[inquiry]

Here is the situation. Third seat (South) holds...

Scoring: IMP

.... and opens 1♦ (out of order, as north is dealer). Before anyone notes the bid out of turn, NORTH opens 1NT... to which EAST west said, wait a minute.... North then informs the table that he did not see the opening out of turn, and his bid was 15-17 1NT.... DIRECTOR!!! is called. While waiting for the director to come, North starts explaining the options to his partner and his opponents. Director arrives and gives WEST the option to accept the bid or 1♦ or not. WEST and the DIRECTOR leave for a while and finally return and WEST rejects the opening out of turn. North is now forced to through out the auction, and when East passes, South is "instructed" by her partner that she can bid anything she wants, including 3NT. Three notrump was mentioned by north several times (!!!) *coaching". South is in possession of a boat load of UI at this point that she must not take advantage of.....

---

Numerous violations on this hand. But is an opening bid 3NT or 5D or 6D allowed with the South hand now? Is this hand playable. If south opens 5D and it is the top spot is that allowed (luck of the draw). If it is a horrible spot, do NS have redress for the fact that board should no longer be playable (too much UI) and scores should have been assigned. Any ideas.

[TimG]

What I'd like to do (without making any claims to it being lawful) is assign Ave+ EW, A- NS and impose a huge procedural penalty (or a number of small ones) to NS for north's efforts to self-rule and then coach her partner.

[jillybean]

All this UI, I think it is unplayable.

[jtfanclub]

South does something, North is barred, and then it later gets ruled to 1♦ making whatever (unless there's something logical for EW to do, and I'm guessing there won't be).

I suppose as Director I can't 'coach' South into opening 1♦ (or 1NT if his hand is balanced), but I might point out that I'm not issuing a procedural penalty, but an AC might....

I will assume that failing to find game is far better for the opponents than A+.

EDIT: Hmmmm...both players bid out of turn. How about I just bar them both from the bidding (requiring both players to pass)? I don't think there are any rules for when both partners bid out of turn, but seems reasonable. I know, the rules don't say I can....

[jdonn]

I don't see why the board is unplayable, you simply poll a lot of players on the unusual situation south is in but without mentioning all the UI from North or his attempted 1NT bid, and force upon south the logical alternative from the poll that would work the worst in the director's opinion (hope we find some passers!) I would then give NS a procedural penalty of a full board.

[matmat]

seems like fun was had by all.

seems like N needs to take an ethics course.

[xcurt]

3NT after the "normal" out-of-order 1D, not accepted, so

P-P-?

to the 6-4 hand, 3NT isn't unreasonable. Other LA's seem to be any number of diamonds between 1 and 5, and pass.

With the UI, I would adjust any call from south other than 3D or 4D if that call got a better result than 3D would have. I wouldn't let South bid minimum diamonds in an effort to buy it in 1D or 2D since she knows from the table action that it more likely to succeed than if she didn't know North has a strong NT.

If N is at all experienced he goes to C&E.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Jul 28 2008, 12:07 PM, said:

I would then give NS a procedural penalty of a full board.

Aw, come on, jdonn. Sure the guy tried to bid out of turn, coach his partner, and then make the board unplayable, probably ruining the game for the tables next to him as well. But is that really as bad as a cell phone ringing?

[jkdood]

I welcome a correction if wrong, but isn't South, told to bid whatever while their partner is forever barred on the auction, allowed to ethically/legally note what their pards attempted bid was?

The UI seems mainly to be that it could have been EITHER a 1NT response to 1D, or a 1NT opening, and South must take a best-guess. If (Josh's suggested) poll appears to have any number of players interpret/consider it as other-than-a-strong-1NT (and I suspect few if any would, but that's what polling is for maybe) then I would think it proper to allow a 3NT or similar call.

Hearts or slam may be right, so N-S is surely at a disadvantage with such a guess, and if they get lucky (all in 6D down 1) so be it.

Now it seems North's totally improper violation is UI of course by a) making it clear that it was to be a 1NT opening and b ) by playing TD and coaching. But if none of the polled players would assume otherwise, certainly imposing 1D wouldn't seem proper.

Yes, depending upon the accuracy of North's serioulsy egregious behavior, an appropriate procedural misconduct seems warranted, full board sounds about right.

[glen]

inquiry, on Jul 28 2008, 12:46 PM, said:

... North is now forced to through out the auction, and when East passes, South is "instructed" by her partner that she can bid anything she wants, including 3NT. ...

often the TD "hangs around" until South bids to help get things back on track - I don't like that the TD left, imo, early

[xcurt]

jkdood, on Jul 28 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

Hearts or slam may be right, so N-S is surely at a disadvantage with such a guess, and if they get lucky (all in 6D down 1) so be it.

Actually there is a mechanism in the laws to redress this kind of luck.

[inquiry]

I suspect I should correct some misconceptions.

