[bluejak]

1NT 2♠ 2♦

After the options are explained, the next player does not accept, responder changes his 2♦ to a pass, and the 2♠ bidder's partner [advancer] bids 5♣ ending the auction.

Lead penalties?

[lamford]

I shall have a go, but again the Laws seem shabbily worded.

The question appears to be whether 2D "related solely to a specified suits or suits". If the 2D bidder thought that the previous hand had bid 2C, and 2D was natural, then it related solely to diamonds. If the 2D bidder did not see the 2S bid, and the pair were playing transfers, then the 2D bid related solely to hearts. If the 2D bidder did not see any of the auction, and the pair was playing a multi, then (in addition to the recommendation that the IBer get new spectacles) the 2D bid related to many possible suits, although relating to hearts or spades does seem overwhelmingly likely.

I think the "solely" in 26A suggests that we should apply 26B, and allow the declarer to prohibit any one suit at the first turn to lead. Finding out what the insufficient bidder intended, and announcing it to the opening bidder, gives too much UI.

[bluejak]

I am sure that the last sentence is logical and reasonable, but is it what the Laws say?

[iviehoff]

I think the law tells us to apply 26A in the circumstances specified there, which will often be satisfied in this case. Moreover, in order to apply 27B, the TD already had to find out from the insufficient bidder what he thought he was doing. So I think the TD knows already knows whether 26A is in principle applicable. The only trouble is that when the TD applies 26A, it provides declarer with information about the insufficient bid that declarer had no right to in other situations, but the law does not seem to impede that.

Some interesting questions:
(1) should declarer be informed of the suit(s) of the lead penalty away from the table, so that the information remains concealed if declarer chooses not to apply the lead penalty? It will of course be UI, but better to leave people without UI if it can be avoided.
(2) if declarer chooses to apply the lead penalty, whether the information remains UI for IB-er's partner.

[lamford]

I think that practice is that the TD does not tell the partner of the IBer what IBer intended, and on one occasion, at Brighton, where the TD mistakenly did - admittedly during the auction - our side received a windfall of x MPs (extraneous information from other sources). The Laws seem silent on the correct procedure for the lead penalties. Is there advice from any source?

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on Oct 11 2010, 10:40 AM, said:

The only trouble is that when the TD applies 26A, it provides declarer with information about the insufficient bid that declarer had no right to in other situations, but the law does not seem to impede that.

Indeed, the Law does quite the contrary:

Law16A1c said:

A player may use information in the auction or play if:
…
{c} it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these Laws and in regulations…

[gordontd]

iviehoff, on Oct 11 2010, 03:40 PM, said:

Moreover, in order to apply 27B, the TD already had to find out from the insufficient bidder what he thought he was doing.

I think this is quite an overstatement. The original advice that was given to TDs was that they only need find out what the player intended if s/he was interested in taking advantage of L27B1b.

I understand that advice is not now considered current, but it hasn't been replaced by anything official (as far as I am aware), and it's still the advice that any EBU or EBL TD will encounter if they search on the web for help.

[iviehoff]

gordontd, on Oct 11 2010, 04:23 PM, said:

iviehoff, on Oct 11 2010, 03:40 PM, said:

Moreover, in order to apply 27B, the TD already had to find out from the insufficient bidder what he thought he was doing.

I think this is quite an overstatement. The original advice that was given to TDs was that they only need find out what the player intended if s/he was interested in taking advantage of L27B1b.

OK, the director will sometimes have asked and therefore know what to do. Therefore there should be no impediment to him finding out in other cases.

[bluejak]

Ok, having read posts in two different forums and considered it, let me give my views.

An IB is made. Following current advice, the TD discovers the meaning of the IB. We know that may be a dubious concept, but that is what we are told to do, so let us do it. The meaning is based on what went through the player's mind when he made the bid. So, in the case of 1NT 2♠ 2♦ he may have meant:

• to bid 3 ♦, or
  
• to bid 2♦, transfer, and thought RHO had passed, or
  
• to open 2♦, thinking he had dealt, or
  
• to bid 2NT but he pulled out the wrong card and did not realise he could change it

No doubt there are other possibilities.

Now, the reason for the TD to know what the bid was intended as is to:

• decide whether Law 27B1A applies, ie to decide whether 2♦ is "incontrovertibly not artificial", or
  
• to decide whether Law 27B1B applies, to decide whether there is a legal call available with the same or more precise meaning

We know there are problems over what he should tell the players and how he should decide the above, but let us leave that for another thread, please. The point is he discovers the "meaning" of the IB for his decision.

