bidding after an OPOOT

[Douglas Newlands]

Teams, game all, dealer North.

You are East and hold
1062
K10
AQ
AJ8753

Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director
rules that he must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it)
and the cancelled pass is AI to East.
(EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better minor.)

North then passes himself.
What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other?

doug

[Co Wiersma]

Op 20-1-2013 13:42, Douglas Newlands schreef:

I think I bid 2C

Co Wiersma

[Dave Flower]

On Sunday, 20 January 2013 12:42:02 UTC, Douglas, wrote:
> Teams, game all, dealer North. You are East and hold 1062 K10 AQ AJ8753 Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director rules that he must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it) and the cancelled pass is AI to East. (EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better minor.) North then passes himself. What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other? doug

I think the ruling is wrong: the cancelled pass is UI to East (L16D2).

Given that the Director has ruled it AI, I pass

Dave Flower

[dake50]

I think I bid 2C -- Co Wiersma

*** I like this one.
*** A GF 2C opposite a forced passing partner.
*** Sew some seeds with that one. Do they play
*** their defense to 2C: GF or as if 2C natural?
*** How strong is 2C now?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <ddaf17ad-4c6f-4724...@googlegroups.com>,

Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, 20 January 2013 12:42:02 UTC, Douglas, wrote:
> > Teams, game all, dealer North. You are East and hold 1062 K10 AQ AJ8753
> > Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director rules that he
> > must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it) and the cancelled
> > pass is AI to East. (EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better
> > minor.) North then passes himself. What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other? doug
>
> I think the ruling is wrong: the cancelled pass is UI to East (L16D2).

But the fact that partner is required to pass at his first turn is AI,
right? It's a subtle difference, not surprising that some TDs might
confuse them.

> Given that the Director has ruled it AI, I pass

Are you actually allowed to use UI if the director mistakenly tells you
it's AI? There's a famous quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A: 4 -- calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

The TD presumably wouldn't rule against you, but I think your action
could be overruled on appeal (although I think the director's
instructions would be adequate defense against a procedural penalty).

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[Will in New Haven]

It is _clearly_ and obviously a NF natural bid. It might be Weak-Two
strength. It might be an opening bid.
Your logic is twisted.

--
Will in New Haven

[Dave Flower]

On Sunday, 20 January 2013 15:59:16 UTC, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <ddaf17ad-4c6f-4724...@googlegroups.com>, Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Sunday, 20 January 2013 12:42:02 UTC, Douglas, wrote: > > Teams, game all, dealer North. You are East and hold 1062 K10 AQ AJ8753 > > Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director rules that he > > must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it) and the cancelled > > pass is AI to East. (EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better > > minor.) North then passes himself. What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other? doug > > I think the ruling is wrong: the cancelled pass is UI to East (L16D2). But the fact that partner is required to pass at his first turn is AI, right? It's a subtle difference, not surprising that some TDs might confuse them. > Given that the Director has ruled it AI, I pass Are you actually allowed to use UI if the director mistakenly tells you it's AI? There's a famous quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln: Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? A: 4 -- calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. The TD presumably wouldn't rule against you, but I think your action could be overruled on appeal (although I think the director's instructions would be adequate defense against a procedural penalty). -- Barry Margolin Arlington, MA

Yes, the cancelled pass is UI to East, but the fact that partner's first legal pass is AI; the are not the same pass

Dave Flower

[Co Wiersma]

Op 20-1-2013 17:18, Will in New Haven schreef:

I hope indeed that my partner understands that
And my 2C bid do take some bidding room from opponents
They may even let me play 2C where they very likely will overcall on 1C

Co Wiersma

[Travis Crump]

But the rules of bridge are AI, right?
And our own actions are AI, right?

The only action that can cause partner to be forced to pass when we know
we've done nothing wrong is an opening pass out of turn. So if it is AI
that partner is forced to pass, than it must follow that partner has
passed out of turn. Or are we not authorized to make simple logical
deductions either?

[Patrick Powers]

On Jan 20, 8:42 pm, Douglas Newlands <douglas.newla...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Vulnerable I bid 2C, non it is 3C. That will cause them problems and
partner might be able to raise clubs.

[Charles Brenner]

On Jan 20, 4:42 am, Douglas Newlands <douglas.newla...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I'll settle for 1C and maybe partner will get the chance to re-enter
the auction. Overall I hope that leaves us with a merely moderately
minus expectation.

3NT would be easy at matchpoints; it's an underdog facing an opening
pass, but still maybe the single most likely winning action. But vul
at IMPs 3NT seems like taking a dive.

Charles

[Charles Brenner]

Brilliant.

[Dave Flower]

On Monday, 21 January 2013 03:08:06 UTC, Travis Crump wrote:
> On 01/20/2013 11:26 AM, Dave Flower wrote: > On Sunday, 20 January 2013 15:59:16 UTC, Barry Margolin wrote: >> In article <ddaf17ad-4c6f-4724...@googlegroups.com>, Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Sunday, 20 January 2013 12:42:02 UTC, Douglas, wrote: > > Teams, game all, dealer North. You are East and hold 1062 K10 AQ AJ8753 > > Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director rules that he > > must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it) and the cancelled > > pass is AI to East. (EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better > > minor.) North then passes himself. What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other? doug > > I think the ruling is wrong: the cancelled pass is UI to East (L16D2). But the fact that partner is required to pass at his first turn is AI, right? It's a subtle difference, not surprising that some TDs might confuse them. > Given that the Director has ruled it AI, I pass Are you actually allowed to use UI if the director mistakenly tells you it's AI? There's a famous quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln: Q: If you call a tail a le g, how many legs does a dog have? A: 4 -- calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. The TD presumably wouldn't rule against you, but I think your action could be overruled on appeal (although I think the director's instructions would be adequate defense against a procedural penalty). -- Barry Margolin Arlington, MA > > Yes, the cancelled pass is UI to East, but the fact that partner's first legal pass is AI; the are not the same pass > > Dave Flower But the rules of bridge are AI, right? And our own actions are AI, right? The only action that can cause partner to be forced to pass when we know we've done nothing wrong is an opening pass out of turn. So if it is AI that partner is forced to pass, than it must follow that partner has passed out of turn. Or are we not authorized to make simple logical deductions either?

L16D2 is perfectly clear:

For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action . . . is unauthorised. A player of an offending side may not chose fromm among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have bee suggested over another by the unauthorised action.

Just because a player can deduce that partner passed out of turn does not make it authorised information.

Dave Flower

[Lorne]

The logic may be twisted but it will cause problems for many oppononents
who are unable to think clearly in these unusual situations.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<ec8f21e9-f189-4e6c...@l13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Charles Brenner <challam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 20, 4:42�am, Douglas Newlands <douglas.newla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Teams, game all, dealer North.
> >
> > You are East and hold
> > 1062
> > K10
> > AQ
> > AJ8753
> >
> > Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director
> > rules that he must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it)
> > and the cancelled pass is AI to East.
> > (EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better minor.)
> >
> > North then passes himself.
> > What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other?
> >
> > doug
>
> I'll settle for 1C and maybe partner will get the chance to re-enter
> the auction.

Smart players know not to overcall or balance in an auction when one of
the opponents is forced to pass. You want the other opponent to have to
guess at the right contract, so you shouldn't give the barred player a
chance to come back in.

And as the unbarred player, you have to assume that the opponents will
do this, so you can't make a bid that depends on partner getting a
chance to re-enter.

[Adam Beneschan]

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 6:49:12 AM UTC-8, Dave Flower wrote:
> On Sunday, 20 January 2013 12:42:02 UTC, Douglas, wrote:
>
> > Teams, game all, dealer North. You are East and hold 1062 K10 AQ AJ8753 Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director rules that he must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it) and the cancelled pass is AI to East. (EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better minor.) North then passes himself. What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other? doug
>
> I think the ruling is wrong: the cancelled pass is UI to East (L16D2).

Unless Doug is posting a hand that took place before 1987. I think the pass was AI according to the older Laws.

-- Adam

[Douglas Newlands]

Both this hand and the other one I posted a couple of days ago
(about another ruling) are from last week in a national seniors
event in Canberra.
The actual hand was

Q75
AQ94
8653
64

AK983 1062
65 K10
1042 AQ
Q102 AJ8753
J4
J8732
KJ97
K9

I chose to bid 3C on the basis that partner had passed and we were
unlikely to have game and I wanted to hamper their bidding in case
they did.
I duly played there but, when dummy tracked, it was clear that 4S
might make on a good day and partner might have had a slightly better
hand.
Maybe 1C would be better since the auction might get to a stage where
partner can bid. However, anytime partner is good enough that we might
make game, the oppo will never bid over 1C so it seems moot.

