[c_corgi]

 barmar, on 2012-April-04, 13:04, said:

In that case, why disallow consultation? How can it be right that North isn't allowed to influence South's decision about whether to accept the BOOT, but then allow North to preempt the decision entirely?

Actually, it seems like North can force South NOT to accept the BOOT, but he can't force him TO accept it. But they can use this loophole to effectively transfer the decision to their partner: if a player wants his partner to refuse the BOOT, he makes a call while the TD is explaining the options; if he wants his partner to accept the BOOT, he keeps silent.

I don't think this counts as consultation: it is North unilaterally choosing a third option which was not available to South, rather than influencing South's choice. It does allow North the option to ensure rejection of the BOOT, but at the cost of enforcing L31. This assumes L28B applies, of course!

[aguahombre]

This might be considered off-topic, so I apologize in advance. but can someone explain briefly the logic behind the applicable law which gives the partner of the player whose turn it actually was to call the power to deprive that player of his turn?

[pran]

 barmar, on 2012-April-04, 13:04, said:

In that case, why disallow consultation? How can it be right that North isn't allowed to influence South's decision about whether to accept the BOOT, but then allow North to preempt the decision entirely?

Actually, it seems like North can force South NOT to accept the BOOT, but he can't force him TO accept it. But they can use this loophole to effectively transfer the decision to their partner: if a player wants his partner to refuse the BOOT, he makes a call while the TD is explaining the options; if he wants his partner to accept the BOOT, he keeps silent.

Any competent director will easily detect and take action against such tactics. "We" try to not create any problem when there is no reason for it.

[campboy]

 aguahombre, on 2012-April-04, 14:07, said:

This might be considered off-topic, so I apologize in advance. but can someone explain briefly the logic behind the applicable law which gives the partner of the player whose turn it actually was to call the power to deprive that player of his turn?

The reason that it is normally the choice of the player sitting over the bid out of turn whether to accept is that he might call anyway, not realising that the previous bid was out of turn. Similarly the main reason for 28B is that the player whose call it was may fail to notice that his opponent has bid out of turn (though this is less likely).

[aguahombre]

 campboy, on 2012-April-04, 16:01, said:

The reason that it is normally the choice of the player sitting over the bid out of turn whether to accept is that he might call anyway, not realising that the previous bid was out of turn. Similarly the main reason for 28B is that the player whose call it was may fail to notice that his opponent has bid out of turn (though this is less likely).

Thank you for explaining their reasoning, and not calling it logic. It creates a whole set of systemic issues, where subequent bids by 2nd chair, who never had a chance to be 2nd chair, mean different things than they would if he had passed the opening bid on the first round.

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2012-April-04, 18:24, said:

Thank you for explaining their reasoning, and not calling it logic. It creates a whole set of systemic issues, where subequent bids by 2nd chair, who never had a chance to be 2nd chair, mean different things than they would if he had passed the opening bid on the first round.

I think this is permitted everywhere except in the ACBL. But I don't think anyone really bothers with creating agreements, since you can't count on the opponents to make illegal bids often enough to be worth the effort.

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2012-April-04, 18:36, said:

I think this is permitted everywhere except in the ACBL. But I don't think anyone really bothers with creating agreements, since you can't count on the opponents to make illegal bids often enough to be worth the effort.

That is my point. The NOS is doomed to confusion, and the auction timing is different from the other tables. But, that's the way it is, apparently. My sympathy, if perhaps not the rules, goes to North who jumped in to create a normal auction for his side.

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2012-April-04, 18:55, said:

That is my point. The NOS is doomed to confusion, and the auction timing is different from the other tables. But, that's the way it is, apparently. My sympathy, if perhaps not the rules, goes to North who jumped in to create a normal auction for his side.

I see what you're saying. But remember that South also has the opportunity to create a normal auction for his side. If he chooses not to, he might have a reason, eg he can show his hand better after the auction (1♣)-?-(1♦).

[gordontd]

 aguahombre, on 2012-April-04, 14:07, said:

This might be considered off-topic, so I apologize in advance. but can someone explain briefly the logic behind the applicable law which gives the partner of the player whose turn it actually was to call the power to deprive that player of his turn?

...and gives the player whose turn it actually was the power to take away that power from his partner

[aguahombre]

 gordontd, on 2012-April-05, 01:17, said:

...and gives the player whose turn it actually was the power to take away that power from his partner

If he doesn't wait for the director and just acts.

[barmar]

 c_corgi, on 2012-April-04, 14:00, said:

I don't think this counts as consultation: it is North unilaterally choosing a third option which was not available to South, rather than influencing South's choice.

That was my point. He's not allowed to influence South, but he IS apparently allowed to preempt South completely. How likely is it that this was intentional on the part of the lawmakers?

I'm not sure how this is a third option. If North calls, how is it different from South refusing the BOOT and the auction reverting to North?

[c_corgi]

 barmar, on 2012-April-05, 07:27, said:

That was my point. He's not allowed to influence South, but he IS apparently allowed to preempt South completely. How likely is it that this was intentional on the part of the lawmakers?

I'm not sure how this is a third option. If North calls, how is it different from South refusing the BOOT and the auction reverting to North?

In one case L31 applies, in the other it doesn't.

[axman]

 c_corgi, on 2012-April-04, 14:00, said:

I don't think this counts as consultation: it is North unilaterally choosing a third option which was not available to South, rather than influencing South's choice. It does allow North the option to ensure rejection of the BOOT, but at the cost of enforcing L31. This assumes L28B applies, of course!

To be consultation I do not think that S necessarily needs to ask overtly for it. N's action conveyed his opinion, opinion being the core of consultation; The undoing of N's action does not undo N's expression of opinion, nor S's reception of it.

[barmar]

 c_corgi, on 2012-April-05, 07:56, said:

In one case L31 applies, in the other it doesn't.

Could you explain? Law 31 applies to a BOOT. But 28B says that when North proactively bids, his call is considered to be in rotation, and East's BOOT is ignored (except that it may be UI).

[blackshoe]

Yes, but if you don't apply 28B, or North doesn't stick his oar in, then if South does not accept the BOOT, Law 31 will apply.

[barmar]

Ahh, I see my misunderstanding. When c_corgi wrote "but at the cost of enforcing L31" I thought he meant that we would enforce L31 against N/S, but what he meant was they would lose the use of L31 against E/W, and the likely advantage that accrues.

[c_corgi]

 barmar, on 2012-April-05, 08:48, said:

Ahh, I see my misunderstanding. When c_corgi wrote "but at the cost of enforcing L31" I thought he meant that we would enforce L31 against N/S, but what he meant was they would lose the use of L31 against E/W, and the likely advantage that accrues.

Correct.