[lamford]

---

This was my first spell as a TD under the new Laws at a North London club last night. Fortunately SB was on holiday, but this was one of the more interesting director calls. North had opened 1S out of turn and I was called. The bid had just cleared the bidding box (on the balance of probabilities) although North thought it had not quite but East and West thought it had. East did not accept the bid and the auction reverted to South, and, as I recalled but checked in the new Law Book, she could bid anything she liked but could not use the UI of the 1S bid. She elected to bid 3C, which, looking at the hands afterwards, seemed reasonable. West doubled and East bid 3D which made for a good score (17/22 I find from the website). There were some interesting questions raised however. South clearly has a choice between Pass and 3C. It is not obvious which uses the UI that partner has an opening bid with spades. I thought Pass might be disallowed, although South could easily argue that she needed seven clubs to pre-empt. The new law seems tough to implement and I must confess to being lucky that there was no real decision here. What do readers think?

[barmar]

Since EW got a good score, what does it matter, since they weren't damaged?

Unless you have a weak 2♣ available, doesn't 3♣ normally include hands with only 6 clubs? Many wouldn't do it when vulnerable, but at favorable vulnerability 3♣ seems normal with the South hand. But knowing that partner has an opening hand certainly makes it safer. But does being safer mean it's "demonstrably suggested over another LA"?

In particular, while the UI makes the 3 level safer, it also makes it more likely that NS have a spade fit (Jx would be fine support if North has 6+), so clubs might not be the best suit. So Pass could be suggested by the UI.

[RMB1]

The original ruling does not include the effects of North not making a comparable call at his turn to call.
South is silenced for one round and there are lead penalties.

A poll could tell us if both Pass and 3♣ are logical alternatives.
I think Pass is suggested over 3♣ because Pass makes it more likely that North will be able to make a comparable call and allow NS to bid/play the hand normally.

[barmar]

RMB1, on 2017-August-23, 13:40, said:

The original ruling does not include the effects of North not making a comparable call at his turn to call.
South is silenced for one round and there are lead penalties.

A poll could tell us if both Pass and 3♣ are logical alternatives.
I think Pass is suggested over 3♣ because Pass makes it more likely that North will be able to make a comparable call and allow NS to bid/play the hand normally.

Hmm, I never considered that the decision of what action is suggested by the UI must include the knowledge that North would try to make a comparable call if possible.

So the big difference between using comparable calls with IB and BOOT is that partner may have to take action before the offender's rectification in the latter case.

[BudH]

On opening lead, East could choose to prevent the lead of any one suit. North never legally bid spades.

[pran]

RMB1, on 2017-August-23, 13:40, said:

The original ruling does not include the effects of North not making a comparable call at his turn to call.
South is silenced for one round and there are lead penalties.
[...]

Wrong!
Law 31B1 (not 31A !) applies and says:
Offender’s partner may make any legal call at his proper turn, but Law 16C2 applies.

[weejonnie]

pran, on 2017-August-23, 23:32, said:

Wrong!
Law 31B1 (not 31A !) applies and says:
Offender’s partner may make any legal call at his proper turn, but Law 16C2 applies.

So you apply law 31B1 - and offender's partner may make any legal call at his proper turn i.e. BEFORE the offender has to decide what to call.

Then the offender makes any legal call (31B2) - but Law 31 A2 applies - which may restrict partner's NEXT bid

[RMB1]

pran, on 2017-August-23, 23:32, said:

Wrong!
Law 31B1 (not 31A !) applies and says:
Offender’s partner may make any legal call at his proper turn, but Law 16C2 applies.

I was clearly talking about silencing South at South's second turn after North had failed to make a comparable call (at North's first turn to call).

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2017-August-23, 13:27, said:

Since EW got a good score, what does it matter, since they weren't damaged?

