound like the 1C bid was actually made. ACBL bidding box regulations don't consider a bid made until it is "touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made". In that case just the normal UI laws apply.

Supposing the bid was made, the strong club bidder can bid clubs which would force partner to pass once or bid something else which would force partner to pass throughout. [Yes, this is dumb. (Edit: and wrong - I missed 29C)]

Note that since the original 1C call was withdrawn, and it was artificial, lead restrictions are imposed by Law 26B if N/S ends up declaring and East ever gets on lead.

[pran]

trevahound, on 2014-November-13, 13:30, said:

Hi,

ACBL-land, fairly strong club game.

This is probably a very simple ruling, but I have carefully read and re-read my 2008 Lawbook and 2008 Duplicate Decisions and plain English doesn't seem to be coming to my rescue.

At our club game last Tuesday night, we had an unusual situation come up more than once, and found we were not happy with our reading of the appropriate laws. I think maybe we're missing something somewhere. Guidance appreciated.

At one table, with South dealer, and East and South chatting (everyone friends), West pulled the 1c card out of the bid box, reached for the table, then noticed he wasn't dealer and withdrew it instantly. Neither E nor S noticed, but N (who was chatting with W) noticed and saw what it was -- and N also knows that E/W are playing a big club. Even though they shouldn't have, they both said not a word while waiting for S to open, so that if S had passed there would be no problem. However, S opened a nebulous diamond (they're also big clubbers), and now W called the director, and explained the situation without mentioning first what they intended to open (to reduce UI if possible).

Law 31A was read, and 29C referenced, but neither seem to say what to do when no strain is shown by the artificial call. In multiple places the lawmakers seem to go out of their way to say what happens if a pass is artificial, and could easily have said what happens if a bid is artificial, but it appears they did not. The non-offenders won the evening, so the ruling hardly matters, but no one felt confident what it should be.

Could someone please point me to something authoritarian showing what happens when someone accidentally opens a strong artificial opening in 2nd seat, not accepted, and 1st seat opens?

Also, just out of curiousity, in another scenario completely, would it be non-slimy for 1st seat to psyche an opening bid with garbage knowing 2nd seat had a big artificial opening in this sort of scenario? That isn't at all what happened (South wasn't even aware of West's actions until the director call), but what propriety or law addresses this?

Thanks!

Brian Zaugg

Law 29C said:

If a call out of rotation is artificial, the provisions of Laws 30, 31 and 32 apply to the denomination(s) specified, rather than the denomination named.

and

Law 31A2 said:

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, offender’s 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).

So unless the new call by W specifies (not names) exactly the same denomination(s) as was specified with his artificial 1C opening bid out of turn then Law 31B2b applies and East must pass whenever it is his turn to Call (in this auction)..

(I do indeed wonder how West shall be able to make a call that specifies exactly the same denominations, i.e. none at all?)

[trevahound]

pran, on 2014-November-13, 14:03, said:

and


So unless the new call by W specifies (not names) exactly the same denomination(s) as was specified with his artificial 1C opening bid out of turn then Law 31B2b applies and East must pass whenever it is his turn to Call (in this auction)..

(I do indeed wonder how West shall be able to make a call that specifies exactly the same denominations, i.e. none at all?)

So, how do we instruct W at the table? Obviously W can bid 2♣ (what west chose at the table given our uncertain directions), but 1♣ didn't specify clubs. And what laws or other authoritative text can we share to support that? 31A and 29C have ample opportunities to tell us what to do when W's call is artificial, and apparently choose not to.

[RMB1]

trevahound, on 2014-November-13, 13:30, said:

Could someone please point me to something authoritarian showing what happens when someone accidentally opens a strong artificial opening in 2nd seat, not accepted, and 1st seat opens?

There is a WBFLC minutes - quoted in the EBU White Book.

Quote

Law 29 Procedure after a Call out of Rotation
8.29.1 Law 29C and Law 31A: Bid out of rotation at RHO’s turn is artificial [WBFLC]

Where East opens 1♣ (artificial) out of rotation; this is not accepted by South. North now opens the bidding with 1♠. How does Law 31 apply?

It is easiest if we begin by looking at Law 29C. This tells us that in the case of a conventional bid the provisions of Law 31 apply to the denomination specified, not the denomination named.

Now go to Law 31; offender has called at RHO’s turn, LHO has not opted to accept the bid out of rotation, and RHO has chosen to bid. Now we learn that offender may make any legal call. So far no problem. Law 31 next says that when this bid repeats the denomination 31A2 (a) applies. Does it apply here? No, it does not. Offender has not repeated any denomination.

