[lamford]

---

This was a ruling from a local club, and I have decided to just report the bare facts rather than embellish it. North opened 1♦ out of turn, and I was called as TD. East declined to accept it, and I told South that he could make any call he wished but the BOOT was UI to him. If North made a comparable call, one which had a same or similar meaning to the BOOT, then South could bid, otherwise South would be silenced. South opened a multi and North bid 2H which was pass or correct. I ruled that this was not a comparable call and South was silenced. Was I correct? 2H-6 was by no means a zero, but I was left feeling that the Law, designed to prevent silly results, was an ass.

[etha]

South just wasn't very good at gaming the rules. He just has to open 3♠ and he is fine. I assume he is allowed to know he has to pass at his next turn. The rules are generally stupid I have no idea what was right here. I simply have learned to game the rules rather than learn them. In an ideal world I would simply have to learn the rules and they would protect me.

I can't see how almost any calls are comparable to each other.

[weejonnie]

First of all I would compliment South on making the multi 2♦ call even though he must have known what would most likely happen - and regrettably North couldn't guess which major he had.

I think this is one of those unfortunate situations that almost always can occur. Under previous versions of the law South would have had to pass, of course, and North gamble on the correct contract.

Your ruling seems eminently correct - the original call promised length in diamonds (3+ I assume), and the replacement call did not. The only query would be whether you explained to North what types of calls you would consider to be comparable in this situation - probably done away from the table. Just reading out 23A is very difficult to understand.

North MIGHT have rebid 3♦ over 2♦ and if that showed a good hand with diamonds then I would probably allowed it as a subset of the 1♦ call. South could then have bid 3♠ because the fact that a comparable call had been made there is no UI (Law 23B) - there has been correspondence about whether a player can make a non-systemic call to cater for the possibility that partner was constrained in making a comparable call. In this case, it would at least have resulted in a reasonable bridge result. (You can of course adjust under 23C if appropriate, but I don't think anyone gained assistance from the actual call.)

[weejonnie]

etha, on 2019-March-27, 10:53, said:

South just wasn't very good at gaming the rules. He just has to open 3♠ and he is fine. I assume he is allowed to know he has to pass at his next turn. The rules are generally stupid I have no idea what was right here. I simply have learned to game the rules rather than learn them. In an ideal world I would simply have to learn the rules and they would protect me.

I can't see how almost any calls are comparable to each other.

South can't 'game' the rules - he is constrained by UI. If a multi 2♦ call is a logical alternative then he can't make any call demonstrably suggested by the BOOT. North, of course, can 'game' the rules as you say by making a comparable call even if his hand doesn't quite fit the meaning of the comparable call he makes.

Lots of calls are comparable with each other in that a call with a 'similar meaning' to that attributable to withdrawn call is comparable - this allows some variation in hand strength and suit length - and of course when the time has come to make the comparable call the auction has moved on.

To give a (slightly) more complicated example - if you bid 2♣ (Stayman) over a 2NT opening then a 3♣ change (puppet Stayman) is comparable since it has the same purpose (enquiring about major suit lengths in opener's hand). The fact that one of the calls probably promises greater strength than the other is irrelevant. (And we might adjust under 23C if the 2NT opener made use of that fact.)

[etha]

he isn't making a call based on knowing his pard has a 1d opener. he is basing his call on the fact that he knows he will have to pass at his next turn. I don't care what bid my partner made out of turn 3♠ would be my choice after any of them including pass, so I am not using the ui I am using the fact I must pass to make one bid that will work. Imagine you went to a bridge club and the rules for the evening were u can only make one bid and then everyone will pass. I am opening 3nt every hand now.

[weejonnie]

etha, on 2019-March-27, 11:47, said:

he isn't making a call based on knowing his pard has a 1d opener. he is basing his call on the fact that he knows he will have to pass at his next turn. I don't care what bid my partner made out of turn 3♠ would be my choice after any of them including pass, so I am not using the ui I am using the fact I must pass to make one bid that will work. Imagine you went to a bridge club and the rules for the evening were u can only make one bid and then everyone will pass. I am opening 3nt every hand now.

But he doesn't know he will have to pass next turn - without knowing that his partner can't make a comparable call - and he isn't allowed to know that because it derives from the BOOT that partner made.

