[lamford]

campboy, on 2015-June-22, 14:42, said:

I think the key word is "available". At no point in the auction was a 1NT opening after two passes available, so it doesn't seem to matter how relevant it is.

Anyway, E/W have been correctly informed -- pluperfectly, Victor Mollo might have said, since they appear to have more information than they are, strictly speaking, entitled to. They were told that a first seat 1NT would be 12-14 and a third seat 1NT would be 15-17. They have just as much chance as South does of working out which one of those North thought he was opening.

If South had suggested to East that North thought he was opening a third-hand NT then that might constitute MI, but in fact it was East who suggested it to South.

An interesting argument, but fundamentally flawed. East did not suggest to South that he thought North was opening a third-hand 1NT. He merely asked for confirmation that NS had agreed to play a 15-17 1NT in third. It was South that blundered by correcting his original incorrect announcement of "12-14" to an equally incorrect "15-17" instead of correcting it to "no agreement". So, there is no way that E/W have been correctly informed. The correction to "15-17" was misinformation. You are also arguing that the key word in Law 20F is "available". "What a load of Tottenham", if I may quote Red Dwarf for a moment. The opportunity to open 1NT after two passes was clearly "available" to NS prior to North opening 1NT out of turn, so East was quite entitled to ask about what the sequence Pass-Pass-1NT would have meant. Sorry, campboy, this is far below your usual standard.

[PeterAlan]

I'm led to the following thought about a possible lacuna in the Laws: I'm not at all sure that SB is entitled to ask any questions.

Law 20F1; my emphasis said:

During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction.

It's not clear to me that N's BOOT renders it E's "turn to call". Certainly, E may accept N's BOOT, either explicitly or, implicitly, by calling himself, but I can't quickly find anything explicit in the Laws that makes it his "turn to call". Moreover, we also have

Law 28B said:

B. Call by Correct Player Cancelling Call Out of Rotation
A call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn it was to call before rectification has been assessed for a call out of rotation by an opponent. Making such a call forfeits the right to rectification for the call out of rotation. The auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn, but Law 16D2 applies.

which means that E has not become the only player permitted to call. It's therefore not clear to me that the very specific prerequisite in Law 20F1 allows him to ask any questions.

[lamford]

PeterAlan, on 2015-June-22, 18:06, said:

I'm led to the following thought about a possible lacuna in the Laws: I'm not at all sure that SB is entitled to ask any questions.

Another interesting observation. This is, I understand, covered by Law 9B2: "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification."

"All matters" means "all matters" and that includes any request for information regarding the meaning of available auctions either before or after the infraction. Maybe someone is aware of case law regarding the rights of players to ask supplementary questions of both the opponents and the TD when the initial ruling is made.

FWIW, I think it is SB's "turn to call" at the moment the TD gives him the option to accept the BOOT, and it ceases to be his turn to call immediately after he declines that option if he does. And trying to find something in the Laws which explicitly defines "turn to call" is like looking for a needle in a haystack. We cannot even find "third seat" defined anywhere.

[blackshoe]

Not even in the OED?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-June-22, 18:36, said:

Not even in the OED?

Plenty of definitions like "If you have a [various SUVs], you may have heard of the optional third seat, which allows two more people (ideally, small people) to sit in the back of the car" ... But I don't think they are the same "third seat".

[PeterAlan]

lamford, on 2015-June-22, 18:14, said:

FWIW, I think it is SB's "turn to call" at the moment the TD gives him the option to accept the BOOT, and it ceases to be his turn to call immediately after he declines that option if he does.

I would certainly agree that it becomes E's 'turn to call' once he has accepted the BOOT; notwithstanding your assertion, it's not at all clear to me that this is the case until then. Your argument that it becomes E's 'turn to call' "at the moment the TD gives him the option to accept the BOOT" seems like a very flimsy cover for an already chosen position, with an artificial-seeming and arbitrary trigger point.

The process that follows a COOT (let's generalise; not just a BOOT) is set out in Law 29:

Laws 29A&B (omitting headings) said:

[A] Following a call out of rotation offender’s LHO may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification.

[B] Unless A applies, a call out of rotation is cancelled and the auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call. ...