I specifically asked the director about the AI/UI aspect of his
ruling and he was sure that it was AI because West was paying the
price of having to pass for 1 round!

doug

[Adam Beneschan]

On Monday, January 21, 2013 2:02:27 PM UTC-8, Douglas, wrote:

> I specifically asked the director about the AI/UI aspect of his
> ruling and he was sure that it was AI because West was paying the
> price of having to pass for 1 round!

That was indeed the old thinking, pre-1987, and I think it was due to Kaplan's influence if I recall correctly.

-- Adam

[Travis Crump]

I don't buy it. There are plenty of situations where you have the same
information from both unauthorized and authorized sources and I've never
seen it suggested that you can't use the AI just because you have the
same information from UI. The second sentence just seems a boilerplate
description of how to deal with UI so I see no reason to read anything
special into it.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <kdkmdc$ls8$1...@dont-email.me>,

Travis Crump <pret...@techhouse.org> wrote:

> I don't buy it. There are plenty of situations where you have the same
> information from both unauthorized and authorized sources and I've never
> seen it suggested that you can't use the AI just because you have the
> same information from UI. The second sentence just seems a boilerplate
> description of how to deal with UI so I see no reason to read anything
> special into it.

How about some common sense. What's the point of explicitly saying "X
is UI, but Y is AI", if Y implies X and you're allowed to use this
derivation?

I believe the intent of making partner's enforced pass be AI is so that
a player isn't forced to make bids that will put him in a ridiculous
contract. In particular, this allows him not to make artificial
openings like strong 1C or 2C.

[Travis Crump]

The vast majority of withdrawn calls cannot be inferred from their
penalty so Y does not always imply X. Just in this very special case.

[Charles Brenner]

On Jan 21, 7:25 am, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <ec8f21e9-f189-4e6c-94c4-75ac480ae...@l13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

>  Charles Brenner <challambren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 20, 4:42 am, Douglas Newlands <douglas.newla...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Teams, game all, dealer North.
>
> > > You are East and hold
> > > 1062
> > > K10
> > > AQ
> > > AJ8753
>
> > > Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director
> > > rules that he must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it)
> > > and the cancelled pass is AI to East.
> > > (EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better minor.)
>
> > > North then passes himself.
> > > What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other?
>
> > > doug
>
> > I'll settle for 1C and maybe partner will get the chance to re-enter
> > the auction.
>
> Smart players know not to overcall or balance in an auction when one of
> the opponents is forced to pass.

Smart players know that so simplistic a strategy isn't adequate. In
this case, LHO may well have a strong hand and if so it would be very
generous of LHO to pass; I would love that. Even if 1C is passed
around to RHO it may be that RHO should tighten up compared to normal
balancing requirements, but I don't see it as a sensible or winning
strategy for RHO to pass automatically.

Charles

[bhmwe...@gmail.com]

Den tisdagen den 22:e januari 2013 kl. 01:38:10 UTC+1 skrev Barry Margolin:
> In article <kdkmdc$ls8$1...@dont-email.me>,
>
> Travis Crump <pret...@techhouse.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't buy it. There are plenty of situations where you have the same
>
> > information from both unauthorized and authorized sources and I've never
>
> > seen it suggested that you can't use the AI just because you have the
>
> > same information from UI. The second sentence just seems a boilerplate
>
> > description of how to deal with UI so I see no reason to read anything
>
> > special into it.
>
>
>
> How about some common sense. What's the point of explicitly saying "X
>
> is UI, but Y is AI", if Y implies X and you're allowed to use this
>
> derivation?
>
>
>
> I believe the intent of making partner's enforced pass be AI is so that
>
> a player isn't forced to make bids that will put him in a ridiculous
>
> contract.

That partner is forced to pass MUST be AI.

Let's say you are about to use blackwood, when something irregular happen so that your partner is forced to pass. It would be extremly harsh if you were forced to bid 4 NT Blackwood on which your partner had to pass.

I think Garozzo once had a strong club opening, when his not too good partner opende 1 strong club out of turn. Garozzo was barred from bidding and his partner was allowed to bid anything. However, she was not very good at English, so Garozzo interpreted "I have to pass on whatever you bid, so if you open for instance with 6 NT I must pass. Whatever you bid I must pass, even if you open with 6 NT. Understood?" She replied "Understood" And she opened 1 strong club.

[Dave Flower]

On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 00:27:22 UTC, Travis Crump wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 04:17 AM, Dave Flower wrote: > On Monday, 21 January 2013 03:08:06 UTC, Travis Crump wrote: >> On 01/20/2013 11:26 AM, Dave Flower wrote: > On Sunday, 20 January 2013 15:59:16 UTC, Barry Margolin wrote: >> In article <ddaf17ad-4c6f-4724...@googlegroups.com>, Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Sunday, 20 January 2013 12:42:02 UTC, Douglas, wrote: > > Teams, game all, dealer North. You are East and hold 1062 K10 AQ AJ8753 > > Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director rules that he > > must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it) and the cancelled > > pass is AI to East. (EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better > > minor.) North then passes himself. What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other? doug > > I think the ruling is wrong: the cancelled pass is UI to East (L16D2). But the fact that partner is required to pass at his first turn is AI, right? It's a subtle difference, not surprising that some TDs might confuse them. > Given that the Director has ruled it AI, I pass Are you actually allowed to use UI if the director mistakenly tells you it's AI? There's a famous quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln: Q: If you call a tail a le g, how many legs does a dog have? A: 4 -- calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. The TD presumably wouldn't rule against you, but I think your action could be overruled on appeal (although I think the director's instructions would be adequate defense against a procedural penalty). -- Barry Margolin Arlington, MA > > Yes, the cancelled pass is UI to East, but the fact that partner's first legal pass is AI; the are not the same pass > > Dave Flower But the rules of bridge are AI, right? And our own actions are AI, right? The only action that can cause partner to be forced to pass when we know we've done nothing wrong is an opening pass out of turn. So if it is AI that partner is forced to pass, than it must follow that partner has passed out of turn. Or are we not authorized to make simple logical deductions either? > > L16D2 is perfectly clear: > > For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action . . . is unauthorised. A player of an offending side may not chose fromm among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have bee suggested over another by the unauthorised action. > > Just because a player can deduce that partner passed out of turn does not make it authorised information. > > Dave Flower I don't buy it. There are plenty of situations where you have the same information from both unauthorized and authorized sources and I've never seen it suggested that you can't use the AI just because you have the same information from UI. The second sentence just seems a boilerplate description of how to deal with UI so I see no reason to read anything special into it.

L16D2 does not say that partner's withdrawn call is unauthorised information; it refers to 'information arising' therefrom. You cannot deduce that from authorised sources.

Dave Flower

[Paul Hightower]

"Douglas Newlands" <douglas....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kdgomr$afo$1...@douglasnewlands.eternal-september.org...

Two clubs seems about right, getting us to what is likely our proper level
and depriving them of some bidding room.

Side digression -- can't we come up with a better way to handle bids out of
turn? Forcing a player into a blind guess does not seem like bridge. In the
case of an opening pass, I would think that treating it as UI would be
adequate, with an adjusted score if the partnership appears to take an
unusual action.

Second digression -- when should you acceapt or reject an opening pass out
of turn? If you have an opening bid, it would seem like good tactics to
accept the pass. If you do not, should you acceept or reject with medium or
weak hands?

[David Stevenson]

Barry Margolin wrote

>In article <ddaf17ad-4c6f-4724...@googlegroups.com>,
> Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, 20 January 2013 12:42:02 UTC, Douglas, wrote:
>> > Teams, game all, dealer North. You are East and hold 1062 K10 AQ AJ8753
>> > Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director rules that he
>> > must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it) and the cancelled
>> > pass is AI to East. (EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better
>> > minor.) North then passes himself. What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other? doug
>>
>> I think the ruling is wrong: the cancelled pass is UI to East (L16D2).
>
>But the fact that partner is required to pass at his first turn is AI,
>right? It's a subtle difference, not surprising that some TDs might
>confuse them.

It i snot subtle: it is blindingly obvious that rulings are AI. If a
TD might confuse then, why does he not read it form the book? Because
he is too lazy, of course.

