[BudH]

North opened 1S out of turn, not accepted by East who opened 1H. South's 1NT bid with 9 HCP is natural and systemically shows 15-18 HCP,

---

From Board 26 of the Monday March 4 afternoon Common Game (http://thecommongame...ml#tab_board_26).

North opened 1♠ out of turn, not accepted by dealer East who opened 1♥. South overcalled 1NT (natural, 15-18 HCP) with a 9 HCP hand. North jumped to 4♠ which was passed out. (You can comment if you'd like if 4♠ is comparable to the withdrawn 1♠ opening. I believe it is.)

Declarer makes 11 tricks after an opening lead of the ♠Q by East.

Assume that there is no UI from either North or South. No hesitations, no voice inflections, etc. by either one.

1. Do you let the result (650 for N/S) stand with no other action taken?

2. If South tells the table (either after the play ends or when putting dummy down) she bid 1NT to try to make it easier for North to select a comparable call to prevent South from being barred for one round, does this change your ruling?

[pran]

 BudH, on 2019-March-11, 07:35, said:

North opened 1S out of turn, not accepted by East who opened 1H. South's 1NT bid with 9 HCP is natural and systemically shows 15-18 HCP,

---

From Board 26 of the Monday March 4 afternoon Common Game (http://thecommongame...ml#tab_board_26).

North opened 1♠ out of turn, not accepted by dealer East who opened 1♥. South overcalled 1NT (natural, 15-18 HCP) with a 9 HCP hand. North jumped to 4♠ which was passed out. (You can comment if you'd like if 4♠ is comparable to the withdrawn 1♠ opening. I believe it is.)

Declarer makes 11 tricks after an opening lead of the ♠Q by East.

Assume that there is no UI from either North or South. No hesitations, no voice inflections, etc. by either one.

1. Do you let the result (650 for N/S) stand with no other action taken?

2. If South tells the table (either after the play ends or when putting dummy down) she bid 1NT to try to make it easier for North to select a comparable call to prevent South from being barred for one round, does this change your ruling?

I cannot see any reason for adjustment here?

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2019-March-11, 07:49, said:

I cannot see any reason for adjustment here?

Law 30B. Partner’s or LHO’s Turn to Call
1. When the offender has passed at his partner’s turn
to call, or at his LHO’s turn to call if the offender has
not previously called, then:
(a) Offender’s partner may make any legal call at his
proper turn, but Law 16C2 applies.

My emphasis. That seems to be a reason to consider adjusting, and in the second case when the player has made clear that she has deliberately tried to take advantage of UI, it's so egregious it probably merits a PP, unless the TD failed to explain this properly.

[gordontd]

 BudH, on 2019-March-11, 07:35, said:

North opened 1♠ out of turn, not accepted by dealer East who opened 1♥. South overcalled 1NT (natural, 15-18 HCP) with a 9 HCP hand. North jumped to 4♠ which was passed out. (You can comment if you'd like if 4♠ is comparable to the withdrawn 1♠ opening. I believe it is.)

Since 4S is going to end the auction, it's unimportant whether or not it's comparable. The more interesting question is what would have happened if South had not used UI, and now North would probably be in position to bid after 1H-P-P, and for most people I believe 2S would be comparable.

[weejonnie]

I think it is pretty obvious that we cannot allow South's 1NT call since it is based on UI (As south conveniently confesses). Although 16C2 is quoted (information from withdrawn calls is UI to OS AI to NOS) Law 73C also applies (which is the foundation for pps after egregious abuse of UI).

(There are two classes of UI)

16B - UI from partner (mannerisms etc)
16C - UI from withdrawn calls and plays

I am perfectly willing to allow 2♠ as a comparable call - opening hand 5+ spades is pretty similar, I do not think that NS are going to get to 4♠ since it appears it was only bid by North because he thought South was showing a strong hand. (This is subject to polling of course) - so my default position is that we roll it back to 2♠+3 with a PP for NS. Although I haven't looked at it, EW might defend 2♠ differently from 4♠ so if an expert says there is a fair chance of only making 10 tricks then that should be included in the result.

(Deep Finesse says 5♠ only makes on a black suit lead - that is indicative but not sufficient per se to make a weighted ruling)

[Tramticket]

 weejonnie, on 2019-March-11, 10:21, said:

Although I haven't looked at it, EW might defend 2♠ differently from 4♠ so if an expert says there is a fair chance of only making 10 tricks then that should be included in the result.

