[christyw]

Dealer W
E produces a stop card he is told it's not your turn and the TD is called
The TD establishes Easts intention was to make a jump bid thinking he was dealer

Is it correct to rule this under Law 31 B as a bid out of rotation?

[gordontd]

 christyw, on 2016-October-15, 10:06, said:

Dealer W
E produces a stop card he is told it's not your turn and the TD is called
The TD establishes Easts intention was to make a jump bid thinking he was dealer

Is it correct to rule this under Law 31 B as a bid out of rotation?

No call has been made. All that has happened is that West has been given UI. It sounds as though the amount of UI may have been amplified by the TD's actions.

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2016-October-15, 10:20, said:

No call has been made. All that has happened is that West has been given UI. It sounds as though the amount of UI may have been amplified by the TD's actions.

I think the TD's impact was minimal, maybe even negligible. Who at the table wouldn't come to the same conclusion?

But you're right that since there was no bid, there's no bid out of rotation. It's analogous to someone starting to pull cards from the bidding box, but not reaching the point that the local regulations consider a bid to be made.

[weejonnie]

 barmar, on 2016-October-15, 12:50, said:

I think the TD's impact was minimal, maybe even negligible. Who at the table wouldn't come to the same conclusion?

But you're right that since there was no bid, there's no bid out of rotation. It's analogous to someone starting to pull cards from the bidding box, but not reaching the point that the local regulations consider a bid to be made.

There is no call. There is UI in that east was about to make a jump bid - although presumably one can't tell if it was going to be showing a strong hand e.g. 2♣ or a weak one e.g. 3♣.

All West can assume from the UI is that partner isn't a flat relatively weak hand, but obviously has to be careful since if South opens then East most likely has a shapely pre-emptive hand - this could affect his call.

NS can of course make use of the information that East was wanting to open with a jump bid.

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2016-October-15, 12:50, said:

I think the TD's impact was minimal, maybe even negligible. Who at the table wouldn't come to the same conclusion?

Quote

The TD establishes Easts intention was to make a jump bid thinking he was dealer

The TD shouldn't have been making any attempt to establish East's intention.

[blackshoe]

Agree with Gordon.

[barmar]

 weejonnie, on 2016-October-15, 14:42, said:

There is no call. There is UI in that east was about to make a jump bid - although presumably one can't tell if it was going to be showing a strong hand e.g. 2♣ or a weak one e.g. 3♣.

True, although the a priori odds favor a weak bid, and the players' hands may reinforce this conclusion.

Quote

All West can assume from the UI is that partner isn't a flat relatively weak hand, but obviously has to be careful since if South opens then East most likely has a shapely pre-emptive hand - this could affect his call.

NS can of course make use of the information that East was wanting to open with a jump bid.

I don't see how any of this relates to my point. The TD didn't say anything about the meaning of the bid, just that it he was presumably about to make a jump bid. Everyone at the table knows this.

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2016-October-17, 08:13, said:

The TD didn't say anything about the meaning of the bid, just that it he was presumably about to make a jump bid.

I don't think you can know this. The original post said "The TD establishes Easts intention was to make a jump bid thinking he was dealer" which is not the same thing.

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2016-October-17, 08:37, said:

I don't think you can know this. The original post said "The TD establishes Easts intention was to make a jump bid thinking he was dealer" which is not the same thing.

I'm just going by what was said. "intention was to make a jump bid" is not the same as "intention was to make a weak (or strong) bid". If the OP meant the latter, he should have said so.

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2016-October-18, 09:04, said:

I'm just going by what was said. "intention was to make a jump bid" is not the same as "intention was to make a weak (or strong) bid". If the OP meant the latter, he should have said so.

"Establishes intention" is not the same as "presumably".

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2016-October-18, 09:19, said:

"Establishes intention" is not the same as "presumably".

Ahh, so you're saying that the problem is that he may have asked questions of the offending player that confirmed that he really was about to make a jump bid, it's not just something everyone assumes because they saw him pull the stop card. So he established that the player didn't pull the stop card by accident. Perhaps it was inappropriate, but is it really significant enough to make a difference?

[mycroft]

I have doubled my partner out of rotation. When it was commented on, I did what I was intending to do - pull out the Alert card.

So I can see we might have wanted to find out whether East was attempting to make a call or whether the STOP card came out for some other reason (I have no idea what, mind you, but things happen). This would impact the UI that was passed. Anything else is irrelevant as said above as no call has been made.

I usually find this one is survivable; the auction usually ends up passing any information that came from the STOP card. Sometimes it doesn't, and we always check, of course.

My favourite recently was "STOP - no, wait, I forgot to Alert. Director, please." - and then, of course, cueing rather than skipping to show my hand.

[barmar]

Good point.

Last night I meant to make a takeout double, but accidentally pulled both a pass and double card. The pass ended up on top, and I just absent-mindedly put back the double card without even realizing that I'd changed my intended call. LHO's bid was alerted and explained as being an inverted minor raise. When it was passed around to me (LHO was a passed hand, so the inverted raise wasn't forcing) I asked if they play that after the double, they said there was no double, and that's when I realized what I'd done.

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2016-October-18, 09:38, said:

Ahh, so you're saying that the problem is that he may have asked questions of the offending player that confirmed that he really was about to make a jump bid, it's not just something everyone assumes because they saw him pull the stop card. So he established that the player didn't pull the stop card by accident. Perhaps it was inappropriate, but is it really significant enough to make a difference?

Who knows? One would have to have been there and neither of us was.