>> Given that the Director has ruled it AI, I pass
>
>Are you actually allowed to use UI if the director mistakenly tells you
>it's AI? There's a famous quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln:
>
>Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
>A: 4 -- calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

Exactly: no, you are not, which is why my answer to the first question
was 3NT.

>The TD presumably wouldn't rule against you, but I think your action
>could be overruled on appeal (although I think the director's
>instructions would be adequate defense against a procedural penalty).

L82C: the AC might decide on a split ruling.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@gmail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[David Stevenson]

Douglas Newlands wrote

>Teams, game all, dealer North.
>
>You are East and hold
>1062
>K10
>AQ
>AJ8753
>
>Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director
>rules that he must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it)
>and the cancelled pass is AI to East.
>(EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better minor.)
>
>North then passes himself.
>What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other?

3NT. I always like to make ethical bids: bidding 1C or 3C could
easily be understood as allowing for the fact that partner does not have
an opening bid.

[Will in New Haven]

On Jan 22, 9:14 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> Douglas Newlands wrote
>
> >Teams, game all, dealer North.
>
> >You are East and hold
> >1062
> >K10
> >AQ
> >AJ8753
>
> >Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director
> >rules that he must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it)
> >and the cancelled pass is AI to East.
> >(EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better minor.)
>
> >North then passes himself.
> >What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other?
>
>    3NT.  I always like to make ethical bids: bidding 1C or 3C could
> easily be understood as allowing for the fact that partner does not have
> an opening bid.

Could easily be understood, perhaps, but I don't know that it would be
correct to understand it that way. We are allowed to know that partner
is barred, right? But we don't know why. I know it is IMP but what are
my chances of game with this hand opposite an unknown hand? I think
3NT is reasonable but deciding that there probably is no game is also
reasonable. Partner could have an opening hand with no game possible
or game going down on bad luck.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <IyQ9JvDo+p$QF...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,

David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Barry Margolin wrote
> >In article <ddaf17ad-4c6f-4724...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sunday, 20 January 2013 12:42:02 UTC, Douglas, wrote:
> >> > Teams, game all, dealer North. You are East and hold 1062 K10 AQ AJ8753
> >> > Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director rules that he
> >> > must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it) and the cancelled
> >> > pass is AI to East. (EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better
> >> > minor.) North then passes himself. What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other?
> >> > doug
> >>
> >> I think the ruling is wrong: the cancelled pass is UI to East (L16D2).
> >
> >But the fact that partner is required to pass at his first turn is AI,
> >right? It's a subtle difference, not surprising that some TDs might
> >confuse them.
>
> It i snot subtle: it is blindingly obvious that rulings are AI. If a
> TD might confuse then, why does he not read it form the book? Because
> he is too lazy, of course.

There's no mention of this in the law about OPOOT, there isn't even a
link to law 16 in laws 29 or 30. You have to do a bit of hunting aroung
to make this connection.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <kdm6ig$2fg$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Paul Hightower" <paul...@net.invalid> wrote:

> Side digression -- can't we come up with a better way to handle bids out of
> turn? Forcing a player into a blind guess does not seem like bridge. In the
> case of an opening pass, I would think that treating it as UI would be
> adequate, with an adjusted score if the partnership appears to take an
> unusual action.

I have a feeling that the lawgivers may have thought they were being
less severe, by only forcing a pass at the player's first call, rather
than barring him for the entire auction as in some other cases. But
they didn't take into account the opponents' strategy of not overcalling
or balancing in such auctions, so the player is effectively barred, and
his partner IS forced to make that blind guess.

Counter to that is that the lawgivers are all expert bridge players,
they certainly know about this strategy. Could they really have ignored
it when making the law?

> Second digression -- when should you acceapt or reject an opening pass out
> of turn? If you have an opening bid, it would seem like good tactics to
> accept the pass. If you do not, should you acceept or reject with medium or
> weak hands?

If you expect to open and bid constructively, it's probably better to
accept, since your bids will be more well defined. The point of
rejecting is to force LHO to guess, so you're not planning on reopening.

[axm...@hotmail.com]

The scales of justice are best balanced when the number of designated
turns balance. Here, acting OOT has the potential of upsetting the
scales irretrievably that drastic measures are called for.

Say B COOT. Now his partner has information [a] at a time he is not
supposed to, [b] it may well be information that he would never had
the opportunity to have legally and [c] the other side has been
deprived of their turn or turns.

Natural justice first suggests that the other side ought to be
entitled to have their turn[s] or to choose to hoist the offender upon
his own petard by accepting the infraction without penalty.

The point is that the event of recovering lost turns necessitates that
B withdraw his action and natural justice suggests that when his
correct turn arrives he must repeat his original call, having already
taken that turn, so as to not take a second turn that unbalances even
more [see next sentence]. And certainly, it may well be possible that
in the meantime that the auction has proceeded to a point that the
repeated call is not an infraction [no harm no foul]; or that the
repeated call is an infraction [subject to penalty], which certainly
serves B right for his poor fortune telling.

Correspondingly, the remedy ought to preclude the partner of B from
acting [as by enforced pass] on his own accord until after the scales
are righted. Thus the partner must pass at least until B has called at
his proper turn, such that the partner has no information from B other
than what he had at the time B originally COOT.

Using this mechanism, the other side has some chance to play as well
as they might and avoids being unfairly disadvantaged [has an
unobstructed auction] except in the case when B had pre-knowledge of
the hands.

regards
axman

[Douglas Newlands]

On 23/01/13 1:14 AM, David Stevenson wrote:
> Douglas Newlands wrote
>> Teams, game all, dealer North.
>>
>> You are East and hold
>> 1062
>> K10
>> AQ
>> AJ8753
>>
>> Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director
>> rules that he must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it)
>> and the cancelled pass is AI to East.
>> (EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better minor.)
>>
>> North then passes himself.
>> What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other?
>
> 3NT. I always like to make ethical bids: bidding 1C or 3C could
> easily be understood as allowing for the fact that partner does not have
> an opening bid.
>

Why does 3NT attract the epithet "ethical" when other bids do not.

Coarsely speaking, I have 14 points and my expectation for partner
is (40-14)/3 = 8.67 so the partnership expectation in a tickle under 23.
If it were this simple (it's not because it's hard to know how much
worth to assign to the long clubs) then game is definitely less than 50%
although probably not less than 36% if partner is in the range 0 to 11
when the maximum probability count is less than 9.

Given that I can't tell whether 3NT is right or wrong what bid maximises
my imp expectation in this guessing game which partner has got me into?
If I decide that 3C is that bid, why is that not ethical?
Even if 3NT is the correct bid to maximise my imp expectation, is 3C bad
enough (to borrow form another law) to be a sewag?
Isn't 3NT the standard WAG part of sewag rather than being ethical?

doug

[Adam Beneschan]

Partner's withdrawn pass is UI--that much is clear. The Laws say that you may not choose, from among logical alternatives, a call that is suggested by UI. If 1C, 3C, and 3NT are all logical alternatives, then, presumably, the lower bids are suggested by the UI that partner does not have an opening hand.

It does seem harsh that not only is partner barred (for one round), but also your own choices of what to bid opposite a barred partner are restricted by the UI laws. But that's the way I read the Laws as they stand. I wouldn't want to go back to the old way where partner is barred for a round but then you can profit in other ways from the information you weren't supposed to have. Maybe the Laws should be adjusted, but *only* as they pertain to a call made by a player whose partner is forced to pass at his next turn--maybe the UI rules shouldn't apply to that call, and a less strict standard could apply similar to, perhaps, the rule in Law 27C.

However, under the circumstances, perhaps the best solution both practically and ethically is to open 3NT, get doubled, go for 1100, and give partner a severe glare. That will make sure he never violates correct procedure again. Well, maybe.

-- Adam

[Barry Margolin]

In article <kdn825$7n5$1...@douglasnewlands.eternal-september.org>,

Douglas Newlands <douglas....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Isn't 3NT the standard WAG part of sewag rather than being ethical?

SEWAG is only a concern for the non-offending side -- they may lose
their right to rectification if they take a SEWAG action after your
infraction.

The offending side is allowed to be as WAG as they want, so long as the
action isn't the choice demonstrably suggested by the UI.

I suppose a case could be made, though, that the decision to take the
gamble in the first place may have been suggested by the UI.

[David Stevenson]

Will in New Haven wrote

Of course you know the problem: you have UI that he has passed
originally. You do not choose amongst LAs one that is suggested by the
UI. Not bidding game is suggested by the opening pass out of turn,
therefore it is routine to open 3NT.

