[lamford]

---

IMPs. Opening lead ♥2. Table result NS+120

This was a hand which is based on an actual occurrence, but a more interesting constructed version occurred at a North London club last week. North opened 1NT out of turn in a match in the club's Probst Cup, which is a knockout team event. South announced it as 12-14, but East, who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, pointed out that North was not dealer. The director was called, and gave the standard ruling, but SB asked South, before making his decision, "You play strong in third don't you?" South confirmed that was the case, and corrected his announcement to 15-17. "I want to accept the BOOT", said SB. South decided to pass, and East led a heart, and declarer could only make 8 tricks. In the other room, after two passes, North opened a weak NT, South invited and North accepted, so NS gained 5 IMPs. Of course, this ultimately decided the match ...

SB was unhappy and started his attack on South. "You fielded a systemic misbid", he began. "You only knew that partner did not have 15-17 from your side's infraction of opening 1NT out of turn", he continued and then paused for breath. "In addition, even opposite a weak NT, you should have invited, and the good game would have been reached. The fact that partner opened out of turn was AI, but the fact that he did not have 15-17 was UI and you selected from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested by that UI." Again, he paused for breath. "Furthermore you did not carefully avoid taking any advantage from ..."

South, who had been on the excellent EBU Club Director course, was a bit taken aback by the tirade and interrupted: "Surely, I am allowed to know that partner opened 1NT out of turn", he responded. And you accepted it, suggesting that you had a reasonable hand, and I guessed that minor suit finesses would probably lose". That arises from the legal procedures authorized in the Laws and is AI.

The TD told SB not to try to make a ruling for himself, and also told South not to argue with SB. How should the TD rule?

[Cyberyeti]

Funnily enough I gave this type of problem to RMB1 in person recently (a 2 bid alertable in 1st seat but not in second opened OOT). Is this in fact a 3rd in hand opener or for the explanation, is partner first in hand ? there are no passes before he bids.

You are not obliged to point out the BOOT by your partner (Robin was clear on this), so whether you knew should be unclear to the SB.

IMO S should not have corrected the explanation (and shouldn't have been badgered into it), he was not a passed hand and thus partner was not third in hand, it's AI to him that there is not a pass in front of him, so partner isn't in 3rd seat. The SB should have directed the question about the announcement to the director not to S.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-June-22, 07:28, said:

Is this in fact a 3rd in hand opener or for the explanation, is partner first in hand ? there are no passes before he bids.

The directors at an event in Windsor thought that whether someone was third in hand was a function of the board markings, not of the auction, but they confessed to being unclear about this!

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-June-22, 07:28, said:

The SB should have directed the question about the announcement to the director not to S.

I think it is established from case law that SB is allowed to ask any questions about the opponents' system before making his decision as to whether to accept the insufficient bid.

[pran]

Unless being convinced otherwise I shall take it as a fact that both North and South here acted on the assumption that North was the dealer.

Consequently South's announcement (12-14) was correct (and should not have been withdrawn) and there is no reason for any accusation that South has fielded any misbid.

[RMB1]

(I wonder what response I gave to Cyberyeti)


I think what agreements apply to an OBOOT (whether it counts as first-in-hand or nth-in-hand (n>1)) is a matter of partnership experience/understanding. Whether (say) third-in-hand agreements apply if there have been two passes or if opener is dealer's partner is for a partnership to define/understand. In most cases a partnership will not know, because it depends on what opener thought was going on.

In the OP, I suggest that the correct announcement/explanation is "12-14 in first, 15-17 in third, no understanding of which applies".

I don't think there was any misbid to field and I don't think there was any unauthorised information from opening out of turn once the call had been accepted.

[campboy]

Law 16A1 said:

A player may use information in the auction or play if: (a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or [...]

All the information South has about North's hand derives from an illegal call that was accepted, and it is not affected by UI from anywhere else. So it is all AI.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2015-June-22, 07:33, said:

The directors at an event in Windsor thought that whether someone was third in hand was a function of the board markings, not of the auction, but they confessed to being unclear about this!