Unless you have a weak 2♣ available, doesn't 3♣ normally include hands with only 6 clubs? Many wouldn't do it when vulnerable, but at favorable vulnerability 3♣ seems normal with the South hand. But knowing that partner has an opening hand certainly makes it safer. But does being safer mean it's "demonstrably suggested over another LA"?

In particular, while the UI makes the 3 level safer, it also makes it more likely that NS have a spade fit (Jx would be fine support if North has 6+), so clubs might not be the best suit. So Pass could be suggested by the UI.

I disagree that knowing partner has an opening bid makes it safer, if I knew partner had <10 and no long other suit I would be much happier, a minimum opening bid with 5+ spades makes it more likely I'm going for 300 against nothing.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2017-August-23, 13:40, said:

The original ruling does not include the effects of North not making a comparable call at his turn to call.
South is silenced for one round and there are lead penalties.

A poll could tell us if both Pass and 3♣ are logical alternatives.
I think Pass is suggested over 3♣ because Pass makes it more likely that North will be able to make a comparable call and allow NS to bid/play the hand normally.

I did tell South she could not bid at her second turn, although she was obviously going to pass. I did omit to offer East an option to prohibit the opening lead of one suit but the director error appears to have had no effect fortunately. All roads lead to nine tricks.

[pran]

RMB1, on 2017-August-24, 05:22, said:

I was clearly talking about silencing South at South's second turn after North had failed to make a comparable call (at North's first turn to call).

There is an explicit reference to Law 26B in Law 31A2b, but no such reference in Law 31B.

Law 31B1 explicitly allows the offender's partner to make any legal call without any restriction related to whether or not the offender at that time has called in his turn. However this law explicitly refers to Law 16C2 which then obviously applies to all subsequent calls by offender's partner.

I see no foundation for silencing South at his second turn to call in the case we discuss.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-August-24, 05:29, said:

I disagree that knowing partner has an opening bid makes it safer, if I knew partner had <10 and no long other suit I would be much happier, a minimum opening bid with 5+ spades makes it more likely I'm going for 300 against nothing.

While I agree with "against nothing", it's less likely that you're going for 300, because partner has values that should protect you. It's the same logic that makes WJS relatively safe -- you'll often do this with a hand that you wouldn't have preempted with otherwise (I personally don't care for WJS, but I'll play it if partner wants).

[lamford]

pran, on 2017-August-24, 09:00, said:

There is an explicit reference to Law 26B in Law 31A2b, but no such reference in Law 31B.

Law 31B1 explicitly allows the offender's partner to make any legal call without any restriction related to whether or not the offender at that time has called in his turn. However this law explicitly refers to Law 16C2 which then obviously applies to all subsequent calls by offender's partner.

I see no foundation for silencing South at his second turn to call in the case we discuss.

I think RMB1 is right when the offender does not make a comparable call. In this case if North had bid 3S, South could probably have bid, but after North passes, South is silenced for the next turn.

"2. Offender may make any legal call at his correct turn and the Director rules as in A2(a) or A2(b) above."

"A2 (b) 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."

If North-South had an agreement that Pass after 3C-(Dble) showed a 1S opening bid, then it would be a comparable call, but that is improbable in the extreme.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2017-August-23, 13:40, said:

I think Pass is suggested over 3♣ because Pass makes it more likely that North will be able to make a comparable call and allow NS to bid/play the hand normally.

I don't think opening 3C will prevent the hand being bid or played normally. South will not normally bid again. The UI is that North has an opening bid with five spades. I don't think LAs should be based on whether they allow North to make a comparable call. I think that you first choose between Pass and 3C without the UI, perhaps deciding both are LAs. Then you decide which of those uses the UI that partner has five spades and an opening bid. If you open 3C, partner can bid 3S if he chooses to do so, and that would show an opening bid with spades, with extra values, so a subset of the 1S bids and would be a comparable call anyway. If you pass, partner can overcall or bid spades, again a comparable call or close to one. So neither is demonstrably suggested.