[lamford]

---

The Rabbit, East, had been trying out his new toy of opening 2NT to show both minors 7-11 and did so on the above hand at a North London Club last night, but ChCh, South, quickly pointed out that RR was not dealer. The TD came and gave South the chance to accept it, which he declined, and ChCh opened a 15-17 NT and North raised to 3NT. "Before you lead, SB", Oscar the Owl chipped in, "South can require the lead of any one suit not specified in the legal auction OR prohibit the lead of any one suit not specified in the legal auction."

"That is fine. I think I will require a spade lead, please," ChCh smirked. "He who laughs last laughs longest," replied SB, "and I think Oscar's sobriquet of "Owl" is misplaced on this occasion." "Ostrich might be more appropriate. Did not everyone read the ridiculous memo from the WBFLC which arrived yesterday, indicating that 26B1 had been deleted and this was with immediate effect?" "The declarer can only prohibit the lead of one suit now, he cannot require a specific lead."

The Owl warned SB that his abrasive manner was close to getting a DP but was forced to agree that the Chimp could now only prevent the lead of one suit. Not unnaturally he elected to prohibit a club lead but SB selected the lead of the nine of diamonds and declarer could no longer succeed; RR ducked the first round of hearts ridiculously but this did not help the Chimp. Every other declarer had made 10 tricks on a spade lead, so this was a complete bottom for NS. The Chimp was not that happy. "Did not SB take advantage of the opening 2NT which was withdrawn which was UI?", he asked.

"Can I answer for the hapless Owl, please," responded SB. "Subject to Law 16C2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 72C). Law 27 only concerns itself with insufficient bids - so an adjustment would have been appropriate if RR had bid 2NT over 3NT instead of his BOOT. There is no question that RR could have been aware of possible damage, so Law 72C does not apply. He was not even aware who was dealer! And the diamond lead was marked with a weak hand and no entry for the spades. In addition, the Chimp required a spade lead which he was not allowed to do, and that is AI to me. Finally the nine of diamonds was far from demonstrably suggested, given that NS are known to have seven diamonds from the UI. And it certainly is not suggested over the club lead which does use the UI"

How do you rule?

[chrism]

I would rule this as a director error; West gained the AI that South wanted a spade lead as a direct consequence of the unfortunate failure to remain up to date with the elusive wrigglings of Law 26.

Treating both sides as non-offending, EW keep their table result of +100 and NS get +630 (if we consider that a spade lead is overwhelmingly likely) or a weighted sum of +630 and -100 if a diamond lead is thought likely enough to be included.

[weejonnie]

The WBF have now published the amended Law 26 http://www.worldbrid...visedLaw26B.pdf

[blackshoe]

Considering that the new laws have not yet gone into effect in my jurisdiction, it not yet being 11:59 PM on 30 September 2017, the consideration about the change to Law 26B1 is not relevant to me. But if it were, if the new laws had been put into effect without this change, and then SB made that comment, I would say "I have not read it, because I have not seen it; they did not send it to me. Therefore, at this time, in this club, it does not exist. The law is as published in this book."

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-20, 16:52, said:

Considering that the new laws have not yet gone into effect in my jurisdiction, it not yet being 11:59 PM on 30 September 2017, the consideration about the change to Law 26B1 is not relevant to me. But if it were, if the new laws had been put into effect without this change, and then SB made that comment, I would say "I have not read it, because I have not seen it; they did not send it to me. Therefore, at this time, in this club, it does not exist. The law is as published in this book."

I don't understand the new law at all. How can prohibiting the suit or suits specified not be an option?

In the 2007 Laws you could only prohibit one suit and that was wrong. The "original" change is at least better than this.

[blackshoe]

Not really sure how this change came about. I do know it was done by the WBF's Management Committee. Don't how many, if any, members of that committee are also on the LC.

[barmar]

The 2007 Law allowed declarer to prohibit any one suit, nothing about requiring a suit. The 2017 Law changes it to allow prohibiting any one suit that wasn't mentioned in the auction. It originally also allowed him to require the lead of a non-mentioned suit, but this revision removes that. So the change from 2007 is just that the suit being prohibited must be one that wasn't mentioned during the auction.