The main reason, I believe, that people have different agreements for 1st/2nd vs. 3rd/4th seat bids is because the knowledge that partner has passed changes your expectations (e.g. about game prospects and safety). If you open before your partner has had a chance to bid, the fact that the board labeled him as a dealer doesn't mean he actually has a hand that would have passed if he dealt, so the reason for using a stronger NT range doesn't apply. How did those Windsor directors justify this conclusion?

[Cyberyeti]

RMB1, on 2015-June-22, 08:25, said:

(I wonder what response I gave to Cyberyeti)

In the OP, I suggest that the correct announcement/explanation is "12-14 in first, 15-17 in third, no understanding of which applies".

Essentially that answer.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2015-June-22, 07:35, said:

I think it is established from case law that SB is allowed to ask any questions about the opponents' system before making his decision as to whether to accept the insufficient bid.

Yes but, I think the SB has caused unnecessary panic (not necessarily deliberately) by asking about a situation that doesn't exist that is irrelevant to this auction. The first question from the SB should be to the director as to whether the bid was 1st or 3rd in hand.

Quote

The main reason, I believe, that people have different agreements for 1st/2nd vs. 3rd/4th seat bids is because the knowledge that partner has passed changes your expectations (e.g. about game prospects and safety). If you open before your partner has had a chance to bid, the fact that the board labeled him as a dealer doesn't mean he actually has a hand that would have passed if he dealt, so the reason for using a stronger NT range doesn't apply. How did those Windsor directors justify this conclusion?

I think Barmar nails the point with his comments.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2015-June-22, 08:25, said:

In the OP, I suggest that the correct announcement/explanation is "12-14 in first, 15-17 in third, no understanding of which applies".

I agree completely; in fact it is illegal to have any agreement consequent to your own infraction (and, irrelevantly here, in the US I understand it is illegal to have any agreement consequent to the opponents' infraction). SB argued (and he would have made this point except that he was interrupted before he could) that there was misinformation, in that the correct announcement was as you said, not the actual (corrected) announcement "15-17". He would then not have accepted the IB, and North would have had to guess the final contract and might well have chosen 3NT. He accepted the bid because he judged it more likely that the opponents would reach 3NT if he did, because South had effectively indicated by announcement that the partnership agreement was that 1NT was 15-17 when it was the first bid of the auction, and made by the partner of the dealer, whether or not preceded by one or more passes.

I agree with campboy and RMB1 that this is not a UI case, nor a fielding case, but I think it is an MI case. And in answer to barmar, I think the Windsor directors just didn't know and thought "third in hand" meant as indicated on the board, not the third person who called in whatever auction took place.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-June-22, 09:38, said:

The first question from the SB should be to the director as to whether the bid was 1st or 3rd in hand.

In which law do you find this? I searched without success.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2015-June-22, 09:41, said:

I agree completely; in fact it is illegal to have any agreement consequent to your own infraction (and, irrelevantly here, in the US I understand it is illegal to have any agreement consequent to the opponents' infraction). SB argued that there was misinformation, in that the correct announcement was as you said, not the actual (corrected) announcement "15-17". He would then have not accepted the IB, and North would have had to guess the final contract and might well have chosen 3NT.

This is typical of SB. He has all the information he needs -- he heard South change the explanation because the TD asked him what it would mean in 3rd seat. But he can see just as well as anyone that North didn't actually open in third seat. So he's playing legal games to get a double shot -- you know he wouldn't have complained if they made 2 overtricks.

Quote

I agree with campboy and RMB1 that it not a UI case, nor a fielding case, but I think it is an MI case. And in answer to barmar, I think the Windsor directors just didn't know and thought "third in hand" meant as indicated on the board, not the third person who called in whatever auction took place.

It just seems like simple common sense what it should mean. It seems like a decision made by people who don't actually understand the game.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2015-June-22, 09:52, said:

This is typical of SB. He has all the information he needs -- he heard South change the explanation because the TD asked him what it would mean in 3rd seat. But he can see just as well as anyone that North didn't actually open in third seat. So he's playing legal games to get a double shot -- you know he wouldn't have complained if they made 2 overtricks.

