[lamford]

Two County Directors at the North London club disagreed last night on what is a comparable call after a POOT. Fourth in hand passed out of turn, and, we will say, this is not accepted. The auction begins Pass-1X-Pass-?. CD1 was of the opinion that a one-level response would be a comparable call, but CD2 did not agree, as it did not "define a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call" as per 23A2, and 23A1 did not seem to apply. A clear example where it would not do so is playing 2/1 FG, where one can make a two-level response now, and partner knows you cannot open the bidding. 1NT would be a comparable call, as almost all hands which respond 1NT would pass as dealer (and we are told to be liberal in allowing comparable calls) but other one-level and two-level responses seem to silence partner as they are not comparable calls. What is the EBU and WBF interpretation, please?

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-October-31, 07:11, said:

A clear example where it would not do so is playing 2/1 FG, where one can make a two-level response now, and partner knows you cannot open the bidding.

But the withdrawn call is UI to partner, so he would be obliged to treat it as game forcing, and they're likely to get too high as a result. Only RR would then be lucky enough that the unlikely contract actually makes, and then SB will argue that he could have known this would happen and it should be adjudicated away.

However, I agree that a 2-level response would not be a CC if they're playing 2/1 GF. A pass shows something like 0-11 HCP without the distribution for a preempt. A 2/1 response shows 12+ HCP. They're disjoint meanings.

And I agree that other 1-level responses are not comparable. They have an overlapping meaning with the withdrawn pass, not a subset, because of the stronger possibility. Nor do they have the "same or similar meaning".

This all seems to be unfortunate to the NOS. They're entitled to the information that the POOTer has limited strength, but his partner isn't, so it seems like it's unlikely to damage them to allow any call. But that's what the Law says.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-October-31, 09:30, said:

But the withdrawn call is UI to partner, so he would be obliged to treat it as game forcing, and they're likely to get too high as a result. Only RR would then be lucky enough that the unlikely contract actually makes, and then SB will argue that he could have known this would happen and it should be adjudicated away.

However, I agree that a 2-level response would not be a CC if they're playing 2/1 GF. A pass shows something like 0-11 HCP without the distribution for a preempt. A 2/1 response shows 12+ HCP. They're disjoint meanings.

And I agree that other 1-level responses are not comparable. They have an overlapping meaning with the withdrawn pass, not a subset, because of the stronger possibility. Nor do they have the "same or similar meaning".

This all seems to be unfortunate to the NOS. They're entitled to the information that the POOTer has limited strength, but his partner isn't, so it seems like it's unlikely to damage them to allow any call. But that's what the Law says.

CD1 was of the opinion that a one-level response was a comparable call, as she had been advised that at an event by a EBU director. I was surprised, as that would seem too liberal, as it is bound to help any auction to have the extra information that your partner does not have an opening bid, even if you carefully avoid taking any advantage of it.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-October-31, 14:25, said:

CD1 was of the opinion that a one-level response was a comparable call, as she had been advised that at an event by a EBU director. I was surprised, as that would seem too liberal, as it is bound to help any auction to have the extra information that your partner does not have an opening bid, even if you carefully avoid taking any advantage of it.

Are you saying that they might be subconsciously biased towards conservative actions? It can't be deliberate, because that's the opposite of "carefully avoid taking any advantage of it."

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-November-01, 09:36, said:

Are you saying that they might be subconsciously biased towards conservative actions? It can't be deliberate, because that's the opposite of "carefully avoid taking any advantage of it."

It will always be at the back of someone's mind that their partner is a passed hand. I don't think they will perpetrate the horror of 1C-Pass-1S-All Pass, but the average player might well not make a move towards slam when one is justified. Conversely, the ethical player who knows the laws will make a move towards slam when it is not justified. And it will be pretty tough for the average TD to find anything amiss. That is why I don't think you can allow a one-level response instead of a pass.

[fromageGB]

Surely this discussion on possible advantages/bias is relevant only when considering a change in law. As it is the law seems quite definitive : a bid is not a subset of pass, therefore not allowed under the law.

Maybe the law should be changed to allow anything that is not inconsistent with pass, ie overlapping, as it would make for better bridge, but that is a different matter. Please excuse this post from someone not qualified in the matter, but it seems to me that until a law is changed, the law should be upheld.

[lamford]

fromageGB, on 2018-November-02, 05:29, said:

Surely this discussion on possible advantages/bias is relevant only when considering a change in law. As it is the law seems quite definitive : a bid is not a subset of pass, therefore not allowed under the law.

Maybe the law should be changed to allow anything that is not inconsistent with pass, ie overlapping, as it would make for better bridge, but that is a different matter. Please excuse this post from someone not qualified in the matter, but it seems to me that until a law is changed, the law should be upheld.

I think you might be right if considering set theory in mathematics, but that is not how the law is interpreted. If you open 1S out of turn, and then respond 1S to 1C, partner now knows that you also have an opening bid, so this is not allowed. However, if you respond 1NT to 1C, having passed out of turn, then the set of hands which would respond 1NT are all hands that would pass as dealer, so they are a subset. I don't know how the EBU interpret a 1NT response to 1S having passed, however. Now the opener has additional information that partner does not have a weak two in hearts or a weak two in diamonds (if played). I think this should be disallowed as well, but the liberal approach might permit it. EBU please?

