N opens1S at LHO opponents turn, not accepted, LHO passes, S bids 1H, can N now bid 1S? Can the auction continue as long as S does not use the UI that N has an opening hand?
Probably not - North need only have 6 points to respond 1 !s - but needs at least 8 to open 1 !s, so I don't think the call qualifies. It is not similar enough to a 1 !s opening, nor is it a subset of a 1 !s opening, nor have the same purpose.
A 2 !s response (13+) would be OK, I suppose (if I were generous - it is possible that such a response had a higher upper limit than a 1 !s opening)
At club level, I'd probably allow 1S on the grounds that: we want them to keep playing Bridge; it shows spades; it probably causes no harm, being a forcing bid. The knowledge that N has an opening hand isn't UI once it's ruled that 1S is a comparable call but the result can be taken away from them if the auction could have been different without that knowledge, for example if they now start bidding as though they are in a game-force.
Law 23 is a pit of vipers for TDs and the above paragraph is nothing more than how I might rule. On another night I might feel differently, due to the points raised by weejonnie.
The trouble with allowing 1S at club level is that it is just a clearly wrong ruling. Club players tend to use UI without thinking and I am sure South will not let the bidding die short of game now. You really do have to follow the rules in positions where they are clear enough. Otherwise you have cheated E/W out of their rights.
I'm not so sure about "clearly wrong". Even weejonnie couldn't muster more than a "probably not". At an improvers session or lower, I'm sure that I'd (probably) allow it.
I'll take the opportunity to agree with bluejak and say I too think it's wrong. Reading law 23 and trying to apply it to this situation should show that it doesn't fit. I also think the gap between an opening bid and a one-level response is much wider than weejonnie suggests - no-one I know opens 8-counts other than those that are exceptional.
@gordonrainsford said:
I'll take the opportunity to agree with bluejak and say I too think it's wrong. Reading law 23 and trying to apply it to this situation should show that it doesn't fit. I also think the gap between an opening bid and a one-level response is much wider than weejonnie suggests - no-one I know opens 8-counts other than those that are exceptional.
(evidence Mr Rainsford does not move in Junior Circles) =)
My 'probably not' was basically used to present the argument why not. I don't think the call should be allowed, if we obey law 72A (even in a 'friendly' club), however I was open to a countering argument.
In a novice/ teaching pairs I would explain why the call was not allowed - and then allow play to progress as presumably there is some point to the hand. After all - there are no MPs or NGS factors to consider.
Comments
Probably not - North need only have 6 points to respond 1 !s - but needs at least 8 to open 1 !s, so I don't think the call qualifies. It is not similar enough to a 1 !s opening, nor is it a subset of a 1 !s opening, nor have the same purpose.
A 2 !s response (13+) would be OK, I suppose (if I were generous - it is possible that such a response had a higher upper limit than a 1 !s opening)
At club level, I'd probably allow 1S on the grounds that: we want them to keep playing Bridge; it shows spades; it probably causes no harm, being a forcing bid. The knowledge that N has an opening hand isn't UI once it's ruled that 1S is a comparable call but the result can be taken away from them if the auction could have been different without that knowledge, for example if they now start bidding as though they are in a game-force.
Law 23 is a pit of vipers for TDs and the above paragraph is nothing more than how I might rule. On another night I might feel differently, due to the points raised by weejonnie.
The trouble with allowing 1S at club level is that it is just a clearly wrong ruling. Club players tend to use UI without thinking and I am sure South will not let the bidding die short of game now. You really do have to follow the rules in positions where they are clear enough. Otherwise you have cheated E/W out of their rights.
I'm not so sure about "clearly wrong". Even weejonnie couldn't muster more than a "probably not". At an improvers session or lower, I'm sure that I'd (probably) allow it.
I'll take the opportunity to agree with bluejak and say I too think it's wrong. Reading law 23 and trying to apply it to this situation should show that it doesn't fit. I also think the gap between an opening bid and a one-level response is much wider than weejonnie suggests - no-one I know opens 8-counts other than those that are exceptional.
(evidence Mr Rainsford does not move in Junior Circles) =)
My 'probably not' was basically used to present the argument why not. I don't think the call should be allowed, if we obey law 72A (even in a 'friendly' club), however I was open to a countering argument.
In a novice/ teaching pairs I would explain why the call was not allowed - and then allow play to progress as presumably there is some point to the hand. After all - there are no MPs or NGS factors to consider.