I cam imagine that eight or nine tricks would be common - finessing in trumps twice and losing, finessing in clubs and losing and losing two diamond tricks!

Just because Deep Finesse drops the doubleton QJ of trumps off-side doesn't mean that a human declarer will.

But declarer might be lucky since he lacks the entries for all of these losing finesses!

[weejonnie]

 Tramticket, on 2019-March-11, 11:20, said:

I cam imagine that eight or nine tricks would be common - finessing in trumps twice and losing, finessing in clubs and losing and losing two diamond tricks!

Just because Deep Finesse drops the doubleton QJ of trumps off-side doesn't mean that a human declarer will.

But declarer might be lucky since he lacks the entries for all of these losing finesses!

The original defence to 4♠ was the lead of the ♠Q - I think that much less likely against 2♠, since on the actual bidding West is marked with a Yarborough and East looked for a safe lead. (IMHO)

(Just for clarification - I don't believe in DF analysis being used to work out the results of the play of a hand. We try and work out possible lines, some of which may result in 9 tricks, some 10 or some 11 - and then we sympathetically weigh them in favour of the NOS). An experienced player can do that better than I can.)

[barmar]

Does it matter that South's use of the UI makes no sense? If North tried to open 1♠, it's very likely that he'll get the chance to bid 1♠ or 2♠, which would be comparable and not bar anyone.

What's the point of not barring herself? What was she planning on bidding if partner bids something that isn't comparable to 1♠? Or even if it is?

How could she not realize that 1NT is likely to get their side too high, as partner will not stop short of game. The only way to prevent that is if he bids something below game that she can pass. Which leads us back to "why do you care if you're barred"?

It's only RR-style luck that they landed in a making game with 21 HCP.

[blackshoe]

 gordontd, on 2019-March-11, 08:55, said:

Law 30B. Partner’s or LHO’s Turn to Call
1. When the offender has passed at his partner’s turn
to call, or at his LHO’s turn to call if the offender has
not previously called, then:
(a) Offender’s partner may make any legal call at his
proper turn, but Law 16C2 applies.

My emphasis. That seems to be a reason to consider adjusting, and in the second case when the player has made clear that she has deliberately tried to take advantage of UI, it's so egregious it probably merits a PP, unless the TD failed to explain this properly.

Hm. Did she deliberately try to take advantage of UI? Or did she deliberately try to take advantage of knowledge of the requirements of the law (which is AI)?

It seems to me that a 1NT overcall on 9 HCP is a psych. In general, players are allowed to psych, but is South allowed to psych here? Maybe it doesn't matter. Clearly there is at least one LA to 1NT (pass) and that LA might result in a better score for the NOS, but does the UI that North has an opening hand with five spades demonstrably suggest 1NT over pass?

[weejonnie]

 blackshoe, on 2019-March-12, 10:26, said:

Hm. Did she deliberately try to take advantage of UI? Or did she deliberately try to take advantage of knowledge of the requirements of the law (which is AI)?

It seems to me that a 1NT overcall on 9 HCP is a psych. In general, players are allowed to psych, but is South allowed to psych here? Maybe it doesn't matter. Clearly there is at least one LA to 1NT (pass) and that LA might result in a better score for the NOS, but does the UI that North has an opening hand with five spades demonstrably suggest 1NT over pass?

yes - I was writing a reply a few hours ago and I decided mid-reply that 1NT was not suggested by the knowledge that partner had an opening hand with Spades (other than South then admitted that the reason why he bid it was to help his partner make his next call). Again I think a psych isn't demonstrably suggested by the UI since with 9 points there is a good chance that the hand belongs to your side anyway. (Obviously North did not pick up the psych as he went straight to 4♠).

However I think the fact that South showed some values by his 1NT call is not carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI. His aim seems to have been to help North judge how high to go or to reassure him that a spade bid would be safe - unfortunately North took him at his word and bid game! Fortunately it made.

[BudH]

 blackshoe, on 2019-March-12, 10:26, said:

Hm. Did she deliberately try to take advantage of UI? Or did she deliberately try to take advantage of knowledge of the requirements of the law (which is AI)?