There's nothing here conferring a right to ask questions before arriving at the election under A, so the only Law that permits questions about the COOT remains Law 20F1. One can argue (and I would) that the reference in B to "the player whose turn it was to call" is no more than a identifying description (it conveniently embraces all three possible cases), and, in the absence of any explicit denotation that it becomes the 'turn to call' of the player after the caller-out-of-turn, it seems to me that this status is in abeyance until either

• that player determines the position by deciding to call (thus accepting the COOT); accepting the COOT without yet having called; or rejecting the COOT; or
  
• is pre-empted by his/her partner making a call to which Law 28B applies.

In a nutshell, it becomes that player's 'turn to call' when (s)he decides (s)he's going to call, and not before.

If this is so, then it follows that the player after the COOT may not ask questions about the COOT (or the opponents' prior auction) before deciding whether or not to accept it.

[steve2005]

lamford, on 2015-June-22, 10:01, said:

SB would proudly admit to using legal games and would regard it as a compliment. However, the Laws do not seem to prevent someone from having a double shot in deciding whether to accept or not accept an IB, if they have been misinformed. Unless you think that his decision to accept the IB was SEWog and unrelated to the infraction ... Do you?

I don't know if someone BOOT and it's the opener's hand isn't not accepting the bid the bridge equivalent of the death penalty! Should almost always refuse to accept.

[lamford]

PeterAlan, on 2015-June-22, 19:05, said:

If this is so, then it follows that the player after the COOT may not ask questions about the COOT (or the opponents' prior auction) before deciding whether or not to accept it.

You are therefore arguing that a player cannot obtain the meaning of an alerted BOOT prior to deciding whether to accept it. In addition, if someone opened with a BOOT in second seat (which I define as being to the left of the dealer just as I define third seat as being opposite the dealer), you would allow the dealer, whose turn it is to call, to ask questions before his partner decided whether to accept the BOOT. I think this interpretation is wrong, and if I offered it, others would say that "lamford reads the law literally when everyone knows what it means".

It would be interesting to find out from TDs whether they allow a player to find out what the opponent's auction means before deciding whether to accept the BOOT. I cannot see how a defender can make an informed decision until he has been advised of "all matters" relating to the rectification. The TD can explain the legal aspects; only the opponents cane explain the bridge aspects.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2015-June-22, 17:35, said:

The opportunity to open 1NT after two passes was clearly "available" to NS prior to North opening 1NT out of turn, so East was quite entitled to ask about what the sequence Pass-Pass-1NT would have meant. Sorry, campboy, this is far below your usual standard.

No it wasn't. In order for North to be able to open 1NT after two passes, there have to be two passes in front of him. At no point was that the case. Had the auction developed normally, a third-hand 1NT might have become available, but equally it might not, and it certainly hasn't done so yet.

I agree that the laws ought to allow East to ask about pass-pass-1NT, but I don't believe they currently do.

[campboy]

As for the "turn to call" business, I don't see anything in the laws to say that it can only be one player's turn to call at once. East can call now and it will be considered to be in rotation; I think that makes it his turn to call regardless of whether it is also someone else's turn to call.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2015-June-23, 01:48, said:

No it wasn't. In order for North to be able to open 1NT after two passes, there have to be two passes in front of him. At no point was that the case. Had the auction developed normally, a third-hand 1NT might have become available, but equally it might not, and it certainly hasn't done so yet.

All calls are "available" in the sense that they are "at someone's disposal" in the context of this Law. So, the sequence Pass-Pass-1NT was "available" to North-South at the start of the auction, and, more importantly, "relevant" to East's decision now, or East could ask about all sequences, which would be ridiculous. Let us say that someone opens 1C and rebids 1NT and this differs in meaning from opening 1D followed by rebidding 1NT. They might show different balanced ranges, or the latter might be unbalanced, as some pairs play. If you were to ask about the two sequences, and it was relevant, then you would allow an opponent to refuse to answer a question about the sequence that did not occur, because only the first call of it was "available". You correctly reject PeterAlan's definition of "turn to call", so it is surprising that you choose such a restrictive definition of "available".

It could also be argued that "You play strong in third, don't you?" is a question about North-South's basic system, and that question is always allowed, however you interpret "available".

