BBO Discussion Forums: Another opening bid out of turn - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Another opening bid out of turn

#21 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,356
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-March-15, 13:11

"The fact that the withdrawn call is UI"

How is that a fact? What I is U?
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#22 User is offline   BudH 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 2004-April-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Bend, Indiana, USA
  • Interests:Operations Supervisor/Technical Advisor at nuclear power plant, soccer and basketball referee for more than 25 years; GLM; Ex-Head (Game) Director at South Bend (Indiana) Bridge Club; avid student of bridge law and game movements

Posted 2019-March-16, 06:29

View Postgordontd, 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.

Here is the key quote from Matt Smith in that document:

"Opening 1NT will give his partner (offender) many more options to make a call that won't bar him ..... The argument in favor of this kind of action being permissible is that a player is using his knowledge of the laws, not the knowledge from the withdrawn call. However, it is not knowledge of the rules alone, but also the knowledge of what partner's call meant that causes the UI problem. 16C2 refers to “information arising” from its own withdrawn action. The withdrawn action is not just the call and what it meant. The partner of a caller out of turn should therefore not have an advantage over law abiding players at other tables where there was no call out of turn. He has a very good idea of what his partner holds before his first call following the infraction. They do not. So no, a player may not distort his bidding before his partner has had a chance to make a replacement call in order to maximize his side's chances of avoiding penalties. To do so is an infraction according to 16C2. If he does distort his call and the opponents are damaged as a result, the score should be adjusted as described above (note again the prohibition in 12C1(c ) when making a weighted ruling). When advising a player of his rights and responsibilities, the director should make mention to the partner of the caller out of turn that he should make his normal call so as not to run afoul of unauthorized information rules."
0

#23 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,101
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2019-March-16, 06:32

View Postblackshoe, on 2019-March-15, 13:11, said:

"The fact that the withdrawn call is UI"

How is that a fact? What I is U?

The information is that the North player has an opening bid and it is unauthorised because Law 31B1 says so.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#24 User is offline   BudH 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 2004-April-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Bend, Indiana, USA
  • Interests:Operations Supervisor/Technical Advisor at nuclear power plant, soccer and basketball referee for more than 25 years; GLM; Ex-Head (Game) Director at South Bend (Indiana) Bridge Club; avid student of bridge law and game movements

Posted 2019-March-16, 06:35

Note that offender's partner, if allowed to use information that partner made a withdrawn call out of rotation, even if not allowed to know WHICH call was withdrawn, would be able to deliberately pass with a clear but minimum opening bid, often making it easier for his partner to make a comparable call.

But he's not allowed to pass for that reason (without the threat of an adjusted score), due to the information above.
0

#25 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,356
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-March-16, 16:51

View Postgordontd, on 2019-March-16, 06:32, said:

The information is that the North player has an opening bid and it is unauthorised because Law 31B1 says so.

31B1 doesn't say so directly, but I take your point.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#26 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,782
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2019-March-17, 02:42

View Postgordontd, on 2019-March-16, 06:32, said:

The information is that the North player has an opening bid and it is unauthorised because Law 31B1 says so.

View Postblackshoe, on 2019-March-16, 16:51, said:

31B1 doesn't say so directly, but I take your point.

It does indeed

Law 31B1 said:

Offender’s partner may make any legal call at his proper turn, but Law 16C2 applies.

0

#27 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,356
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-March-17, 12:43

No. It refers to Law 16C2. It's that law that says directly that the information is unauthorized.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#28 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,782
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2019-March-17, 13:54

View Postblackshoe, on 2019-March-17, 12:43, said:

No. It refers to Law 16C2. It's that law that says directly that the information is unauthorized.

And exactly what is the legal difference?
0

#29 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,356
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-March-17, 18:10

For Law 31B1 to directly make the withdrawn call UI, it would have to say explicitly "the withdrawn call is UI". It doesn't say that.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#30 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 18,097
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-March-17, 18:16

View Postblackshoe, on 2019-March-17, 18:10, said:

For Law 31B1 to directly make the withdrawn call UI, it would have to say explicitly "the withdrawn call is UI". It doesn't say that.

Frequently the laws say things by cross-referencing some other law that says it, to avoid redundancy. For all intents and purposes, saying "See 16C2" is the same as saying "the withdrawn call is UI for the OS".

#31 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,782
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted Yesterday, 01:35

View Postblackshoe, on 2019-March-17, 18:10, said:

For Law 31B1 to directly make the withdrawn call UI, it would have to say explicitly "the withdrawn call is UI". It doesn't say that.

And exactly what is the legal difference?

To be more specific: What difference does it make for the way the Director shall handle the situation?
0

#32 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,101
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted Yesterday, 01:52

View Postbarmar, on 2019-March-17, 18:16, said:

Frequently the laws say things by cross-referencing some other law that says it, to avoid redundancy. For all intents and purposes, saying "See 16C2" is the same as saying "the withdrawn call is UI for the OS".

+1
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#33 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,356
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted Yesterday, 09:47

What Barry says is true, and in answer to Sven, it makes no legal difference. Well, there's this: If it is incumbent on directors to explain their rulings when they make them (as it should be, else how are players to know whether to appeal?) then simply saying "it's UI because 31B1 says so" isn't good enough. In explaining a ruling, IMO you have to follow the links: "31B1 refers us to 16C2, which says that information from withdrawn calls is unauthorized to the offending side". Pedantic of me? Perhaps, but I stand by it.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users