It seems to me that a 1NT overcall on 9 HCP is a psych. In general, players are allowed to psych, but is South allowed to psych here? Maybe it doesn't matter. Clearly there is at least one LA to 1NT (pass) and that LA might result in a better score for the NOS, but does the UI that North has an opening hand with five spades demonstrably suggest 1NT over pass?

There is a big difference between knowledge of Laws 23 and 31 (Comparable Call and Bid Out of Rotation) and having UI that you know partner made a (withdrawn) bid out of rotation, let alone that you know what that withdrawn call happened to be.

Offender's partner is not allowed to be "cute" trying to make it easier on his partner to make a comparable call. He's not allowed to know partner's withdrawn call. He isn't allowed to even KNOW there was a withdrawn call. (Except that with a close decision between two or three calls, he must choose the one that is least advantageous if it is a logical alternative.)

The offender, however, IS allowed to be cute to prevent his partner from being barred for one round, e.g., if offender had passed illegally and then responded 1NT instead of 1 of a suit to keep it a comparable call.

[blackshoe]

The knowledge that partner made a bid that was, according to the law, withdrawn, is not UI, it is AI. Knowledge of what that withdrawn bid showed about partner's hand is UI.

[BudH]

 blackshoe, on 2019-March-13, 16:55, said:

The knowledge that partner made a bid that was, according to the law, withdrawn, is not UI, it is AI. Knowledge of what that withdrawn bid showed about partner's hand is UI.

If anyone can find some official type document (which I thought I saw late last year but can't seem to find now) that offender's partner (before offender's first call after the withdrawn call) is not allowed to deliberately select his call to make it easier for offender's call to be comparable, I would greatly appreciate knowing what document that information came from.

[gordontd]

 BudH, on 2019-March-13, 19:35, said:

If anyone can find some official type document (which I thought I saw late last year but can't seem to find now) that offender's partner (before offender's first call after the withdrawn call) is not allowed to deliberately select his call to make it easier for offender's call to be comparable, I would greatly appreciate knowing what document that information came from.

Part 3 of this document covers it. I'm not sure if it's official enough for what you want, but it was written by a former Head TD of the WBF and member of the WBFLC.

[BudH]

 gordontd, on 2019-March-14, 00:52, said:

Part 3 of this document covers it. I'm not sure if it's official enough for what you want, but it was written by a former Head TD of the WBF and member of the WBFLC.

Here's the key quote from that document, where 1H is opened out of rotation when partner is dealer:

"Opening bid out of turn at partner's turn; 31B1, which includes reference to 16C2 regarding the withdrawn 1H call. In other words, South isn't allowed to know about the 1H call just yet so isn't allowed to distort his own bidding - this under the UI laws, nothing to do with 23C. Once we've got over that hurdle, then we can apply 31A2 upon North and the reference to comparable calls therein etc. etc."

[blackshoe]

That's an interesting interpretation. Not sure I agree. I'll have to think about it, and right now I'm too tired to do that.

[gordontd]

 BudH, on 2019-March-13, 19:35, said:

If anyone can find some official type document (which I thought I saw late last year but can't seem to find now) that offender's partner (before offender's first call after the withdrawn call) is not allowed to deliberately select his call to make it easier for offender's call to be comparable, I would greatly appreciate knowing what document that information came from.

I've just remembered another document that covers this in #1-B and may be more relevant to you since it comes from Matt Smith, current Head TD of the WBF and an ACBL TD.

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2019-March-15, 10:37, said:

I've just remembered another document that covers this in #1-B and may be more relevant to you since it comes from Matt Smith, current Head TD of the WBF and an ACBL TD.

He was also the ACBL 2018 Employee of the Year.

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2019-March-15, 10:58, said:

He was also the ACBL 2018 Employee of the Year.

Well deserved, from my knowledge of him!

[lamford]

 BudH, on 2019-March-13, 19:35, said:

If anyone can find some official type document (which I thought I saw late last year but can't seem to find now) that offender's partner (before offender's first call after the withdrawn call) is not allowed to deliberately select his call to make it easier for offender's call to be comparable, I would greatly appreciate knowing what document that information came from.

While the document provided by gordontd does help, it is not necessary. The fact that the withdrawn call is UI makes it clear that opener must pretend it did not occur and offender's partner's opening bid cannot use ANY meaning of the withdrawn call in ANY way.