[David Stevenson]

Douglas Newlands wrote

>On 23/01/13 1:14 AM, David Stevenson wrote:
>> Douglas Newlands wrote
>>> Teams, game all, dealer North.
>>>
>>> You are East and hold
>>> 1062
>>> K10
>>> AQ
>>> AJ8753
>>>
>>> Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director
>>> rules that he must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it)
>>> and the cancelled pass is AI to East.
>>> (EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better minor.)
>>>
>>> North then passes himself.
>>> What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other?
>>
>> 3NT. I always like to make ethical bids: bidding 1C or 3C could
>> easily be understood as allowing for the fact that partner does not have
>> an opening bid.
>>
>
>Why does 3NT attract the epithet "ethical" when other bids do not.

Because you **know** that partner doe snot have an opening bid, and
you *know* that a game bid is thus less likely to be successful.
Unethical players will take advantage and not bid game: ethical players
bid game.

True, ignorant players may not bid game for other reasons. But I
reckon to understand my ethical responsibilities.

[Will in New Haven]

On Jan 24, 6:25 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

After thinking about, I agree. I would not complain if an opponent
chose to bid some number of Clubs but I would feel that I had to bid
3NT if it were me.

--
Will in New Haven

"If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an
infant's life, she will
choose to save the infant's life without even considering if there is
a man on base." --Dave Barry

[Dave Flower]

On Thursday, 24 January 2013 23:48:57 UTC, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On Jan 24, 6:25 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Douglas Newlands wrote > > > > > > > > > > >On 23/01/13 1:14 AM, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Douglas Newlands wrote > >>> Teams, game all, dealer North. > > >>> You are East and hold > >>> 1062 > >>> K10 > >>> AQ > >>> AJ8753 > > >>> Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director > >>> rules that he must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it) > >>> and the cancelled pass is AI to East. > >>> (EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better minor.) > > >>> North then passes himself. > >>> What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other? > > >>    3NT.  I always like to make ethical bids: bidding 1C or 3C could > >> easily be understood as allowing for the fact that partner does not have > >> an opening bid. > > >Why does 3NT attract the epithet "ethical" when other bids do not. > >    Because you **know** that partner doe snot have an opening bid, and > you *know* that a game bid is thus less likely to be successful. > Unethical players will take advantage and not bid game: ethical players > bid game. > >    True, ignorant players may not bid game for other reasons.  But I > reckon to understand my ethical responsibilities. After thinking about, I agree. I would not complain if an opponent chose to bid some number of Clubs but I would feel that I had to bid 3NT if it were me. -- Will in New Haven "If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's life without even considering if there is a man on base." --Dave Barry

I am inclined to agree with you; however, there is a problem. You now have an advantage over other pairs in the room that your bidding have given little away. Of course, you may be in a silly contract.

Dave Flower

[Dave Flower]

On Friday, 25 January 2013 09:41:17 UTC, Dave Flower wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 January 2013 23:48:57 UTC, Will in New Haven wrote: > On Jan 24, 6:25 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Douglas Newlands wrote > > > > > > > > > > >On 23/01/13 1:14 AM, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Douglas Newlands wrote > >>> Teams, game all, dealer North. > > >>> You are East and hold > >>> 1062 > >>> K10 > >>> AQ > >>> AJ8753 > > >>> Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director > >>> rules that he must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it) > >>> and the cancelled pass is AI to East. > >>> (EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better minor.) > > >>> North then passes himself. > >>> What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other? > > >>    3NT.  I always like to make ethical bids: bidding 1C or 3C could > >> easily be understood as allowing for the fact that partner does not have > >> an opening bid. > > >Why does 3NT attract the epithet "ethical" when other bids do not. > >    Because you **know** that partner doe snot have an opening bid, and > you *know* that a game bid is thus less likely to be successful. > Unethical players will take advantage and not bid game: ethical players > bid game. > >    True, ignorant players may not bid game for other reasons.  But I > reckon to understand my ethical responsibilities. After thinking about, I agree. I would not complain if an opponent chose to bid some number of Clubs but I would feel that I had to bid 3NT if it were me. -- Will in New Haven "If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's life without even considering if there is a man on base." --Dave Barry I am inclined to agree with you; however, there is a problem. You now have an advantage over other pairs in the room that your bidding have given little away. Of course, you may be in a silly contract. Dave Flower

A further thought.

It seems to me that it is virtually impossible for East to make any call without infringing the Laws. Any bid below the game level uses the UI that partner does not have an opening bid, whereas any higher call uses the fact that partner is constrained to pass.

Dave Flower

[Douglas Newlands]

On 25/01/13 10:25 AM, David Stevenson wrote:
> Douglas Newlands wrote
>> On 23/01/13 1:14 AM, David Stevenson wrote:
>>> Douglas Newlands wrote
>>>> Teams, game all, dealer North.
>>>>
>>>> You are East and hold
>>>> 1062
>>>> K10
>>>> AQ
>>>> AJ8753
>>>>
>>>> Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director
>>>> rules that he must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it)
>>>> and the cancelled pass is AI to East.
>>>> (EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better minor.)
>>>>
>>>> North then passes himself.
>>>> What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other?
>>>
>>> 3NT. I always like to make ethical bids: bidding 1C or 3C could
>>> easily be understood as allowing for the fact that partner does not have
>>> an opening bid.
>>>
>>
>> Why does 3NT attract the epithet "ethical" when other bids do not.
>
> Because you **know** that partner doe snot have an opening bid, and
> you *know* that a game bid is thus less likely to be successful.

> Unethical players will take advantage and not bid game: ethical players
> bid game.

Why is this sentence not "Unethical players will take advantage and not
bid slam: ethical players bid slam"?

Why is game the correct criterion of ethical standards and not slam?
Why do the laws not just compel a player in this position to bid 3NT if
there is no other ethical bid?

I am not trying to be to argumentative (I hope) but I have trouble
seeing why 3NT is ethical and other bids are not.
Unfortunately, I have no formal background in ethics and don't know
how to tackle this.

FWIW I always thought 3N was just an attempt to avoid a game swing
since a proper auction is no longer possible (and I might have bid it
myself).

If the black suits are switched is 4S an ethical bid?
Is it an ethical bid in the original hands?

Suppose I hold
xxx
Kxx
Kxx
xxxx

Is 3NT still the ethical bid?

doug

[judyo...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:36:41 AM UTC-5, Co Wiersma wrote:
> Op 20-1-2013 13:42, Douglas Newlands schreef:

>
> > Teams, game all, dealer North.
>
> >
>
> > You are East and hold
>
> > 1062
>
> > K10
>
> > AQ
>
> > AJ8753
>
> >
>
> > Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director
>
> > rules that he must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it)
>
> > and the cancelled pass is AI to East.
>
> > (EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better minor.)
>
> >
>
> > North then passes himself.
>
> > What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other?
>
> >
>

> > doug
>
>
>
> I think I bid 2C
>
>
>
> Co Wiersma

Of course the 2C bid is legal (except maybe in ACBL; see below) and ethical.

But what if, having passed as required, West has a 2nd turn to call?

Is it AI that the 2C bid may be unusual? May West depart from their ordinary agreements after a 2C opening?

By the way, would opening 2C be an ACBL-illegal psyching of a strong artificial opening?

Carl

[bhmwe...@gmail.com]

Den fredagen den 25:e januari 2013 kl. 00:23:45 UTC+1 skrev David Stevenson:
> Of course you know the problem: you have UI that he has passed
>
> originally. You do not choose amongst LAs one that is suggested by the
>
> UI. Not bidding game is suggested by the opening pass out of turn,
>
> therefore it is routine to open 3NT.

You have the following hand:

KJ53 AKT3 KQ2 A6

Your partner makes an OPOOT.
If he had opened there would likely have been a slam. Are you therefore ethically obliged to bid 6N or 6M? Because not bidding slam is suggested by partners initial pass?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <23c58a63-bf00-445e...@googlegroups.com>,

Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> It seems to me that it is virtually impossible for East to make any call
> without infringing the Laws. Any bid below the game level uses the UI that
> partner does not have an opening bid, whereas any higher call uses the fact
> that partner is constrained to pass.

