[paulg]

Playing in the pre-congress Open Teams, a couple of friends come to the table for the first round and I psych a strong notrump in third seat at favourable vulnerability (not least because they don't play a penalty double).

The fourth hand bids two clubs to show the majors and then, while partner is thinking, another pair arrives at the table. It transpires that our friends not only cannot count and move the right number of tables, but they don't know their team number either.

The Director tells us to try and play the board, but if the auction is different then the board will be cancelled. I don't know the new pair, which means that they will be considerably weaker than my friends, and they play a penalty double of a strong notrump.

Is it acceptable for me to pass this time in third seat, with my 1-point hand, causing the board to be cancelled?

[RMB1]

paulg, on 2013-December-17, 16:58, said:

Is it acceptable for me to pass this time in third seat, with my 1-point hand, causing the board to be cancelled?

The laws require you to bid the same as before, you have no option.

The TD's instructions should be that the pair that remain at the table have to repeat the calls they made.

If you pass you are failing to follow the law (and the TD instruction) - there is no penalty defined for this - I suspect you would required to bid and the pass is unauthorised information.

Luckily you cannot be doubled in 1NT and have the result stand because if the new opponents double this will not repeat the calls made by the original opponents.

[paulg]

RMB1, on 2013-December-17, 17:07, said:

The laws require you to bid the same as before, you have no option.

The TD's instructions should be that the pair that remain at the table have to repeat the calls they made.

If you pass you are failing to follow the law (and the TD instruction) - there is no penalty defined for this - I suspect you would required to bid and the pass is unauthorised information.

Luckily you cannot be doubled in 1NT and have the result stand because if the new opponents double this will not repeat the calls made by the original opponents.

Thanks Robin.

I asked to speak to the TD away from the table and he said that I did not have to make the same call. I'll let him know that this was incorrect.

In practice the new fourth hand would either have doubled or passed, since they were not a pair to bid two clubs on 4-4 majors, so no (more) damage was done.

[trevahound]

This is funny to me as I found myself in basically the same situation at a Sectional tournament last year (ACBL land). I made a two suited preempt against one pair that has no idea at all how to double, found out we were bidding against the wrong pair, and then had to basically commit suicide against the correct pair.

[Cyberyeti]

This feels absurd, compare and contrast:

1N-X(pens)-P(force to XX)-P-XX is where the auction got before the error was realised.

1N-X-P-(so you absolutely have to bid ? yes)-P- and I'm not allowed to use the extra info I've been given to pass this out in 1Nx ?

[mycroft]

Law 15C: Discovered during Auction Period
If during the auction period the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round, he shall cancel the auction, ensure that the correct contestants are seated and that all players involved are informed of their lawful obligations and rights both now and at future rounds. A second auction begins. Players who participated in the first auction must repeat the calls they made previously. If any call differs in any way from the corresponding call in the first auction, the Director shall cancel the board. Otherwise the auction and play continue normally. The Director may award a procedural penalty (and an adjusted score) if of the opinion that there has been a purposeful attempt by either side to preclude normal play of the board.

So the question is, does the question make the pass "in any way" different from the other pass?

To the OP, note that the above Law applies to *both sides* - when it comes time for the can't count pair to play the board, if their true opponents don't open a strong NT, the board is cancelled. If the opponents don't *play* a strong NT, the board is cancelled, even if they would open 1NT.

[Vampyr]

paulg, on 2013-December-17, 16:58, said:

Is it acceptable for me to pass this time in third seat, with my 1-point hand, causing the board to be cancelled?

You will be penalised for doing this, but I think that it is legal.

Cyberyeti, on 2013-December-17, 17:57, said:

This feels absurd, compare and contrast:

1N-X(pens)-P(force to XX)-P-XX

But who would play such silly methods?

[blackshoe]

What makes you think it's legal, Stephanie?

I think Robin and Mycroft are reading the law correctly (and that Law 15C is the correct law). But it bothers me. Okay, if the auction is different at all, up to the point where it was stopped, the board is cancelled. Presumably if NS follow Law 15C and repeat their calls, they will get Average Plus on the cancelled board, being the non-offending side. But if the auction after that point hammers them because the new opponents know what they're doing against a psych, and are people against whom the player would never have psyched, then the NOS are hammered through no fault of their own, and "rub of the green" doesn't seem an adequate salve. I don't see any way out of it, even in that case, but as I said, it bothers me.

[pran]

"Repeat the auction" must include repeate also all alerts and explanations given in the original auction. If a call is repeated with a different meaning it is not the same call.

So I do not see any reason for the worries indicated here. The "innocent" pair will either be awarded A+ because of a changed auction or find themselves in essentially the same situation as before.

(The Laws of Bridge include no provisions for varying your agreements according to who are your opponents unless they have essentially different agreements/understandings.)

[helene_t]

Suppose that the new pair also bid 2♣. This has a slightly different meaning than before because this pair plays penalty doubles so they can't have a 16-count with 4-4 in the majors. Is that difference big enough to cancel the board?

To me it would be logical if the new pair's call had to be less specific than the old pair's call in order to cancel the board: The fact that overcaller can't have a balanced 16-count is AI to everyone, and the lack of inference in the old auction adds nothing to that. OTOH there could be a case for cancelling the board if it had been the other way round, i.e. if it had been the old pair that played penalty doubles. Analogous to the rules for substituting insufficient bids.

But is that what the law says?

[paulg]

pran, on 2013-December-18, 03:03, said:

(The Laws of Bridge include no provisions for varying your agreements according to who are your opponents unless they have essentially different agreements/understandings.)

Of course a psych is not an agreement.

[gnasher]

helene_t, on 2013-December-18, 03:11, said:

Suppose that the new pair also bid 2♣. This has a slightly different meaning than before because this pair plays penalty doubles so they can't have a 16-count with 4-4 in the majors. Is that difference big enough to cancel the board?