So how about 31A2 (b)? Offender has not repeated the denomination of his bid out of turn – he could not repeat a denomination that did not exist. Plainly the situation is exactly fitting to the wording of 31A2 (b) when the words are read with scrupulous care for what they say. A lead penalty if applied would be that in Law 26B; Law 23 would allow the Director discretion to determine whether the offender could have known that his partner’s enforced pass “would be likely … … etc.”, and for good measure the information that offender has a hand strong enough to open 1♣ would be unauthorised information for his partner.

[WBFLC minutes 2001-10-30#7 and Schedule]

[blackshoe]

trevahound, on 2014-November-13, 13:30, said:

Hi,

ACBL-land, fairly strong club game.

This is probably a very simple ruling, but I have carefully read and re-read my 2008 Lawbook and 2008 Duplicate Decisions and plain English doesn't seem to be coming to my rescue.
[snip]

Could someone please point me to something authoritarian showing what happens when someone accidentally opens a strong artificial opening in 2nd seat, not accepted, and 1st seat opens?

Also, just out of curiousity, in another scenario completely, would it be non-slimy for 1st seat to psyche an opening bid with garbage knowing 2nd seat had a big artificial opening in this sort of scenario? That isn't at all what happened (South wasn't even aware of West's actions until the director call), but what propriety or law addresses this?

Welcome to the wonderful world of directing in the ACBL.

As Jeff points out, you started in the wrong place. It sounds to me, as it did to Jeff, like the 1♣ call was not actually made according to the bidding box regulation, even though N saw it. So in that case there's been no infraction.

If the call had been made, you start with Law 28, "Call out of Rotation". If South had called (perhaps he didn't see West's call, or perhaps he didn't care) then South's call stands, West's call out of rotation is cancelled, and there is no further rectification, but Law 16D2, which deals with UI (to East, in this case) applies (Law 28B). If South did not call, then we look at Law 29. North can call, thus forfeiting the right to rectification for the call out of rotation (Law 29A). If he doesn't, the call out of rotation is cancelled, the auction reverts to South, and West can make any call he likes at his turn, subject to Law 31. Now, if South passes, West has to repeat his call out of rotation, and there is no further rectification. 1♣ is completely artificial — it does not specify any denomination(s) (see Law 29C) so if South bids or makes a legal double or redouble (which he can't do in this case), then West can make any call he likes, but his partner will be required to pass throughout the auction, and Law 23 and the lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply (Law 31A2{b}).

Your last question is addressed by

Quote

Law 73E: A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience).

So it's "non-slimy" as far as the laws of bridge are concerned. Also, the knowledge that West has a 1♣ opener would, in this scenario, be AI to South. So I would say it's "non-slimy" in general. Others may disagree, I suppose.

Edit: the WBFLC minute should clarify, although the ACBL might argue that WBFLC minutes don't apply in the ACBL.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2014-November-13, 14:34
Reason for edit: Cross posted

[pran]

trevahound, on 2014-November-13, 14:14, said:

So, how do we instruct W at the table? Obviously W can bid 2♣ (what west chose at the table given our uncertain directions), but 1♣ didn't specify clubs. And what laws or other authoritative text can we share to support that? 31A and 29C have ample opportunities to tell us what to do when W's call is artificial, and apparently choose not to.

You instruct him by telling (and if necessary explaining) him the relevant Law(s).

[barmar]

pran, on 2014-November-13, 17:53, said:

You instruct him by telling (and if necessary explaining) him the relevant Law(s).

When the OP wrote "how do we instruct him", I don't think he was asking for the procedure. He meant "How should we interepret the Laws in this situation, and what should we explain to him as a consequence?"

[trevahound]

barmar, on 2014-November-14, 10:31, said:

When the OP wrote "how do we instruct him", I don't think he was asking for the procedure. He meant "How should we interepret the Laws in this situation, and what should we explain to him as a consequence?"

My understanding of correct procedure is to read the relevant sections of the law to the table wherever possible. This seems to be impossible here, as the law book goes out of it's way to not say what to do when a call is artificial and names no particular denomination.

My understanding of directing is I won't need WBF Law Committee minutes close at hand, nor will I need to keep up with them. I'm not even sure if they're recognized as authoritaritive in the ACBL.

I suppose my answer to the table next time is, "The Laws don't cover this situation specifically. Laws 32 (and 29) deal with what to do if your call names a strain, or if your pass is artificial, and from that we must make inferences. I'm told to infer that since one can't repeat a denomination that wasn't implied in the first call, that any call at all by you at your correct turn to call will bar your partner for the duration. You're entitled to know that when you make your change of call, so don't make any takeout doubles. I can't show you where the ACBL has contemplated this in writing, but it is the consensus of those I've been able to ask."

Extremely dissatisfying, but I'll go with it for now. Why is no one at the ACBL ashamed of the position they put club directors in? C'est la vie.