But these are made up for by the fact that you don't know what the best
strain is. Often it's better to play in the suit of the weaker hand --
you may know that partner is weak, but you don't know his suit, so you
have to guess at the strain.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <8a2a4bc7-c4f3-46d6...@googlegroups.com>,

"judyo...@verizon.net" <judyo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Of course the 2C bid is legal (except maybe in ACBL; see below) and ethical.
>
> But what if, having passed as required, West has a 2nd turn to call?
>
> Is it AI that the 2C bid may be unusual? May West depart from their ordinary
> agreements after a 2C opening?
>
> By the way, would opening 2C be an ACBL-illegal psyching of a strong
> artificial opening?

Everyone knows that the offending side is not going to be able to
conduct a normal, constructive auction, and the offender will not be
able to respond to artificial bids. So the whole concept of "agreements"
is effectively thrown out.

For example, if you normally play Gambling 3NT, and open 3NT when
partner is barred, no one is going to expect a solid running minor
(although if you happen to hold one, you mustn't let knowing that
partner has less than an opening stop you from making the bid).

[judyo...@gmail.com]

"West" was the out-of-turn opener, I believe.

In your example of a 3NT opening: What if after 2 passes, North re-opens for some reason. Is West obliged to pretend that the opener has a solid suit and nothing else? Is he allowed to double?

Carl

[Barry Margolin]

In article <edf3f3d8-c0fa-4fa5...@googlegroups.com>,

As I said, no one expects you to bid according to normal agreements.
This is *why* the forced pass is AI to his partner. And the fact that
his partner knows about the forced pass is AI to him, so he knows that
the bid was made under pressure and likely loses its special meaning.

[Travis Crump]

Indeed. Other arguments: In every other situation where partner's
withdrawn call provides meaningful UI, it is our hand that is barred.
Therefore it is logical that by virtue of not being barred we do not
have UI.

Or: If we pass, and LHO passes, partner will pass, therefore partner

does not have an opening bid.

Or: Partner is more likely to pass out of turn with a marginal opening
bid as he is more concerned with whether to open than whose bid it
is.[In which case 3N is the unethical bid and I'd agree it is unethical]

Or: Partner is more likely to pass out of turn with a real roach annoyed
at what bad cards he always gets.[In which case more conservative bids
are unethical]

I don't think anyone has actually been making either of the last two
arguments though.

[David Stevenson]

wrote

No, why?

[David Stevenson]

Dave Flower wrote

The latter does not infringe the Laws.

[David Stevenson]

Douglas Newlands wrote

Because bidding slam is not an LA.

[David Stevenson]

judyo...@verizon.net wrote

>On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:36:41 AM UTC-5, Co Wiersma wrote:
>> Op 20-1-2013 13:42, Douglas Newlands schreef:
>>
>> > Teams, game all, dealer North.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > You are East and hold
>>
>> > 1062
>>
>> > K10
>>
>> > AQ
>>
>> > AJ8753
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director
>>
>> > rules that he must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it)
>>
>> > and the cancelled pass is AI to East.
>>
>> > (EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better minor.)
>>
>> >
>>
>> > North then passes himself.
>>
>> > What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > doug
>>
>>
>>
>> I think I bid 2C
>>
>>
>>
>> Co Wiersma
>
>Of course the 2C bid is legal (except maybe in ACBL; see below) and ethical.

Not in my view.

[Adam Beneschan]

On Friday, January 25, 2013 5:44:22 AM UTC-8, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:

> By the way, would opening 2C be an ACBL-illegal psyching of a strong artificial opening?

A "psych" is a "deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit length." In this situation, 2C is not a statement of anything--since partner is forced to pass, the partnership's normal agreements can't be expected to apply. So it's not a strong artificial opening, and it's not a psych.

-- Adam

[Adam Beneschan]

On Friday, January 25, 2013 4:12:46 PM UTC-8, David Stevenson wrote:

>
> >Of course the 2C bid is legal (except maybe in ACBL; see below) and ethical.
>
> Not in my view.

I'm guessing that Carl's point was that there's nothing inherently wrong, ethically, with making a natural 2C bid that under normal circumstances would be something artificial. I'm sure you'd agree with that. There is the issue of whether 2C is legal on this particular hand when you consider the UI laws, but that's a separate issue.

-- Adam

[David Stevenson]

Adam Beneschan wrote

I do agree if that is what he means.

But when he says a bid is "legal", and I believe it to be illegal, you
can see why I might disagree with him.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <kdv26n$hii$1...@dont-email.me>,

Travis Crump <pret...@techhouse.org> wrote:

> Or: Partner is more likely to pass out of turn with a marginal opening
> bid as he is more concerned with whether to open than whose bid it
> is.[In which case 3N is the unethical bid and I'd agree it is unethical]
>
> Or: Partner is more likely to pass out of turn with a real roach annoyed
> at what bad cards he always gets.[In which case more conservative bids
> are unethical]
>
> I don't think anyone has actually been making either of the last two
> arguments though.

Trying to figure out what was going through partner's mind to cause him
to get confused about whose bid it was is getting a bit deep for me. I
don't think players are really expected to perform that much
psychoanalysis to determine their LAs.

It's kind of like when partner breaks tempo, and you have to figure out
what that suggests, so you can choose something else. But what if
partner was TRYING to get you to choose that something else? You can
repeat this process ad infinitum, it's an endless quagmire.

So we generally just worry about the first-order, honest interpretations
of the UI.

[Steve Willner]

On 2013-01-25 8:44 AM, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:
> Of course the 2C bid is legal (except maybe in ACBL; see below) and ethical.
> But what if, having passed as required, West has a 2nd turn to call?
> Is it AI that the 2C bid may be unusual?

Yes, certainly. Law 16A1c includes "legal procedures."

> May West depart from their ordinary agreements after a 2C opening?

Yes, certainly. West knows the bid shows clubs and is not strong,
artificial, and forcing.

> By the way, would opening 2C be an ACBL-illegal psyching of a strong artificial opening?

No, of course not. It's an attempt to play 2C if opponents don't intervene.

I'm surprised readers -- and at least one Director -- are having trouble
with this. The principle is quite clear: the fact that partner must
pass once is AI. The fact that he (very likely) holds less than opening
values is UI. The AI determines the logical alternatives. The UI makes
some of them -- in this case all but one of them -- illegal.

I suppose the Director might have a weak excuse in that prior to 1997,
the "less than opening values" was AI. I personally think that was a
better law, but it changed in 1997. In my view, it's an abomination to
mix mechanical rectifications such as "must pass" with information
penalties as in UI, but the LC doesn't agree with me.

One other thing: I don't think Doug did anything unethical. The
Director told him partner's "less than opening values" was AI. That's
not his fault! Had he gotten a correct ruling, I'm sure he'd have bid
3NT like the rest of us. That's a 50% contract, though in the actual
deal it happens to go down one on the normal opening lead.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[Bruce Evans]

In article <c16d5509-138d-45be...@googlegroups.com>,

Why can't the partnership's normal agreements be expected to apply? I
think it is illegal to have agreements to switch to a system that can
better handle previous irregulaties by your side. Changing 2C to natural
would be such an agreement if partner would know what it was. A related
question is whether it is AI for partner to know that his forced pass is
AI to both him and you. If this were UI, then knowing that 2C is natural
is UI in another way. The bidding might go:

OPOOT Not_this_hands_turn_either 2C Pass
Pass(forced) X Pass Pass
Pass(psyche of 2C, or irregular 2C exposed)

But pysches of 2C may be illegal.

Other conventional openings cause more interesting problems. Consider
multi 2D. You hold a weak 2 in diamonds, say xxx xx KQJxxx xx. Can
you open 2D natural? If you do, it might go:

OPOOT Not_this_hands_turn_either 2D Pass
Pass(forced) X Pass Pass
?

Is it AI that 2D is natural? What about the X? I think it is legal
for the opponents to have an agreement to better handle your irregularity.
Can you have agreements over that (for its penalty and takeout meanings?

Or you might hold a weak 2 in hearts, say xxx KQJxxx xx xx. Can you
open 2D multi or 2H natural? 2D singled might be a good contract
nonvulnerable. If it is doubled, the auction might go:

OPOOT Not_this_hands_turn_either 2D Pass
Pass(forced) X 2H(1) Pass
Pass(2)

(1) 2D wasn't natural. Since the forced pass was AI, it doesn't show
diamonds. Is 2H ethical?
(?) I think it is AI that 2D wasn't natural, so pass is ethical.