To me it would be logical if the new pair's call had to be less specific than the old pair's call in order to cancel the board: The fact that overcaller can't have a balanced 16-count is AI to everyone, and the lack of inference in the old auction adds nothing to that. OTOH there could be a case for cancelling the board if it had been the other way round, i.e. if it had been the old pair that played penalty doubles. Analogous to the rules for substituting insufficient bids.

But is that what the law says?

The Law says "differs in any way". Either a more specific meaning or a less specific meaning would costitute such a difference. Your suggestion would be better, of course.

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2013-December-17, 20:10, said:

You will be penalised for doing this, but I think that it is legal.

I don't quite understand this. Are you saying that you suspect the director will make an error? Or that a player can be penalized for doing something legal?

[ArtK78]

I think the TD made the correct decision.

The situation is different when the correct pair is seated. The pair that opened 1NT as a psych did not do anything wrong prior to the error being discovered, other than not confirming that their opponents were the correct pair. If that oversight makes them the offending side vis-a-vis the correct pair, that would be a harsh result.

I cannot see any rational ruling that would result in penalizing the pair that psyched 1NT against the wrong pair if they choose not to psych 1NT against the correct pair when the correct pair plays different methods against 1NT opening bids.

Note that the law states that the TD "may" award an adjusted score and procedural penalties if the auction is different against the correct pair. The TD is not required to do so. Consulting with the TD after the correct pair is seated but before the auction is resumed was a good idea, and the TD made a good decision. The result will have to be reviewed after the board is played to determine if the lack of the 1NT psych (now known to the psycher's partner) had any effect on the outcome.

[campboy]

ArtK78, on 2013-December-18, 08:13, said:

Note that the law states that the TD "may" award an adjusted score and procedural penalties if the auction is different against the correct pair. The TD is not required to do so. Consulting with the TD after the correct pair is seated but before the auction is resumed was a good idea, and the TD made a good decision. The result will have to be reviewed after the board is played to determine if the lack of the 1NT psych (now known to the psycher's partner) had any effect on the outcome.

No, this is not true at all. The TD "shall cancel the board" if any call is different; he does not have a choice. Once the board is cancelled he has to award an adjusted score (12A2). The "may" only comes in if he thinks a player has deliberately tried to get the board cancelled.

Anyway, as RMB1, Mycroft and Blackshoe have said, the law is clear. "Players who participated in the first auction must repeat the calls they made previously." If the TD gave PaulG the chance to do something different, he did not get it right.

[pran]

pran, on 2013-December-18, 03:03, said:

(The Laws of Bridge include no provisions for varying your agreements according to who are your opponents unless they have essentially different agreements/understandings.)

paulg, on 2013-December-18, 04:28, said:

Of course a psych is not an agreement.

Quite true, but completely irrelevant.

A psyche must be alerted and explained according to the agreement/understanding relevant to the psyche as it is made as if it were genuine and not a psyche.

(Which of course means that the psyche must be repeated exactly as it was made originally.)

[Cyberyeti]

ArtK78, on 2013-December-18, 08:13, said:

I think the TD made the correct decision.

The situation is different when the correct pair is seated. The pair that opened 1NT as a psych did not do anything wrong prior to the error being discovered, other than not confirming that their opponents were the correct pair. If that oversight makes them the offending side vis-a-vis the correct pair, that would be a harsh result.

They may not even be guilty of that, from the OP it looks like they asked "are you pair X" and were told "yes".

Quote

I cannot see any rational ruling that would result in penalizing the pair that psyched 1NT against the wrong pair if they choose not to psych 1NT against the correct pair when the correct pair plays different methods against 1NT opening bids.

The law is an ass if it requires you to psyche in this situation

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2013-December-17, 20:10, said:

You will be penalised for doing this, but I think that it is legal.

No it isn't. The law says you must repeat your calls from the original auction, so failing to do so is an infraction. There's another law that says you're not allowed to violate a law intentionally, even if you're willing to pay the penalty.

I suppose if you "forget" the original auction, you wouldn't be violating the second law, since you didn't do it intentionally. Good luck convincing the TD of that.

[helene_t]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-December-18, 09:26, said:

The law is an ass if it requires you to psyche in this situation

Suppose the law gave Paul the choice between psyching again, or letting the board cancel. Is he entitled to 60% if he elects to cancel it? Probably not. And if he elects to repeat his 1NT bid, partner (and opps) have the EI (UI for p?) that he chose to repeat his 1NT opening, even knowing that there was a Landy hand behind him.

Paul could argue that the situation has changed because of the new pair playing penalty doubles. The TD would probably not cancel the board on that ground (Paul would be invoking the loop).

So I think the law is just fine.

[Cyberyeti]

helene_t, on 2013-December-18, 09:43, said:

Suppose the law gave Paul the choice between psyching again, or letting the board cancel. Is he entitled to 60% if he elects to cancel it? Probably not. And if he elects to repeat his 1NT bid, partner (and opps) have the EI (UI for p?) that he chose to repeat his 1NT opening, even knowing that there was a Landy hand behind him.

Paul could argue that the situation has changed because of the new pair playing penalty doubles. The TD would probably not cancel the board on that ground (Paul would be invoking the loop).

So I think the law is just fine.

In this case there isn't a problem as Paul can argue that when LHO passes while playing a pen X there are some hands (flat 16) ruled out by the pass that were contained in the one where it was played first.

The situation where the tempo is different is much worse.

eg the LoL on your left has been counting her points for about 30 seconds and still hasn't got there so you choose to psyche in 3rd seat, it is unfair both on you and your new opps if you have to repeat this as you wouldn't have done it against them.