SB would proudly admit to using legal games and would regard it as a compliment. However, the Laws do not seem to prevent someone from having a double shot in deciding whether to accept or not accept an IB, if they have been misinformed. Unless you think that his decision to accept the IB was SEWog and unrelated to the infraction ... Do you?

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2015-June-22, 09:46, said:

In which law do you find this? I searched without success.

Would you ask what opps played a 4♠ opener as when the auction had gone 1N-3N ? Asking what they play a 3rd in hand 1N as when they've opened a 1st seat 1N falls into the same category, so you should ask opinion what they've actually opened.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-June-22, 10:07, said:

Would you ask what opps played a 4♠ opener as when the auction had gone 1N-3N ? Asking what they play a 3rd in hand 1N as when they've opened a 1st seat 1N falls into the same category, so you should ask opinion what they've actually opened.

In theory you could, although it would of course be ridiculous to do so.

Law 20F states: "During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding."

I think the keyword is "relevant" here. In your example, I would rule that this was not relevant, and give your putative chap a PP for breach of Law 20F as he knows he is just being a pest. However, in this example, the strength of a third-in-hand 1NT is extremely relevant, and there would be an inference from the choice of action. For all SB knows, North might have hallucinated and seen two passes before his eyes. After all the green pass card is the same colour as the green felt at the North London club in question. In any case, the revised announcement "15-17" was clearly misinformation with either "12-14" or "no agreement" being the correct announcement, so I cannot understand anyone not ruling MI in this case. There is case law that a changed explanation can be MI even if the original explanation was correct.

And you did not respond to my question as to where in the Laws you found the assertion that SB should have asked the TD whether the opening bid was in first or third seat, except by posing a tangential question. Have you been watching too much prime minister's question time?

[barmar]

I'm not sure whether MI is appropriate. The director's prompt "You play strong in third, don't you" should probably be interpreted by South as meaning that this TD follows the precedent set by those Windsor TDs, and he's essentially being told that he should treat it as a third-hand bid and give that explanation. If this is wrong, then perhaps we should rule Director Error.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2015-June-22, 09:52, said:

It just seems like simple common sense what [in third seat] should mean. It seems like a decision made by people who don't actually understand the game.

Firstly, no "decision" was made by the Windsor directors; none was needed on the actual hand, where the BOOT was accepted, but all roads led to 1NT passed out. They were asked an opinion and were intrigued by the issue (except for one who said, "Is that the time? I'll get my coat..."). So, if North had passed out of turn, and East had accepted it and passed, what would be the default agreement now if South opened 1NT as dealer, when one is playing a different range in 1st and 3rd? I would presume that 15-17 would apply, but again it is illegal to have an agreement consequent to your side's infraction.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2015-June-22, 12:18, said:

The director's prompt "You play strong in third, don't you" should probably be interpreted by South as meaning that this TD follows the precedent set by those Windsor TDs, and he's essentially being told that he should treat it as a third-hand bid and give that explanation. If this is wrong, then perhaps we should rule Director Error.

I would suggest that you visit the US equivalent of Specsavers, or re-read the OP. It was SB, East, who asked South whether they played strong NT in third, as he was entitled to do before deciding whether to accept the BOOT or not. South volunteered a corrected announcement "15-17", noticing that his partner was in third seat (on normal auctions). South was not told to treat it in any way at all, and he had an absolute duty to announce correctly under the EBU regulations, which do not exempt a 1NT bid from correct announcement because it is a BOOT.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2015-June-22, 12:05, said:

In theory you could, although it would of course be ridiculous to do so.

Law 20F states: "During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding."

I think the keyword is "relevant" here.

I think the key word is "available". At no point in the auction was a 1NT opening after two passes available, so it doesn't seem to matter how relevant it is.

Anyway, E/W have been correctly informed -- pluperfectly, Victor Mollo might have said, since they appear to have more information than they are, strictly speaking, entitled to. They were told that a first seat 1NT would be 12-14 and a third seat 1NT would be 15-17. They have just as much chance as South does of working out which one of those North thought he was opening.

If South had suggested to East that North thought he was opening a third-hand NT then that might constitute MI, but in fact it was East who suggested it to South.