But 2D = natural or multi almost makes multi work better. This depends
on the OPOOT showing less than an opening. So one of 2D = normal multi
and 2D = natural weak is unethical (if you don't have a fixed agreement,
but choose the one that is likely to work best). Are you required to
make the worst fixed choice? Which choice is worst? Is this choice AI
to responder? I think it is UI since no agreement is permitted, and
for a complicated convention it is too hard for anyone to work out
what the choice must be logically, knowing only the AI that the pass
is forced.

Other complications:
- what is AI in further rounds of bidding? The above barely warmed up for
cases that aren't passed out -- it only reached the 3rd round.
- what is AI in defence?

Bruce

[David Stevenson]

Bruce Evans wrote

>In article <c16d5509-138d-45be...@googlegroups.com>,
>Adam Beneschan <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:
>>On Friday, January 25, 2013 5:44:22 AM UTC-8, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, would opening 2C be an ACBL-illegal psyching of a strong
>>artificial opening?
>>
>>A "psych" is a "deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength
>>and/or of suit length." In this situation, 2C is not a statement of
>>anything--since partner is forced to pass, the partnership's normal
>>agreements can't be expected to apply. So it's not a strong artificial
>>opening, and it's not a psych.
>
>Why can't the partnership's normal agreements be expected to apply? I
>think it is illegal to have agreements to switch to a system that can
>better handle previous irregulaties by your side.

You may think it illegal, but the authorities don't, and they are the
ones that matter.

It is quite obvious to 99% of players that if partner is forced to
pass, bids by you are natural.

[judyo...@gmail.com]

You have not addressed the question of what is AI to the out-of-turn opener.

[judyo...@gmail.com]

For sure, there was a time when ACBL specifically ruled it illegal to have special agreements to deal with an opponent's insufficient bid. I don't know whether that has been repealed.

Is it explicit in England that you are allowed to change your agreements when a penalty is in effect?

Carl

[David Stevenson]

judyo...@verizon.net wrote

>For sure, there was a time when ACBL specifically ruled it illegal to
>have special agreements to deal with an opponent's insufficient bid. I
>don't know whether that has been repealed.

That's irrelevant. The ACBL does not require you to play bids with a
convention meaning when you know that partner is forced to pass.

>Is it explicit in England that you are allowed to change your
>agreements when a penalty is in effect?

Again, if partner is forced to pass, nowhere requires oyur bids to be
artificial.

[judyo...@gmail.com]

You are ambiguous as to whether it is just good sense or an explicit provision of English conditions of contest.

[Paul Hightower]

"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dSG4hqCy6p$QF...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
> Douglas Newlands wrote

>>Teams, game all, dealer North.
>>
>>You are East and hold
>>1062
>>K10
>>AQ
>>AJ8753
>>
>>Partner makes an opening pass out of turn and the director
>>rules that he must pass at his next turn (his LHO didn't accept it)
>>and the cancelled pass is AI to East.
>>(EW are playing weak NT, 5 card majors and better minor.)
>>
>>North then passes himself.
>>What do you fancy 1C, 3C, 3N other?
>

> 3NT. I always like to make ethical bids: bidding 1C or 3C could easily
> be understood as allowing for the fact that partner does not have an
> opening bid.

David, I'll buy your argument, but do you like the possible outcomes here?
If I bid 2C and the enemy has anything, they've got a good chance to recover
a normal result. In particular South's non-acceptance suggests North has a
good hand, and 2C (the contract I would expect to arrive at after a normal
response to 1C) still leaves room for an overcal, double or 2NT. Your 3NT,
on the other hand, forces North into a blind guess (probably a double) and
blind lead. Although on average N/S probably gain, when they lose they're
going to feel burned. I think it far more likely N/S will feel damaged by
your "ethical" 3NT than my "unethical" 2C.

It would be intersting to see a study of actual opening pass out of turn
results.

[David Stevenson]

Paul Hightower wrote

Speaking as a player, it is *not* my job to decide what the Laws
should be. It is my job to follow them. So, as a player, I do not care
what the outcome is, I am going to make the ethical bid.

Mind you, I don't agree with you anyway: I believe that opposite a
partner with no opening bid I am increasing my chance of a negative
score by bidding 3NT so it is to my opponent's benefit.

Will they complain? Quite probably. It is like a psyche: if
opponents get a good score they preen themselves as though they have
done something clever: if they get a bad score they complain that the
Directors are biased, the Laws are unfair, their opponents cheat, and
they mothers do not love them.

Deductions form South' non-acceptance are pointless and flawed: well
over 80% of players never accept.

[David Stevenson]

judyo...@verizon.net wrote

It is good sense, compounded by a failure of any Regulation anywhere
to regulate such bids.

[derek]

On Saturday, January 26, 2013 8:22:26 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> Bruce Evans wrote
>

> >Why can't the partnership's normal agreements be expected to apply? I
> >think it is illegal to have agreements to switch to a system that can
> >better handle previous irregulaties by your side.
>
> You may think it illegal, but the authorities don't, and they are the
> ones that matter.

Bruce is right that you can't switch systems, but having agreements is not the same thing as knowing that partner's 2C must be natural if you are going to have to pass next turn. Mike Flader ruled that it's illegal (in the ACBL) to have specific agreements for an insufficient bid. I can't see how that's any different from having specific methods for an OPOOT. However you feel about that, Flader _is_ an authority.

[David Stevenson]

derek wrote

Of course it is different. Every time you bid 2C and partner is
passing, you and he know your bid is natural. That is basic bridge, and
is not a change in agreements, which is what the ACBL bans.

[Adam Beneschan]

On Sunday, January 27, 2013 2:15:38 PM UTC-8, David Stevenson wrote:
> derek wrote
>
> >On Saturday, January 26, 2013 8:22:26 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> >> Bruce Evans wrote
>
> >> >Why can't the partnership's normal agreements be expected to apply? I
> >> >think it is illegal to have agreements to switch to a system that can
> >> >better handle previous irregulaties by your side.

> >> You may think it illegal, but the authorities don't, and they are the
> >> ones that matter.

> >Bruce is right that you can't switch systems, but having agreements is
> >not the same thing as knowing that partner's 2C must be natural if you
> >are going to have to pass next turn. Mike Flader ruled that it's
> >illegal (in the ACBL) to have specific agreements for an insufficient
> >bid. I can't see how that's any different from having specific methods
> >for an OPOOT. However you feel about that, Flader _is_ an authority.

> Of course it is different. Every time you bid 2C and partner is
> passing, you and he know your bid is natural. That is basic bridge, and
> is not a change in agreements, which is what the ACBL bans.

I'm not sure which side Derek is arguing here, but I think it might be illegal (in the ACBL) to have a discussion beforehand along the lines of "Let's agree that if you pass out of turn and get barred for a round, then my 2C opening is Precision", with a specific point range and some distributional requirements. If that's what he means, he may be right. But simply opening 2C and expecting everyone to understand that it has to be natural since the 2C opener could have to play it there, is clearly legal.

-- Adam

[Steve Willner]

On 2013-01-26 9:56 AM, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:
> You have not addressed the question of what is AI to the out-of-turn opener.

I didn't, but I thought someone else did. In case not, it is AI to OOTO
that he must pass once and that everyone at the table knows this. See
Law 16A1c "legal procedures."

While it is not 100% clear, I believe under the same provision it is
also AI to OOTO that he has given UI to his partner, and that his
partner's options have been restricted.

Addressing the subject raised elsewhere as to what future Laws might be,
I think it makes a big difference whether the POOT was at RHO's turn or
otherwise. If it was RHO's turn, things are simple: auction reverts to
RHO, who does what he wants. Passer repeats his pass (now forced), and
little or no harm is done. Passer might have lost his chance to preempt
(say with Michaels or UNT or now-natural 2D), but that's a reasonable
penalty. Passer's partner has learned something (no 12-15 balanced, for
example), but it might not be important.

In contrast, an initial pass at LHO's or partner's turn to call gives
substantial information before partner has acted. I don't know what the
best approach might be, but the information transmitted is serious.

Come to think of it, there's another case. We've been discussing an
_initial_ POOT, but what about a POOT on the fourth round of an auction
where the passer was never likely to compete? That's another low-
information infraction, and "just repeat the pass" seems not far off.

[Steve Willner]

On 2013-01-26 5:52 AM, Bruce Evans wrote:
> I think it is illegal to have agreements to switch to a system that
> can better handle previous irregulaties by your side.

That's true, if at all, only in particular jurisdictions that have a
specific rule. There's nothing to that effect in the worldwide Laws.