1. The director remained at the table (after called) and in fact, sat down behind south and talked with her.
2. The director told north several times that he was not "allowed" to coach south.
3. North was highly aggrevated and claimed to be a "certified director" and that "knew his rights". He also (believe it or not) threatened the director with physical violence.
4. The director in fact told south, several times, she could bid ANYTHING she wanted, but in selecting that bid, she had to put out of her mind the fact her partner held a balanced 15-17 hand.
5. North did NOT want an assigned average minus at this point.
6. In realilty, 12 sure tricks existed in NT, SPADES, and DIAMONDS and 5 diamonds was a total zero for NS. The director ruled that
7. Now, after the fact, North wanted AVERAGES assigned to both EW and NS, and went off looking for paper work to file an appeal. (as if he was ever getting an AVERAGE for the numerous violation). To the best of my knowledge, no appeal was filed.

I was East, and of course was more than happy to let the result stand, but I wonder if there is any way SOUTH, who was in possession of a boat load of UI could in fact make a lucky guess here. I mean if the bidding had been 1♦ out of turn, and we call the director before north also bids (skipping my partner), south is certainly free to take her best guess, and if as jkdood guesses, the result was lucky for her, fine and dandy. But here, this is different from the normal bid out of turn, as she has heard her partners bid. Is there not less risk being creative in bidding with an 11 count versus a partner from whom you have heard nothing. And what if I had "psyched" a bid in second seat (something I considered), for her to bid any game now, would that not be taking advantage of UI (as I defender, I can take advantage of the UI available to me, but they who created it can not). And I assume my partner is allowed to infer that I psyched, but south is not.

Oh, my head hurts thinking about it.

[hotShot]

The board is playable how else can EW get a better score than A+.
If more than 1 infraction happened, we have to resolve them in reverse direction.

So we need Law 29 and 31 (old notation)
So we ask East if he accepts the 1NT bid out of turn.
If East accepts it, he has to make a bid and than south is required to bid over the 1NT response over his own 1♦. He is not allowed to use the UI that partner has a 1NT opening, and I think the alternatives are pass and 2♦. Since bidding on is suggested by the UI, South has to pick pass leading to a contract of 1NT from North.

If East does not accept the 1NT bid from North, it is removed and it's again West's turn to act.
So we ask West if he accepts the 1♦ call. If West accepts and passes North has to bid 1NT. See above.
If West accepts and bids something else North has to bid some NT or South is forced to pass for the rest of the auction.

Now if West does not accept the 1♦ Bid it is canceled and We return to the player who's turn it is to bid: North From there the auction can start quite normal with North opens 1NT. Now we will have to deal with the problem that South bid 1♦ before, so South will have to make the final bid over North 1NT, because North is not allowed to bid later.

If East or West accept the bid out of turn, the contract will be 1NT.
If both don't accept North opens 1NT and South can guess the contract now with the legal information of North 1NT opening.

Now that the Bridge technical problem is solved (I hope I did not mix up something) there are procedural penalties, disciplinary penalties and perhaps even more to consider.

[blackshoe]

North is not the director; what he wants is irrelevant.

If a player threatened me, as a director, with physical violence he'd be in front of an ethics hearing so fast his head would spin. Not to mention being ejected (forcibly, if necessary) from the current event.

[bid_em_up]

inquiry, on Jul 28 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

I was East, and of course was more than happy to let the result stand, but I wonder if there is any way SOUTH, who was in possession of a boat load of UI could in fact make a lucky guess here. I mean if the bidding had been 1♦ out of turn, and we call the director before north also bids (skipping my partner), south is certainly free to take her best guess,

Ummm, I could be mistaken, but assuming West accepts the 1D bid out of turn, isnt North now barred from the auction, and it goes 1D all pass?

edit: i just read hotshots explanation, never mind.

[blackshoe]

I think hotshot missed a bit. If we deal with North's 1NT bid first, and it is not accepted, then it is cancelled. Now, when we deal with South's 1♦, and that is not accepted, Law 31B applies

Quote

When the offender has bid at his partner's turn to call, or at his LHO's turn to call if the offender has not previously called, (penalty) offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side), and the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply.

So South's 1♦ is cancelled and the bidding reverts to North, who must pass whenever it is his turn. So it will start (assuming EW pass throughout) P-(P) to South. South has UI from North's comments and his 1NT bid. Is pass an LA for a player in 3rd seat with South's hand? I don't think so. I would think he could bid 1 or 2 ♦, those being LAs, but anything more would seem to be based on UI, so I would adjust to 1 or 2 ♦ making whatever if he does anything else and gets a better result.

[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on Jul 28 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

for a player in 3rd seat with South's hand? I don't think so. I would think he could bid 1 or 2 ♦, those being LAs, but anything more would seem to be based on UI, so I would adjust to 1 or 2 ♦ making whatever if he does anything else and gets a better result.

And that is perfectly reasonable, except that the fact that your partner is barred from the bidding is AI. I won't go so far as to say a majority of experts if given this problem would bid game, but certainly it's reasonable. Nonetheless, I would revert it back to something less than game due to UI.

[blackshoe]

The fact that one has AI does not relieve one of the obligation not to take advantage of UI.

[hotShot]

blackshoe, on Jul 28 2008, 11:31 PM, said:

I think hotshot missed a bit.

You are right, I missed that.

Why can't the player call the after the first problem ......

[glen]

inquiry, on Jul 28 2008, 03:09 PM, said:

I suspect I should correct some misconceptions.

... He also (believe it or not) threatened the director with physical violence.  ...

Thanks - generally it helps to have these (relevant details) in the op.

How did the ZT work out?