Does he tell the other players? Not directly, no. He never says "2♦ means and therefore ...". But some of his decisions may tell the other players anyway. For example, if he rules one of the possibilities is Law 27B1A then he has told the table that the IB is not artificial.

Let us now look at Law 26. The actual wording is "If the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no other suits) ...". So, does it? And remember, if he does rule under Law 26A he has to tell them which suit or suits!

I do not like it, I do not like it at all. But if the TD is meant to find the meaning of the IB for Law 27 purposes, and in some cases his ruling will tell people that meaning, I cannot see how you can possibly say the same does not apply to Law 26.

So in my view an obvious consequence of the WBFLC approach to Law 27 is that the same approach must apply to Law 26, and the TD ruling is authorised for everyone. So the TD tells the players whether Law 26A applies or not, and if so, applies to which suit or suits.

The text of this article is copied to the New Zealand Laws forum.

[Zelandakh]

David, a question to you about this post.

You say that the ruling tells the players soe things about the IB and that this ruling is authorised information. Say that one of the players was a trained up TD and therefore would know the implications and the other 2 were simply social players and had no interest in understanding how the rules worked. Should you allow the one player to get the advantage and keep theother two in the dark? Or would you then explain the implications to all. I guess what I am asking here is about fairness - how can it be right for a player to get an advantage because of details beyond simply the play of the game?

[iviehoff]

Zelandakh, on Oct 15 2010, 06:58 AM, said:

how can it be right for a player to get an advantage because of details beyond simply the play of the game?

The rules of the game are part of the play of the game. It is an entirely fair advantage to know the rules better than another player. It is just that a knowledge of the more abstruse rules won't normally be of very much assistance, so most players can't be bothered.

[bluejak]

Zelandakh, on Oct 15 2010, 06:58 AM, said:

David, a question to you about this post.

You say that the ruling tells the players soe things about the IB and that this ruling is authorised information. Say that one of the players was a trained up TD and therefore would know the implications and the other 2 were simply social players and had no interest in understanding how the rules worked. Should you allow the one player to get the advantage and keep theother two in the dark? Or would you then explain the implications to all. I guess what I am asking here is about fairness - how can it be right for a player to get an advantage because of details beyond simply the play of the game?

Pretty much what iviehoff says, but putting it another way.

What I have suggested is right seems somewhat unfair to me. But the responsibility for rulings being fair rests with the WBFLC, not with the TD. If I had my way I would scrap most of Law 27 - but I do not.

[lamford]

bluejak, on Oct 14 2010, 07:43 AM, said:

So in my view an obvious consequence of the WBFLC approach to Law 27 is that the same approach must apply to Law 26, and the TD ruling is authorised for everyone.

I think your arguments are valid and logical as well. The one uncertainty I have is whether the information is authorised for everyone. As far as I can see there are two conflicting Laws:

16A1c it is information <snip> arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws <snip>

It is certainly that, and therefore authorized.

16D2 For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. <snip>

It does seem to be arising from the withdrawn bid, and therefore unauthorized.

So, do we not have a paradox that the partner of the infractor is allowed to use the fact that partner has, say, hearts, because he has been barred from leading the suit, but not allowed to use the fact that partner has, say, hearts, because his partner's 2D call was withdrawn?

[iviehoff]

lamford, on Oct 15 2010, 02:00 PM, said:

So, do we not have a paradox that the partner of the infractor is allowed to use the fact that partner has, say, hearts, because he has been barred from leading the suit, but not allowed to use the fact that partner has, say, hearts, because his partner's 2D call was withdrawn?

It's not very different from the situation of partner having a penalty card. That partner possesses the exposed card is UI, but the fact that it has to be played in certain circumstances is not. That partner has shown hearts is UI, that lead penalties apply in relation to hearts is not.

What seems more perverse is when declarer chooses not to enforce the lead penalty. Then the defender does not need to be informed in what suit the lead penalty was that has not been applied.

[lamford]

iviehoff, on Oct 15 2010, 11:06 AM, said:

lamford, on Oct 15 2010, 02:00 PM, said:

So, do we not have a paradox that the partner of the infractor is allowed to use the fact that partner has, say, hearts, because he has been barred from leading the suit, but not allowed to use the fact that partner has, say, hearts, because his partner's 2D call was withdrawn?

It's not very different from the situation of partner having a penalty card. That partner possesses the exposed card is UI, but the fact that it has to be played in certain circumstances is not. That partner has shown hearts is UI, that lead penalties apply in relation to hearts is not.