> Changing 2C to natural would be such an agreement

If this is the first time the situation has come up in your partnership,
it is wildly unlikely you have an agreement. So no problem at that
moment. Everyone is allowed to know the effect of the Laws and apply
bridge logic to the result.

Where there _might_ be a problem _in the ACBL_ is the second or later
time this situation arises. Then you might possibly be deemed to have
an agreement contrary to ACBL regulations. I don't think that's likely
in any realistic scenario, but if somehow it applies, you could either
dissolve your partnership or accept a big (though I think unspecified by
the ACBL) penalty every time the situation arises. As I say, this whole
thing seems far-fetched in real life.

> A related question is whether it is AI for partner to know that his
> forced pass is AI to both him and you.

Answered elsewhere: yes.

> But pysches of 2C may be illegal.

Answered elsewhere: bidding 2C to show a club suit when partner must
pass has nothing to do with psyching.

> Consider multi 2D. You hold a weak 2 in diamonds, say xxx xx KQJxxx
> xx. Can you open 2D natural?

[if partner is barred, I presume]

Sure, why not? Of course you might also bid 2D with a rather stronger
hand, though not one so strong that 3NT is a logical alternative.

> I think it is legal for the opponents to have an agreement to better
> handle your irregularity.

In general yes, though ACBL forbids you to "vary" your agreements. Here
the situation would be a natural but wide-range 2D opening. If you have
an agreement over that, the ACBL says you have to stick with it. Other
jurisdictions may have no such rule.

> - what is AI in further rounds of bidding?

> - what is AI in defence?

Same things that were AI all along.

This is really not complicated in principle. The only hard part is
judging logical alternatives in specific cases, but that's no different
than any other UI problem.

[bhmwe...@gmail.com]

Den lördagen den 26:e januari 2013 kl. 11:52:41 UTC+1 skrev Bruce Evans:
> Why can't the partnership's normal agreements be expected to apply? I
>
> think it is illegal to have agreements to switch to a system that can
>
> better handle previous irregulaties by your side

In that case it would of course be prohibitde to open with 3 NT on the hand in question, or most other hands by that matter. As I expect that the pair would not open 3 NT on that hand in normal cases.

[derek]

On Monday, January 28, 2013 5:39:41 PM UTC-4, Adam Beneschan wrote:

> I'm not sure which side Derek is arguing here, but I think it might be illegal (in the ACBL) to have a discussion beforehand along the lines of "Let's agree that if you pass out of turn and get barred for a round, then my 2C opening is Precision", with a specific point range and some distributional requirements. If that's what he means, he may be right. But simply opening 2C and expecting everyone to understand that it has to be natural since the 2C opener could have to play it there, is clearly legal.

That's what I said... I was merely pointing out that Bruce was right in his statement, but that he was applying it wrongly.

[Adam Beneschan]

On Monday, January 28, 2013 8:12:03 PM UTC-8, Steve Willner wrote:
> On 2013-01-26 5:52 AM, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> > I think it is illegal to have agreements to switch to a system that
> > can better handle previous irregulaties by your side.
>
> That's true, if at all, only in particular jurisdictions that have a
> specific rule. There's nothing to that effect in the worldwide Laws.
>
> > Changing 2C to natural would be such an agreement
>
> If this is the first time the situation has come up in your partnership,
> it is wildly unlikely you have an agreement. So no problem at that
> moment. Everyone is allowed to know the effect of the Laws and apply
> bridge logic to the result.
>
> Where there _might_ be a problem _in the ACBL_ is the second or later
> time this situation arises. Then you might possibly be deemed to have
> an agreement contrary to ACBL regulations.

I sure hope not. It would be like saying that the failure to do something stupid becomes an agreement. Opposite a partner who's forced to pass, making a bid you're not prepared to play in would be stupid. If any ruling body would rule that taking a non-stupid action twice is evidence that the partnership has a special partnership understanding not to do stupid things, then a ruling like that would be ... well, stupid. For all its faults, I don't think the ACBL is that stupid.

A scenario where this *could* apply is if you notice, over time, that partner's 2C openings when you're barred tends to show exactly six. That could constitute an agreement, and it could lead to a ruling that your partnership has developed an illegal agreement. On the other hand, if this situation comes up often enough that you've noticed a tendency, your problems are much more serious than any worries about whether it's an illegal agreement or not. And I think partnership dissolution, which you mentioned, would be a solution here--because, frankly, I wouldn't keep playing with someone who can't even figure out how to bid in turn.

-- Adam

[Barry Margolin]

In article <c83b5841-c5aa-422f...@googlegroups.com>,

Adam Beneschan <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:

> On Monday, January 28, 2013 8:12:03 PM UTC-8, Steve Willner wrote:
> > On 2013-01-26 5:52 AM, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >
> > > I think it is illegal to have agreements to switch to a system that
> > > can better handle previous irregulaties by your side.
> >
> > That's true, if at all, only in particular jurisdictions that have a
> > specific rule. There's nothing to that effect in the worldwide Laws.
> >
> > > Changing 2C to natural would be such an agreement
> >
> > If this is the first time the situation has come up in your partnership,
> > it is wildly unlikely you have an agreement. So no problem at that
> > moment. Everyone is allowed to know the effect of the Laws and apply
> > bridge logic to the result.
> >
> > Where there _might_ be a problem _in the ACBL_ is the second or later
> > time this situation arises. Then you might possibly be deemed to have
> > an agreement contrary to ACBL regulations.
>
> I sure hope not. It would be like saying that the failure to do something
> stupid becomes an agreement. Opposite a partner who's forced to pass, making
> a bid you're not prepared to play in would be stupid. If any ruling body
> would rule that taking a non-stupid action twice is evidence that the
> partnership has a special partnership understanding not to do stupid things,
> then a ruling like that would be ... well, stupid. For all its faults, I
> don't think the ACBL is that stupid.

I think what some people are missing is that this is just BRIDGE LOGIC.
And bridge logic doesn't automatically become a partnership agreement
just because you always come up with the same solution to the same
problem.

[Bruce Evans]

In article <56c6e3a5-ea30-4a32...@googlegroups.com>,

I disagree, of course :-).

I said that it might be illegal to change the system to minimize the
damage from penalties for irregularities by our side. Someone replied
that the ACBL regulation was actually about changing the system to
maximize the damage to the other side from penalties for irregularities
by the other side. That is even more interesting. It means that
although "everyone understands" that 2C is natural, the non-offending
side cannot change their system to handle this. But a different
system and style (probably to be more sound) is needed to handle it
since its range is unknown, modulo the considerations below.

Suppose the hand that wants to bid 2C natural has a minimum opening
hand with clubs, for example the hand in the original posting.
According to David Stevenson, the only ethical bid is 3NT. I don't
really agree with this, but assume it for this discussion. It follows
that low bids in clubs are either strong natural (with great risk of
making game opposite a passed hand), unnatural or unethical, and that
"everyone understands" this. Same for low bids in NT and maybe even
Pass, at least at imps. Pass with the intention of passing throughout
is probably the most unethical, since it uses the AI to avoid large
penalties without risking many games. Passing out your easy part score
only loses an average of about 3 imps.

The bizarre results and interpretations seem to be reduced by not allowing
system changes, psyches, or anti-percentage actions like 3NT. I think
3C is then ethical (so is 2NT, but you are allowed not to bid it).
When you have 14HCP, the percentage for partner without UI is 8.7.
That is often enough for 3C and 2NT. Any higher or lower contract is
anti-percentage. Or just disallow system changes. Then you just have
to open 1C if it is natural minimum+, and the only hands on which you
use the AI to avoid the systematic bid are when the systemantic bid is
conventional or not high enough. For example, 4-4-3-2 shape which is
normally opened 1C would probably be opened 1H, 1S (showing 5+ cards)
or 1NT (showing 15-17 HCP) since these are the smallest reasonable
deviations friom system.

Bruce

[Steve Foster]

Bear in mind that if the 3NT gets a good result, that might be adjusted
away via L23.

--
Steve Foster
For SSL Certificates, Domains, etc, visit.:
https://netshop.virtual-isp.net

[Douglas Newlands]

Yes, but the later director (or appeal committee) might notice the
earlier director error in the original case and sort it under 82C
which is, at least, easy.

doug

[David Stevenson]

Steve Foster wrote
>Paul Hightower wrote:

>> David, I'll buy your argument, but do you like the possible outcomes
>> here? If I bid 2C and the enemy has anything, they've got a good
>> chance to recover a normal result. In particular South's
>> non-acceptance suggests North has a good hand, and 2C (the contract I
>> would expect to arrive at after a normal response to 1C) still leaves
>> room for an overcal, double or 2NT. Your 3NT, on the other hand,
>> forces North into a blind guess (probably a double) and blind lead.
>> Although on average N/S probably gain, when they lose they're going
>> to feel burned. I think it far more likely N/S will feel damaged by
>> your "ethical" 3NT than my "unethical" 2C.
>
>Bear in mind that if the 3NT gets a good result, that might be adjusted
>away via L23.