[campboy]

lamford, on 2015-June-23, 02:18, said:

All calls are "available" in the sense that they are "at someone's disposal" in the context of this Law. So, the sequence Pass-Pass-1NT was "available" to North-South at the start of the auction, and, more importantly, "relevant" to East's decision now, or East could ask about all sequences, which would be ridiculous. Let us say that someone opens 1C and rebids 1NT and this differs in meaning from opening 1D followed by rebidding 1NT. They might show different balanced ranges, or the latter might be unbalanced, as some pairs play. If you were to ask about the two sequences, and it was relevant, then you would allow an opponent to refuse to answer a question about the sequence that did not occur, because only the first call of it was "available". You correctly reject PeterAlan's definition of "turn to call", so it is surprising that you choose such a restrictive definition of "available".

If all calls were "available", irrespective of whether the opponents are kind enough to give you the opportunity to use them, the word would add nothing to the law, so why is it there? What the law actually says is "relevant alternative calls available that were not made", and the only plausible interpretation of this I can think of is that it is talking about relevant calls which the player had an opportunity to make, but chose not to.

As for your other example, you are certainly allowed to ask about the 1♦ opening, which was an available alternative to 1♣. In particular you are entitled to ask which balanced ranges it includes, and, where this overlaps with those included in 1♣, how opponents might decide between the two possible openings.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2015-June-23, 02:18, said:

It could also be argued that "You play strong in third, don't you?" is a question about North-South's basic system, and that question is always allowed, however you interpret "available".

Wher do you get that idea from? The phrase "basic system" does not appear in the laws. It only appears in the Blue Book in the context of when you're permitted to play two different basic systems (and the index). It only appears in the White Book in the description of "EBU simple system".

What is true is that this information will appear on N/S's convention card, and East is permitted to look at that. Had he done so, instead of asking, he wouldn't have confused South into changing his announcement and there wouldn't be anything to discuss.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2015-June-23, 02:48, said:

Where do you get that idea from? The phrase "basic system" does not appear in the laws. It only appears in the Blue Book in the context of when you're permitted to play two different basic systems (and the index). It only appears in the White Book in the description of "EBU simple system".

I have frequently been asked and have frequently asked the opponents either at the start or during the auction what their basic system is. Are you saying that this question is not permitted?

I think it comes under: "He is entitled to know <snip> about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding." which does not require the person to ask about "available" calls, and the question can be about the system as a whole and how this sequence fits into it. Now that we have seemingly established that it is East's turn to call, despite PeterAlan's suggestion otherwise, perhaps we can establish that East is entitled to ask about any relevant inferences that South might have about the auction "1NT out of turn by third seat". These must include what Pass-Pass-1NT would have meant, as one possibility is that North might have thought this was the auction.

In any case, South corrected his explanation to "15-17" by his own choice. If he was unsure whether the question was permitted, he could have asked the director whether he was obliged to answer. Whether South was confused into changing his announcement is irrelevant. He provided MI and must suffer the consequences. SB took his action based on the MI and was potentially damaged in that North might well have punted 3NT opposite an Eustacian partner. Are you suggesting that South's changed announcement is not MI?

[RSliwinski]

PeterAlan, on 2015-June-22, 19:05, said:

I would certainly agree that it becomes E's 'turn to call' once he has accepted the BOOT; notwithstanding your assertion, it's not at all clear to me that this is the case until then. Your argument that it becomes E's 'turn to call' "at the moment the TD gives him the option to accept the BOOT" seems like a very flimsy cover for an already chosen position, with an artificial-seeming and arbitrary trigger point.

The process that follows a COOT (let's generalise; not just a BOOT) is set out in Law 29:


There's nothing here conferring a right to ask questions before arriving at the election under A, so the only Law that permits questions about the COOT remains Law 20F1. One can argue (and I would) that the reference in B to "the player whose turn it was to call" is no more than a identifying description (it conveniently embraces all three possible cases), and, in the absence of any explicit denotation that it becomes the 'turn to call' of the player after the caller-out-of-turn, it seems to me that this status is in abeyance until either

• that player determines the position by deciding to call (thus accepting the COOT); accepting the COOT without yet having called; or rejecting the COOT; or
  
• is pre-empted by his/her partner making a call to which Law 28B applies.