[jeffford76]

trevahound, on 2014-November-14, 17:07, said:

I suppose my answer to the table next time is, "The Laws don't cover this situation specifically. Laws 32 (and 29) deal with what to do if your call names a strain, or if your pass is artificial, and from that we must make inferences. I'm told to infer that since one can't repeat a denomination that wasn't implied in the first call, that any call at all by you at your correct turn to call will bar your partner for the duration. You're entitled to know that when you make your change of call, so don't make any takeout doubles. I can't show you where the ACBL has contemplated this in writing, but it is the consensus of those I've been able to ask."

This is silly, of course. All you need to say is "You may make whatever call you like, but your partner is barred from the auction." Why would you ever go into all the rest of it at the table?

[nige1]

jeffford76, on 2014-November-14, 17:21, said:

This is silly, of course. All you need to say is "You may make whatever call you like, but your partner is barred from the auction." Why would you ever go into all the rest of it at the table?

This would be a wonderfully simple way to handle any illegal call and the best practical attempt at true equity. You might have to mention L23, UI, and possible lead restrictions but you would still save rain-forests of daft and incomprehensible laws.

[blackshoe]

trevahound, on 2014-November-14, 17:07, said:

I suppose my answer to the table next time is, "The Laws don't cover this situation specifically. Laws 32 (and 29) deal with what to do if your call names a strain, or if your pass is artificial, and from that we must make inferences. I'm told to infer that since one can't repeat a denomination that wasn't implied in the first call, that any call at all by you at your correct turn to call will bar your partner for the duration. You're entitled to know that when you make your change of call, so don't make any takeout doubles. I can't show you where the ACBL has contemplated this in writing, but it is the consensus of those I've been able to ask."

Extremely dissatisfying, but I'll go with it for now. Why is no one at the ACBL ashamed of the position they put club directors in? C'est la vie.

Law 32 deals with doubles and redoubles out of rotation, and is irrelevant to this case. I gave you the correct law references upthread, and the reasoning regarding calls that don't specify a denomination. That reasoning is simple: if the bid out of rotation does not specify a denomination, then the replacement bid does not repeat the denomination specified by the bid out of rotation, because there wasn't one. So 31A2{b} applies. Note that under this law, RHO having made a legal bid, offender may make any legal call, including double. Such call will, of course, require partner to pass throughout the auction, and offender is entitled to know that. He's also entitled to know he's allowed to double if he wants. The TD should not be telling him not to do so, nor should he be telling him to make or not make any particular call. Tell him what he's allowed to do (any legal call) and tell him the consequences in law (his partner will have to pass throughout) and let him make up his own mind. You could, I suppose, ask him if he understands these things you've told him, but that's not part of the laws. I'd call it a courtesy and a way to avoid the possible "double" "what, partner has to pass? I didn't know that!" nonsense.

Some situations are complex, or require judgment, or the law as written is flawed. This isn't one of them, it really is a simple ruling.

[barmar]

The confusing thing about this is that there are two potential ways to interpret the requirement to repeat the designation, to avoid barring partner.

1. If the call doesn't designate a specific suit, and the replacement also doesn't designate a specific suit, then you have met the requirement.

2. If the call doesn't designate a specific suit, there's no suit to repeat, so no replacement call can possibly meet the requirement. Making such a call at RHO's turn automatically bars partner.

Are we sure the Lawmakers didn't intend #1?

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2014-November-16, 16:07, said:

Are we sure the Lawmakers didn't intend #1?

The WBFLC minute up thread is presumably some indication of the law makers intent.

[barmar]

I may be slipping into "Changes to Laws" territory, but it seems like it would be more consistent if this law were similar to the IB law: rather than referring to specific suits being designated (as in previous versions of the IB law), it should be in terms of the replacement bid having a similar meaning. But I think it would be difficult if it had the "same or more specific" requirement -- typically overcalls, even if they designate the same suit, are less specific in terms of strength than opening bids (or maybe they're just differently specific: an opening 1 bid is something like 12-20 points, a 1-level overcall is more like 8-16).

If that were how it were specified, we'd presumably allow a takeout double as the replacement for an artificial, strong bid.

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2014-November-17, 10:08, said:

If that were how it were specified, we'd presumably allow a takeout double as the replacement for an artificial, strong bid.

But even if a (take-out) double was defined to repeat the denomination of a (strong) artificial call for the purposes of Law 31A2, application of Law 31A2(a) would silence offender's partner for one round, so what value would a double be (and it would not be "take-out").

[barmar]

RMB1, on 2014-November-17, 10:36, said:

But even if a (take-out) double was defined to repeat the denomination of a (strong) artificial call for the purposes of Law 31A2, application of Law 31A2(a) would silence offender's partner for one round, so what value would a double be (and it would not be "take-out").

D'Oh! Catch-22.