[ahydra]

weejonnie, on 2019-March-27, 13:28, said:

But he doesn't know he will have to pass next turn - without knowing that his partner can't make a comparable call - and he isn't allowed to know that because it derives from the BOOT that partner made.

Law 16a1c

Information "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in
regulations" is AI.

So South is entitled to think "if I open multi, partner will struggle to make a comparable call, and I'll have to pass. 3S will help to avoid a disaster"

What he is not allowed to do is e.g. open 6D on a strong 4144, as that would be using the UI that partner has an opening hand with diamonds.

ahydra

[lamford]

ahydra, on 2019-March-27, 13:44, said:

Law 16a1c

Information "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in
regulations" is AI.

So South is entitled to think "if I open multi, partner will struggle to make a comparable call, and I'll have to pass. 3S will help to avoid a disaster"

What he is not allowed to do is e.g. open 6D on a strong 4144, as that would be using the UI that partner has an opening hand with diamonds.

ahydra

No, I think the "Prague" case which I saw somewhere means that he is not allowed to select a call which allows his partner to make a comparable call. I did explain what a comparable call was, but I guess it is not easy for many players to judge. At that time, of course, I did not know his partner was going to open a multi, so I had no idea what would be comparable calls. I did tell him again before he bid that in order not to silence his partner he had to make a call with the same or similar meaning, and that any replacement call would have to define a subset of the meanings of 1♦, but that seemed a "bridge too far" for North!

It does seem that bidding 2♥ does not gain at all, in that South cannot use the fact that North has an opening bid with diamonds, but that is not what the law says.

[Cyberyeti]

If I had this situation, I think I'd pass 2♦ rather than guess pard's suit. Can I legally ?

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-March-27, 14:34, said:

If I had this situation, I think I'd pass 2♦ rather than guess pard's suit. Can I legally ?

In the old days you had an obligation to "explore" game if you would make game opposite the strong option, but that would not make sense here. Passing 2♦ would have been my choice.

[ahydra]

lamford, did you mean the "South African question" as described here http://www.ebu.co.uk...Max%20Bavin.pdf ?

This is curious, as the TD is obliged to describe all ramifications of the ruling before South bids, yet South is not allowed to use the information about North's obligations until North has bid. Or is the argument that South is never allowed to know that North has to make a comparable call at their first turn? Either way it feels incongruent with L16a1c.

ahydra

[pran]

ahydra, on 2019-March-27, 14:58, said:

lamford, did you mean the "South African question" as described here http://www.ebu.co.uk...Max%20Bavin.pdf ?

This is curious, as the TD is obliged to describe all ramifications of the ruling before South bids, yet South is not allowed to use the information about North's obligations until North has bid. Or is the argument that South is never allowed to know that North has to make a comparable call at their first turn? Either way it feels incongruent with L16a1c.

ahydra

Law 9B2 said:

No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

"all matters" means exactly what it says, so all four players at the table are entitled to know the full consequences of their choice of actions when handling an irregularity.
Now

Law 31B1 said:

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

so while the knowledge that North intended to open 1♦ is unauthorized to South, the fact that he (South) quite likely will be required to pass at his next turn to call is authorized for him.

Consequently he is free to bid (for instance) 2♠ rather than the multi 2♦ bid he might originally have intended because he may consider that North can hardly find any comparable call at his correct turn in response to a multi 2♦ bid by South.

North/South have now left the territory of partnership agreements (simply because they are not permitted to have any specific agreements in situations like this), and must depend on common sense and common bridge knowledge.

[weejonnie]

pran, on 2019-March-27, 15:27, said:

"all matters" means exactly what it says, so all four players at the table are entitled to know the full consequences of their choice of actions when handling an irregularity.
Now

so while the knowledge that North intended to open 1♦ is unauthorized to South, the fact that he (South) quite likely will be required to pass at his next turn to call is authorized for him.

Consequently he is free to bid (for instance) 2♠ rather than the multi 2♦ bid he might originally have intended because he may consider that North can hardly find any comparable call at his correct turn in response to a multi 2♦ bid by South.

North/South have now left the territory of partnership agreements (simply because they are not permitted to have any specific agreements in situations like this), and must depend on common sense and common bridge knowledge.

I would disagree - the law on Authorised Information 16A© states

"© 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 (but see B1 following); or"

16B1 of course is

1. Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. etc

This would preclude the use of the knowledge arising from legal procedures.