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2018-November-02, 06:03, said:

I think you might be right if considering set theory in mathematics, but that is not how the law is interpreted. If you open 1S out of turn, and then respond 1S to 1C, partner now knows that you also have an opening bid, so this is not allowed. However, if you respond 1NT to 1C, having passed out of turn, then the set of hands which would respond 1NT are all hands that would pass as dealer, so they are a subset. I don't know how the EBU interpret a 1NT response to 1S having passed, however. Now the opener has additional information that partner does not have a weak two in hearts or a weak two in diamonds (if played). I think this should be disallowed as well, but the liberal approach might permit it. EBU please?

Also depends on the strength of your 2/1s and weak 2s, some hands that would be opened a weak 2 would give a 2/1 in some forms of Acol, so you'd only be ruling out lower end weak 2s.

I'd be inclined to allow a 1N response to 1m without thinking too hard (yes you might have a 3♣ opener opposite 1♦ but I think that's OK).
1N opposite 1M is close.
1suit to 1suit I think should be disallowed after a pass or opener OOT.

The next question is:

If I hold xxxx in a major opposite 1m, can I use the knowledge that responding in it will silence partner to bid a dodgy 1N that won't, and is partner entitled to the knowledge that I might do that ?

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-November-02, 06:30, said:

If I hold xxxx in a major opposite 1m, can I use the knowledge that responding in it will silence partner to bid a dodgy 1N that won't, and is partner entitled to the knowledge that I might do that ?

Or even a five-card major and 6-9. I think you can do what you want, but the TD will be wielding his 23C stick if it works! Your original Pass is UI, as is the fact that you will choose a comparable call that will not silence partner.

[weejonnie]

I do not think that a bid at the one level is comparable to a pass. (Unless there is a partnership agreement that says all responses at the 1 level deny 12 points).

the law (30) says

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

(b) Offender may make any legal call at his correct turn and:
(i) When the call is a comparable call (see Law 23A), there is no further rectification.
Law 26B does not apply, but see Law 23C.
(ii) When the call is not a comparable call (see Law 23A), offender’s partner must pass
when next it is his turn to call. Laws 16C, 26B and 72C may apply."

So:

a) partner cannot make a call that could enable the offender to make a comparable call if there is a logical alternative.
b) If you correct with a non-comparable call then 23C obviously does not apply and the rectification in b(ii) does. The only time an adjusted score would be imposed would be if 72C applies. (i.e. could have known it would damage the NOS)
c) IMHO Be careful with law 23C. In most cases the 'working' is not with the assistance of the comparable call but despite it. The person who made the original pass is being forced to make a call that is not as descriptive of his hand as he would have wanted. e.g. he cannot show his 4 or 5CM. (He is allowed to know the rectifications that will occur if does/ does not make a comparable call of course). The fact that you end up in an inferior contract that works, for example, is not with the assistance of the call out of turn. Note also that if partner guesses what your hand is then there is probably going to be no adjustment anyway - since if you had not made the infraction you would have shown that hand "and the outcome of the board" would most likely not have been different.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-November-05, 04:38, said:

I do not think that a bid at the one level is comparable to a pass. (Unless there is a partnership agreement that says all responses at the 1 level deny 12 points).

I agree. However, some beginners jump whenever they have an opening bid in response to an opening bid. I guess they can use their poor methods and respond at the one level! An EBU referee, with whom I discussed this at the weekend, thought that a 1NT response to 1M would be permitted even though that does exclude some hands such as weak twos which would open the bidding, and the "liberal" approach was intended to get the normal result as much as possible. The TD will always adjust if a player benefits from the POOT.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-November-05, 06:34, said:

I agree. However, some beginners jump whenever they have an opening bid in response to an opening bid.

Even with only a 4-card suit? I haven't played that old fashioned method in decades, but I'm pretty sure it requires a 5+ suit.

[pran]

barmar, on 2018-November-05, 09:11, said:

Even with only a 4-card suit? I haven't played that old fashioned method in decades, but I'm pretty sure it requires a 5+ suit.

Who feels competent to tell someone else that they may not have such an agreement with a 4+ suit?

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2018-November-05, 04:38, said:

a) partner cannot make a call that could enable the offender to make a comparable call if there is a logical alternative.

I suppose I should go back through the thread to see where we established that the legal requirements of the law are UI, but right now I'm too tired. Did we establish that?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2018-November-05, 17:07, said:

I suppose I should go back through the thread to see where we established that the legal requirements of the law are UI, but right now I'm too tired. Did we establish that?

Generally, after an infraction, you can make the best of a bad job, but the withdrawn call is UI to the person opening the bidding, so he must, I believe, make his normal opening bid.

[barmar]

pran, on 2018-November-05, 09:38, said:

Who feels competent to tell someone else that they may not have such an agreement with a 4+ suit?

I'm not saying that they can't, just that I don't think most do. It doesn't leave as much bidding space to clarify the nature of your hand.