Not a chance. Why on earth would L23 apply here?

==================================================

I note that incredibly long articles are growing. Sure, it is partly
GG's fault for adding random lines, but cannot people edit some of the
irrelevant stuff away? Please?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <rvglOnLH...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,

David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Steve Foster wrote
> >Paul Hightower wrote:
>
> >> David, I'll buy your argument, but do you like the possible outcomes
> >> here? If I bid 2C and the enemy has anything, they've got a good
> >> chance to recover a normal result. In particular South's
> >> non-acceptance suggests North has a good hand, and 2C (the contract I
> >> would expect to arrive at after a normal response to 1C) still leaves
> >> room for an overcal, double or 2NT. Your 3NT, on the other hand,
> >> forces North into a blind guess (probably a double) and blind lead.
> >> Although on average N/S probably gain, when they lose they're going
> >> to feel burned. I think it far more likely N/S will feel damaged by
> >> your "ethical" 3NT than my "unethical" 2C.
> >
> >Bear in mind that if the 3NT gets a good result, that might be adjusted
> >away via L23.
>
> Not a chance. Why on earth would L23 apply here?
>
> ==================================================
>
> I note that incredibly long articles are growing. Sure, it is partly
> GG's fault for adding random lines, but cannot people edit some of the
> irrelevant stuff away? Please?

I have a suspicion that GG doesn't make it obvious to the users that
they're quoting the article.

[derek]

Sure it does - after all, we see all the quote material AND all the extra lines it adds.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <7ab482be-65f4-4a93...@googlegroups.com>,

My guess is that GG doesn't show all that stuff to the GG users as
they're composing the reply.

[Steve Foster]

David Stevenson wrote:

> Steve Foster wrote:
> > Bear in mind that if the 3NT gets a good result, that might be
> > adjusted away via L23.
>
> Not a chance. Why on earth would L23 apply here?

Perhaps because it's explicitly referenced in L30A?

[David Stevenson]

Steve Foster wrote

>David Stevenson wrote:
>
>> Steve Foster wrote:
>> > Bear in mind that if the 3NT gets a good result, that might be
>> > adjusted away via L23.
>>
>> Not a chance. Why on earth would L23 apply here?
>
>Perhaps because it's explicitly referenced in L30A?

So it is. And it would apply here because . . . ?

[Adam Beneschan]

On Monday, February 4, 2013 6:08:39 PM UTC-8, Barry Margolin wrote:

> I have a suspicion that GG doesn't make it obvious to the users that
> they're quoting the article.

It does make it obvious enough. And I try to take care to delete the extra blank lines when they occur. Big pain in the keister, but so far it hasn't been enough to get me to go through the big pain of trying to get some other newsreader up and running, especially since I probably should be spending less time on newsgroups anyway.

-- Adam

[derek]

Why guess? I'm telling you it _does_. And I go through every single post and trim out those extra lines (and anything else I can remove) before posting.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <ccf33fbf-552c-400c...@googlegroups.com>,

derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 4:01:52 AM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article <7ab482be-65f4-4a93...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, February 4, 2013 10:08:39 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> >
> > > > I have a suspicion that GG doesn't make it obvious to the users that
> > > > they're quoting the article.
> > >
> > > Sure it does - after all, we see all the quote material AND all the extra
> > > lines it adds.
> >
> > My guess is that GG doesn't show all that stuff to the GG users as
> > they're composing the reply.
>
> Why guess? I'm telling you it _does_. And I go through every single post and
> trim out those extra lines (and anything else I can remove) before posting.

I didn't realize you were using GG. I thought your "we" referred to the
rest of us.

What I've noticed in many groups is that when someone quotes an entire
post of more than 100 lines, and just adds one line of reply, it seems
very likely that they're using GG. So I suspected that the GG interface
makes this type of thing easier.

On the few occasions that I've read news using GG (specifically, when
using it to search archived messages), I notice that it collapses quoted
material -- you have to click on it to expand it. So GG'ers may not
realize that most of us have to wade through all that stuff to get to
the new material.

On the other hand, you could say that this is a problem with the other
newsreaders -- they should make it easy to hide the quotes, like GG
does. But the philosophy is that the quoted material should be relevant
to understanding the response -- hiding it would remove important
context. GG's approach is appropriate mainly with extreme over-quoting.

[Douglas Newlands]

On 6/02/13 4:50 AM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <ccf33fbf-552c-400c...@googlegroups.com>,
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 4:01:52 AM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
>>> In article <7ab482be-65f4-4a93...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, February 4, 2013 10:08:39 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I have a suspicion that GG doesn't make it obvious to the users that
>>>>> they're quoting the article.
>>>>
>>>> Sure it does - after all, we see all the quote material AND all the extra
>>>> lines it adds.
>>>
>>> My guess is that GG doesn't show all that stuff to the GG users as
>>> they're composing the reply.
>>
>> Why guess? I'm telling you it _does_. And I go through every single post and
>> trim out those extra lines (and anything else I can remove) before posting.
>
> I didn't realize you were using GG. I thought your "we" referred to the
> rest of us.

If you look up at the message header, you can see what the poster is using.
For Derek, we see (inter alia)

Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=24.222.151.14;posting-account=FsWY2QoAAADEBbK5etZwWSJISySYvLBB
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

so it's obvious how he's posting.

> What I've noticed in many groups is that when someone quotes an entire
> post of more than 100 lines, and just adds one line of reply, it seems
> very likely that they're using GG. So I suspected that the GG interface
> makes this type of thing easier.
>
> On the few occasions that I've read news using GG (specifically, when
> using it to search archived messages), I notice that it collapses quoted
> material -- you have to click on it to expand it. So GG'ers may not
> realize that most of us have to wade through all that stuff to get to
> the new material.

The newsgroups are a text-based medium (hence the last line I quoted
above from a header generated by Derek) so it will not transfer
any 'fancy' functionality like collapsing material or even html.


doug

[Barry Margolin]

In article <kes04e$etn$1...@douglasnewlands.eternal-september.org>,

I know how to do that, I just hadn't bothered at the time. I
misunderstood his reply as facetious.

>
>
> > What I've noticed in many groups is that when someone quotes an entire
> > post of more than 100 lines, and just adds one line of reply, it seems
> > very likely that they're using GG. So I suspected that the GG interface
> > makes this type of thing easier.
> >
> > On the few occasions that I've read news using GG (specifically, when
> > using it to search archived messages), I notice that it collapses quoted
> > material -- you have to click on it to expand it. So GG'ers may not
> > realize that most of us have to wade through all that stuff to get to
> > the new material.
>
> The newsgroups are a text-based medium (hence the last line I quoted
> above from a header generated by Derek) so it will not transfer
> any 'fancy' functionality like collapsing material or even html.

There's no need to transfer anything. The newsreader looks for the ">"
markers that indicate a quote, and displays them as it wishes. My
newsreader. A common approach in mail and news applications is to use
color-coding for different levels of quoting.

BTW, this is one of the reasons why people who use ideosyncratic quoting
styles are so annoying -- it defeats attempts by newsreaders to
distingsuish the quotes.

[Steve Foster]

David Stevenson wrote:

> Steve Foster wrote
> > David Stevenson wrote:
> >
> > > Steve Foster wrote:
> >>> Bear in mind that if the 3NT gets a good result, that might be
> >>> adjusted away via L23.
> > >
> >> Not a chance. Why on earth would L23 apply here?
> >
> > Perhaps because it's explicitly referenced in L30A?
>
> So it is. And it would apply here because . . . ?

L30A is where we're at? (see subject)

[David Stevenson]

Barry Margolin wrote

>I didn't realize you were using GG. I thought your "we" referred to the
>rest of us.
>
>What I've noticed in many groups is that when someone quotes an entire
>post of more than 100 lines, and just adds one line of reply, it seems
>very likely that they're using GG. So I suspected that the GG interface
>makes this type of thing easier.

No, I don't agree. They are just lazy. This was an ongoing problem
before GG existed.