1nt OOR
Hello ,
May I have your assistance for the following case please ?
Dealer is N . But S opened the bidding with 1nt (15-17 ) OOR. The Td was summoned .
"
After Director made the following explanation to the table -that is " S' bid is OOR . W holds right to accept it. If it is not accepted
Bidding reverts to N. N can make any call and so E and and S do . Bu if S' call is not comparable to his previous call ( 1nt )- L23-
N is to pass for one round when it is turn to call. If N-S becomes defender , L16 applies and under L26 lead restrictions will also apply." then the TD turns to W and asks whether he accepts 1nt. W thinks for a second and say " hmm we had better accept it " But all of a sudden his partner (E) interrupts and says "no we shouldn't accept it " In the end 1nt OOR is not accepted and the bidding goes back to N and N bids 2h ( w6) E overcalls with 2sp.
S bids 2nt .
Questions :
1) It is obvious that E 's interruption makes ( or helps ) W change his mind. In this case , what would your decision be on ruling ?
2) Do you find the explanation and attitude of the TD as sufficient ?
3) Is the bid of 2nt accepted as a comparable call ?
looking forward to receiving from you.
Regards
Secaaddin Ozdeniz
Comments
West makes the decision. East has no right to influence the decision.
West has accepted the bid.
Alan
My interpretation of "hmm we had better accept it" would be construed as a question to East. Then a comment by East would be forthcoming.
Agree.
West is not entitled to ask East's opinion.
Hello ,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments.
My inference from your comments is that TD is supposed the cut the communication in some way between the partners on the defending side after making the necessary explanation , but before asking the right opponent
to make their decision on the acceptance of the call , which is OOT. In my opinion at the very beginning warning the partner , who is the decision maker , of the defender to remain silent throughout the ruling may work.
As far as I understand , In this scenario , TD should have made his decision on the direction of the acceptance of 1Nt .
Assume that there was no influence from the other opponent , in this case would you accept 2nt bid by S as a comparable call ?
I may be wrong but I would. It is because after 2Sp interference over his partner 's opening a bid of weak2 2nt should at least have 15 to 16 ( invitation) unless it is an artificial call. ( weak2 means 6-9/10 6c )
I will be very happy if you make your comments on my view as well.
Thank you very much once more.
Regards.
Secaaddin Ozdeniz
The TD should address the ruling in the first place to the player can accept the irregularity. Ideally you catch the eye the player with the decision, so the player can't look at their partner for help. The TD can add words about not consulting or that the partner should remain silent. When the decision to accept/reject has been made you can then repeat the relevant part of the ruling to the other players.
Thank you for your explanation and warning.
Although I have not received any comments regarding the bid of 2nt I assume that at least you do not disagree.
on its being a comparable call. I have watched the wonderful video ( video4 - comparable call ) by (EBL)- Mr. Rainsford . many times . The simulation there covers 1nt opening which is OOR. From the auction 's point of view It is not exactly the same but in my opinion it answers to my question .
Regards.
Secaaddin Özdeniz
In most systems where an opening 1NT is 15-17, I'd consider (2!s), 2NT to be comparable to an opening 1NT – the strength shown is very similar, and the distribution shown (balanced, with a spade stop) is more informative than the call replaced (balanced, with or without a spade stop), so all the information that 1NT would have conveyed is being conveyed by the 2NT call.
What I find interesting here is that Law 16B1 does not apply. There is clearly UI, but the accptance or not of the 1NT is not a "call or play".
I think Law 16B2 does apply, but does Law 16B3 - the one that gives the right to recompense? It only talks about action (not call or play) but refers to "logical alternative", which (in 16B1) is defined in reference to calls and plays.
Of course Law 73C1 gives a blanket "don't use UI", and 72C a right to recompense.
Perhaps Law 16B1 might benefit from expanding the definition to any action, rather than just a call or play.