I think the idea is that if the call is withdrawn, and the offender never makes a similar bid, you would be able to prohibit that suit (since it wasn't mentioned in the legal auction). But if the offender does bid that suit later, his partner has learned about the suit from AI, and it would be too onerous to prevent him from leading it.

And if the NOS is damaged, and the TD judges that the offender could have known that bidding out of turn could have worked to their benefit, he has still adjust the score.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-June-21, 09:16, said:

And if the NOS is damaged, and the TD judges that the offender could have known that bidding out of turn could have worked to their benefit, he has still adjust the score.

And I thought you always had the opinion that RR could not have known anything... Far better to have the rule watertight so that a BOOT cannot gain. There is already such a rule for an IB!

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-20, 16:52, said:

Considering that the new laws have not yet gone into effect in my jurisdiction, it not yet being 11:59 PM on 30 September 2017, the consideration about the change to Law 26B1 is not relevant to me. But if it were, if the new laws had been put into effect without this change, and then SB made that comment, I would say "I have not read it, because I have not seen it; they did not send it to me. Therefore, at this time, in this club, it does not exist. The law is as published in this book."

SB thought of that and posted the change on the club noticeboard as well as emailing all the club's directors. The North London club decided to adopt the new laws on 1st June and therefore the correction was part of those.

The new law should read: <snip> prohibit offender’s partner from leading any (one) suit which has not been specified in the legal auction by the offender or all suits that have been specified by a withdrawn call and not specified in the legal auction. Such prohibition continues for as long as the offender’s partner retains the lead.

Maybe there will be yet another correction. More U-turns than Theresa May.

[blackshoe]

What, exactly, is SB's position in this club? What gives him any authority at all over what the laws say or what regulations shall be in force, or what directors should do?

A while back, I posted a notice at a couple of the clubs here about the upcoming "World Taiji Day" celebration. I did not expect that anyone would view my posting as indicating mandatory attendance.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-21, 13:52, said:

What, exactly, is SB's position in this club? What gives him any authority at all over what the laws say or what regulations shall be in force, or what directors should do?

A while back, I posted a notice at a couple of the clubs here about the upcoming "World Taiji Day" celebration. I did not expect that anyone would view my posting as indicating mandatory attendance.

Emeritus Professor of Bio-Law of course ...

[lamford]

Adam Wildawsky confirms that there will be no further change to this law until 2027:

"Correct. It's on my list for 2027. I'm surprised no one suggested it this time 'round. If they did then I missed it. We did receive hundreds of other suggestions!"

If there is a withdrawn two-suited or three-suited call then the declarer can disallow only one of the two or three suits (unless that suit is specified in the legal auction). However, the withdrawn call is UI and the defender may not select one of the other suits if it is demonstrably suggested by the UI over other LAs. In this example, the nine of diamonds was not demonstrably suggested over a spade and is therefore just a lucky shot.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2017-June-26, 03:51, said:

Adam Wildawsky confirms that there will be no further change to this law until 2027:

"Correct. It's on my list for 2027. I'm surprised no one suggested it this time 'round. If they did then I missed it. We did receive hundreds of other suggestions!"

Is a pity the drafting committee did not read the laws themselves before making revisions.

[blackshoe]

Is Adam saying that there will be no further changes to Law 26B1 after this change posted by the WBF Management Committee? Or is he saying this change is not going to happen?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-26, 07:58, said:

Is Adam saying that there will be no further changes to Law 26B1 after this change posted by the WBF Management Committee? Or is he saying this change is not going to happen?

Interesting question.
But we have AFAIK been formally notified that there simply will not be any Law 26B1.

Law 26B now reads:
When an offending player’s call is withdrawn and it is not replaced by a comparable call, then if he becomes a defender declarer may, at the offender’s partner’s first turn to lead (which may be the opening lead) prohibit offender’s partner from leading any (one) suit which has not been specified in the legal auction by the offender. Such prohibition continues for as long as the offender’s partner retains the lead.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-26, 07:58, said:

Is Adam saying that there will be no further changes to Law 26B1 after this change posted by the WBF Management Committee? Or is he saying this change is not going to happen?

This change to Law 26 has already been made. He's saying there will be no more changes to Law 26.

[blackshoe]

Barry: Okay.
Sven: That's too pedantic even for me.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-26, 09:25, said:

Barry: Okay.
Sven: That's too pedantic even for me.

Knew we'd find your limit eventually.