[joemanjo]

Hi all:

Pass Out of Rotation when Offenders partner is dealer and no call has been made so far. Law says Offender must pass at his next turn.

Can the Offenders Partner (holding a very weak hand himself) take into account of his partners PASS and make a bid such as a wild preempt "knowing" that the other side has Game or Slam going values?

In effect, when the bidding reverts back to Offenders Partner, is the fact that his partner had PASSed out of turn Authorised Information?

Thanks,
Manoj.

[vigfus]

Law 16B takes care of this. His partner gets UI
If his partner does this, and gains good sore, TD should give the opp's 60% and the guilty side perhaps 30%

[iviehoff]

What is authorised is knowledge that partner must pass at his next turn (L16.A.I.c).
So if, for example, you normally play a multi 2D, you can know that your partner will pass and instead bid the suit you intend to play in. In general, it would be a legitimate tactic simply to punt a contract knowing that your partner must pass.

What is unauthorised information is the fact that that your partner made a pass out of turn. (L16D -for an offending side information from withdrawn actions is unauthorised.) So to choose your bid knowing that your partner would normally have less than an opening hand would be an offence.

I don't understand vigfus' reference to 16B. Nor his suggested remedy.

[peachy]

This is an old problem. I have never quite understood the situation to my own satisfaction so will be happy to hear what others say.

Information from withdrawn action is UI for the OS. But information from table ruling is naturally AI. Meaning, the offender's partner is allowed to use the information that his* partner must pass next turn* but he is not allowed to use the information that *partner does not have an opening hand*. Tricky. 16D, 30A, 23, does the list go on forever...

[RMB1]

I think the fact that offender must pass is authorised but the fact that he did pass is unauthorised. So (if he had a strong hand) opener is allowed to know that he might be naming the final contract, but he is not allowed to know that partner has less than opening values.

This arose in Brighton 2004, see Appeal No 12. The new laws make the position clearer: the words "and another substituted" have been removed from Law 16D.

[barmar]

To put it another way, you're allowed to know that partner MUST pass, but you're not allowed to know WHY.

Meanwhile, the opponents know both.

[aguahombre]

iviehoff, on Mar 31 2010, 11:14 AM, said:

So if, for example, you normally play a multi 2D, you can know that your partner will pass and instead bid the suit you intend to play in. In general, it would be a legitimate tactic simply to punt a contract knowing that your partner must pass.

Can of worms. Partner apparently is barred for one round, but not forever, according to the OP.

Playing Multi, what would a 2bid in a Major show? Can the offending passer later make a call based on his partner's "adjustment" for the situation? Or must he assume the 2M bid was in accordance with original agreements?

[blackshoe]

The fact that N (say) was required by law to pass is AI to both N and S. Therefore, inferences drawn from that fact are also AI. As N has no UI (AFAICS) to complicate things, he can certainly act on the inference that S's call takes into account that S knows that N will pass at his next turn.

[barmar]

Much of the time, when a player is barred for one round, they're effectively barred for the remainder of the auction. If his partner makes a bid, wise opponents will pass so that he doesn't have a chance to come back in. His partner, knowing both that he has to pass and the opponents are likely to employ this strategy, will have to bid what he expects the final contract to be (unless he doesn't have an opening bid, either). So while North has AI that South's bid takes this into account, it's rare that he's able to do anything with this information.

That's mostly a strategy issue, but it intersects with the laws in implying that everyone knows that South cannot make an artificial bid, so partnership agreements effectively go out the window when a player is barred.

[Mbodell]

Generally assume your partner has about 1/3 of the missing points and about 1/3 of the missing cards in any suit. So if you have 0 HCP you can "know" that opponents probably have game as they likely have ~26.7 HCP. So preempting makes sense.

Conversely if you have 13 points, you should assume that your side has around 22 points and bid accordingly. This means you probably shouldn't blast a game unless you have a lot of shape.

But this logic applies both when partner passes out of turn *AND* when partner opens out of turn. So if you bid 3nt holding a 14 count when partner opens 1♣ out of turn but pass or bid only 1nt when holding a 14 count when partner passes out of turn this is no good.

[RMB1]

Mbodell, on Apr 2 2010, 08:17 PM, said:

But this logic applies both when partner passes out of turn *AND* when partner opens out of turn.  So if you bid 3nt holding a 14 count when partner opens 1♣ out of turn but pass or bid only 1nt when holding a 14 count when partner passes out of turn this is no good.

But if partner makes an opening bid out of turn and any one is silenced it will be you not partner.