So you are allowed to know that IF a player makes a BOOT and can't correct it then the partner must pass next time (this may affect your decision whether to accept the BOOT or not) BUT you aren't allowed to know that your partner made a BOOT.

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2019-March-27, 15:27, said:

"all matters" means exactly what it says, so all four players at the table are entitled to know the full consequences of their choice of actions when handling an irregularity.
Now

so while the knowledge that North intended to open 1♦ is unauthorized to South, the fact that he (South) quite likely will be required to pass at his next turn to call is authorized for him.

Consequently he is free to bid (for instance) 2♠ rather than the multi 2♦ bid he might originally have intended because he may consider that North can hardly find any comparable call at his correct turn in response to a multi 2♦ bid by South.

North/South have now left the territory of partnership agreements (simply because they are not permitted to have any specific agreements in situations like this), and must depend on common sense and common bridge knowledge.

Except that 2♠ may be strong and he will find that he has to pass 6N, probably doubled

[ahydra]

It's a very interesting question, if you're into lawyer-style debating of exact semantics (which I'm not sure I really am). I would disagree that 16B1 is the relevant Law here, instead it should be 16C2 as referenced in 31B1. For one thing, 16B1 gives tons of examples as to what constitutes UI and yet "the fact partner made an irregularity" is not amongst them.

16C2 uses the words "information arising from its own withdrawn action" which could be argued to include the law 31 ramifications of partner having made a COOT (i.e. both the action itself, namely a 1D bid, and the fact the action occurred and the ensuing ramifications); or to only include the action itself.

The view of Max Bavin in the PDF I linked above is the former, which I, now having read and thought about it in more detail, am seeing good reasons for:
- the goal of Law 23 etc is to allow the players to "play normal bridge" where possible, so offender's partner should be obliged to bid normally rather than play around the consequences imposed on offender
- L16C2 starts out as "When a call is withdrawn" i.e. it applies immediately at the point offender's COOT is withdrawn rather than only being applied retroactively at the end of the auction, or similar

At least with Max Bavin's view published we have some guidance on this, but better yet would be for this to be made clear in the Laws, e.g. Law 16C2 could gain something like "'Information' here includes both the inferences from the call or play itself and any ensuing obligations on the offending side such as an obligation to pass, unless otherwise explicitly specified" (where with that last bit I'm mainly thinking of the law on penalty card disposition).

No such restrictions apply to the original offender, of course, so in CY's example North is free to gamble on passing 2D, just as he was free to gamble on bidding whatever contract he liked under the old laws, and with no rectification for EW if 2D making however many happens to be a good result for NS.

ahydra

[lamford]

ahydra, on 2019-March-27, 14:58, said:

lamford, did you mean the "South African question" as described here http://www.ebu.co.uk...Max%20Bavin.pdf ?

This is curious, as the TD is obliged to describe all ramifications of the ruling before South bids, yet South is not allowed to use the information about North's obligations until North has bid. Or is the argument that South is never allowed to know that North has to make a comparable call at their first turn? Either way it feels incongruent with L16a1c.

ahydra

I saw something similar, but I recall it being the Prague case, but that was only from memory, and cannnot find the relevant piece now, but Max's view was in it.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-March-27, 16:19, said:

Except that 2♠ may be strong and he will find that he has to pass 6N, probably doubled

It would have been Lucas or Muiderberg. And I would have ruled that it used the UI that partner had bid out of turn and would have a BIG problem over a multi, but probably a lot less of a problem over 2♠, where the extra spade and missing minor card is unlikely to matter. I might have also imposed a PP on South for not carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI and I might have done the same if South chose to pass, and then bid 1S and then 2S over North's opening 1D and rebid.

[lamford]

etha, on 2019-March-27, 10:53, said:

I simply have learned to game the rules rather than learn them.

SB thinks you should learn the rules and not game them, although he has no problem in gaming them legally.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2019-March-27, 17:48, said:

SB thinks you should learn the rules and not game them,

I agree with him. But player education is not easy.

[gordontd]

ahydra, on 2019-March-27, 16:52, said:

At least with Max Bavin's view published we have some guidance on this, but better yet would be for this to be made clear in the Laws,

Here's some more guidance from Max's successor, Matt Smith.