What seems more perverse is when declarer chooses not to enforce the lead penalty. Then the defender does not need to be informed in what suit the lead penalty was that has not been applied.

Yes, the player is allowed to know that he cannot lead a heart, but he is not supposed to deduce why this is! He also is allowed to know that he cannot cash an ace and then switch to a heart. But, if he leads something else and then gains the lead, he still has UI that a bid from partner showing hearts has been withdrawn, so after the opening lead stage, he only has UI, and that is AI to the opponents.

So I think the penalty is quite harsh, and I don't think it is unfair to the declarer. There is very litte usable UI for the opening leader.

[lamford]

iviehoff, on Oct 15 2010, 11:06 AM, said:

lamford, on Oct 15 2010, 02:00 PM, said:

So, do we not have a paradox that the partner of the infractor is allowed to use the fact that partner has, say, hearts, because he has been barred from leading the suit, but not allowed to use the fact that partner has, say, hearts, because his partner's 2D call was withdrawn?

It's not very different from the situation of partner having a penalty card. That partner possesses the exposed card is UI, but the fact that it has to be played in certain circumstances is not. That partner has shown hearts is UI, that lead penalties apply in relation to hearts is not.

What seems more perverse is when declarer chooses not to enforce the lead penalty. Then the defender does not need to be informed in what suit the lead penalty was that has not been applied.

Yes, the player is allowed to know that he cannot lead a heart (or must lead one, of course), but he is not supposed to deduce why this is! He also is allowed to know that he cannot cash an ace and then switch to a heart. But, if he leads something else and then regains the lead, he still has UI that a bid from partner showing hearts has been withdrawn, so after the opening lead stage, he only has UI, and that is AI to the opponents.

So I think the penalty is quite harsh, and I don't think it is unfair to the declarer. There is very litte usable UI for the opening leader.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Oct 14 2010, 01:43 PM, said:

Let us now look at Law 26.  The actual wording is "If the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no other suits) ...".  So, does it?  And remember, if he does rule under Law 26A he has to tell them which suit or suits!

I do not like it, I do not like it at all.  But if the TD is meant to find the meaning of the IB for Law 27 purposes, and in some cases his ruling will tell people that meaning, I cannot see how you can possibly say the same does not apply to Law 26.

So in my view an obvious consequence of the WBFLC approach to Law 27 is that the same approach must apply to Law 26, and the TD ruling is authorised for everyone.  So the TD tells the players whether Law 26A applies or not, and if so, applies to which suit or suits.

The text of this article is copied to the New Zealand Laws forum.

I don't see why this is an obvious consequence at all. If the WBFLC wanted its suggested Law 27 procedure to also be applied to Law 26, it had an obvious opportunity to say so; the fact is that the WBFLC did not make any such statement or implication.

Law 27 talks about the "meaning" of the IB (which as you rightly point out is a somewhat dubious concept) but Law 26 does not use the word "meaning". Instead Law 26 asks the TD to consider whether the call "related" to a specific suit or suits.

I would like to suggest an alternative approach.

Let's consider why we have Law 26A and Law 26B. Because a player should not be able to attract a particular lead having shown a suit illegally, without having mentioned the suit in the legal auction.

To whom has this unauthorised information been submitted? To the insufficient bidder's partner [IBP], of course.

So common sense would suggest that if the IBP has interpreted the insufficient 2♦ bid as "relating" solely to diamonds, then declarer should be given the option to prohibit or require a diamond lead; whilst if the IBP has interpreted the insufficient 2♦ bid as "relating" solely to hearts, then declarer should be given the option to prohibit or require a heart lead.

How does the TD discover how the IBP has interpreted the IB? The TD should ask the IBP [not the person who made the IB] how he has interpreted the withdrawn call and the TD can then form his own judgement on the plausibility of the answer.

If the TD is unable to determine that the withdrawn call "related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no other suit)" then he applies Law 26B.

[MBV53]

The TD determines the meaning of the 2D call [1N-2S-2D].
Law 23 applies.
Law 16D & Law26 applies -An offending player withdraws a call.
withdrawn call related to Diamond lead restrictions applies on Diamond suit, Related to any other one suit, restrictions applies on suit not specified-at offender's partner first turn to lead including opening lead. WD call related to more than one suit,Declarer may prohibit from leading one such suit,require leading such a suit,let the leader choose any suit.
If the WD call falls under other WD calls- Declarer may prohibit any one suit as long as the offender's partner retains lead.
MBVSubrahmanyam.
India.