In a nutshell, it becomes that player's 'turn to call' when (s)he decides (s)he's going to call, and not before.

If this is so, then it follows that the player after the COOT may not ask questions about the COOT (or the opponents' prior auction) before deciding whether or not to accept it.

I think the situation with COOT is similar to LOOT.
Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee held in Philadelphia PA, 8th October 2010
16. The words “next in turn” in Law 55A were considered. The chairman had informed an enquirer that the ‘next in turn’ refers to the LHO of the offending hand and this had been disputed. The committee confirmed that the LHO of the offending hand is meant. Observation was made that Law 53A has the effect of moving the turn to the left of the lead out of turn and it remains there unless and until that lead is rejected.(my underlining)

So by analogy, Law 29A has the effect of moving the turn to the left of the call out of turn and it remains there unless and until that call is rejected.

[PhilKing]

Our friend the Secretary Bird was hardly duped as to the range of 1NT, since if he did not know that North intended it as 12-14 (and therefore South had corrected the range in error), he would not have allowed the OBOOT.

But if is allowed to trap the opposition is this way, South's correct strategy might be to change his description to 15-17 (as he did), and then change it back to 12-14 after SB allows the OBOOT. SB would now be allowed to change his call, but perhaps not his decision to allow the call.

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2015-June-23, 06:04, said:

But if [one] is allowed to trap the opposition is this way, I think South's correct strategy was to change his description to 15-17 (as he did), and then change it back to 12-14 after SB allows the OBOOT. SB would now be allowed to change his call, but perhaps not his decision.

Indeed he would not have been allowed to change his decision, and he would not have wanted to change his call. However, both RMB1 and campboy correctly assert that North's BOOT is AI, so whether South changes his announcement or not, he can still pass. SB is claiming that his decision to accept the BOOT was based on MI. He judged that if he accepted the call, when South thought North had a strong NT, there was a good chance NS would reach 3NT, and he thought that would probably fail. If he thought North had a weak NT, then they were much less likely to reach game and he would have made North guess the final contract, hoping that he gambled 3NT.

This smacks of deliberate MI by South, who announced 15-17 knowing that it was probably 12-14, and the fact that he passed with a hand that would always bid game opposite a strong NT is further evidence that the MI was deliberate. Possible PP for South and adjusted score must come into consideration?

[campboy]

lamford, on 2015-June-23, 04:33, said:

I have frequently been asked and have frequently asked the opponents either at the start or during the auction what their basic system is. Are you saying that this question is not permitted?

During most auctions you can, since if an opponent has either opened the bidding or had a chance to do so and passed then you can ask about alternative calls he might have made (i.e. opening bids). However, part-way through an auction where your side has opened in first seat I don't think you're entitled to ask opponents about the opening bids they never had a chance to make.

I think asking about opponents' system (basic or otherwise) at the start is covered by 40A1b.

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2015-June-23, 06:30, said:

This smacks of deliberate MI by South, who announced 15-17 knowing that it was probably 12-14, and the fact that he passed with a hand that would always bid game opposite a strong NT is further evidence that the MI was deliberate. Possible PP for South and adjusted score must come into consideration?

But there was no MI - there was only an incorrect announcement. SB still knew North was 12-14, so was not materially misinformed as to the opponent's methods.

By changing his announcement back to 12-14, South can simply use the Nunes defence and say he temporarily lost his mind.

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2015-June-23, 06:42, said:

But there was no MI - there was only an incorrect announcement. SB still knew North was 12-14, so was not materially misinformed as to the opponent's methods.

As to South changing his announcement, he can simply use the Nunes defence and say he temporarily lost his mind.

SB is quite entitled to believe the (corrected) announcement. If he had looked at the CC and found that the opponents played a weak NT in all positions, and he wanted to bid, and his defence was different against each NT range, he would assume the announcement was correct. It is the same as a failure to alert, where a person is entitled to assume the call does not fall into an alertable category. I cannot recall an AC where a defence was offered that someone knew the explanation they received was wrong and therefore should have ignored it. Indeed the director is to assume misinformation rather than mistaken call in the absence of evidence to the contrary, but the opponent assumes the information is correct and the TD rules on the basis of misinformation. And for 21B1a he only needs to decide that the decision to pass by East, accepting the BOOT, could well have been based on MI.