[inquiry]

The ruling at the table seems like it had to be correct, as three directors all agreed. The interesting thing was

• could (should) I psyche an opening bid and dare South to guess right in light of my opening bid?
  
• If south guessed "right" and bid something good for their side, would that bid have been suggested by the UI, and thus if so, would I have recourse?

I think a sharp player would have psyched with my hand, in which case south is simply not allowed to guess right. I think in general the hand is no longer playable. The violation of north stating his range on his own 1NT seems to be glossed over by the above commentors, focusing instead of 1NT being the "opening bid" rather than a bid out of rotation. The statements by north made it clear it was meant as an opening bid (upto and including giving the range).

I wanted comments on the correct strategies, and if the hand was playable at all.

[blackshoe]

inquiry, on Aug 1 2008, 08:24 PM, said:

• could (should) I psyche an opening bid and dare South to guess right in light of my opening bid?
  
• If south guessed "right" and bid something good for their side, would that bid have been suggested by the UI, and thus if so, would I have recourse?

I think a sharp player would have psyched with my hand, in which case south is simply not allowed to guess right. I think in general the hand is no longer playable. The violation of north stating his range on his own 1NT seems to be glossed over by the above commentors, focusing instead of 1NT being the "opening bid" rather than a bid out of rotation. The statements by north made it clear it was meant as an opening bid (upto and including giving the range).

I wanted comments on the correct strategies, and if the hand was playable at all.

What, exactly, was the table ruling?

In general, when a player has UI, you look at four things:

1. Did the UI demonstrably suggest anything?
2. Did the recipient of the UI take such a suggested action?
3. Did that person have an LA?
4. Were the opponents damaged?

If all four of these are true, you adjust the score.

"Damage" consists basically in the NOS getting a worse score than they might have got had the irregularity (or irregularities, in this case) not occurred.

If by "guess right" you mean that the OS lands somewhere where the NOS are damaged, although perhaps not as much as they might have been, then no, that's not happening.

Should you psyche an opening bid? Well, if North starts the (corrected) auction with a pass (forced or not) you're certainly allowed to psyche an opening bid. No matter, South still has UI, that UI still constrains South's choices, and if South by his choice lands on his feet, then I'm pretty sure EW are damaged, and that's that.

If the hand were not playable, would not these three directors who all agreed on the ruling not have ruled it unplayable? I dunno, maybe they did — but it doesn't sound like it.

[hotShot]

I would be very careful with a psyche in such a situation.
Both opps have UI and it's kind of unlikely they will get to the best spot and you know that they have more than enough HCP.
A psyche is definitely a gambling action. And if opps just let you play (or have to let you play because both sides have to pass), your psyche will stop the TD from adjusting the score in your favor, because you contributed to your score with an "irrational, wild or gambling" action.

[inquiry]

blackshoe, on Aug 2 2008, 12:28 AM, said:

inquiry, on Aug 1 2008, 08:24 PM, said:

• could (should) I psyche an opening bid and dare South to guess right in light of my opening bid?
  
  
• If south guessed "right" and bid something good for their side, would that bid have been suggested by the UI, and thus if so, would I have recourse?

I think a sharp player would have psyched with my hand, in which case south is simply not allowed to guess right. I think in general the hand is no longer playable. The violation of north stating his range on his own 1NT seems to be glossed over by the above commentors, focusing instead of 1NT being the "opening bid" rather than a bid out of rotation. The statements by north made it clear it was meant as an opening bid (upto and including giving the range).

I wanted comments on the correct strategies, and if the hand was playable at all.

What, exactly, was the table ruling?

In general, when a player has UI, you look at four things:

1. Did the UI demonstrably suggest anything?
2. Did the recipient of the UI take such a suggested action?
3. Did that person have an LA?
4. Were the opponents damaged?

If all four of these are true, you adjust the score.

"Damage" consists basically in the NOS getting a worse score than they might have got had the irregularity (or irregularities, in this case) not occurred.

If by "guess right" you mean that the OS lands somewhere where the NOS are damaged, although perhaps not as much as they might have been, then no, that's not happening.

Should you psyche an opening bid? Well, if North starts the (corrected) auction with a pass (forced or not) you're certainly allowed to psyche an opening bid. No matter, South still has UI, that UI still constrains South's choices, and if South by his choice lands on his feet, then I'm pretty sure EW are damaged, and that's that.

If the hand were not playable, would not these three directors who all agreed on the ruling not have ruled it unplayable? I dunno, maybe they did — but it doesn't sound like it.

My partner refused the opening bid of 1♦. As a result the dealer was forced to pass each time for the remainder of the auction. I believe if my partner became declarer their would have been some lead penalties too.

With a passing partner, third hand can not bid normally. For instance, any bid she made, could be her last bid as her partner will not be able to respond. Thus, assuming her opponents never bid, her one bid will be her last bid.

What is normal in such circumstances if you know absolutely nothing about your partner's hand. He could have an opening bid and game is missed if you do not bid it. He could have a horrible hand, and any high bid could be a huge disaster. After all, NORMALLY, you know nothing about partners hand.

I have to admit, most people will gamble some game in this situation if their RHO passes (thus why a psyche could be considered... I mean my partner and I are both allowed to know that my LHO has an opening and and my RHO has a 1NT opening hand, it is their side that is not allowed to take advantage of that info).

The ruling question becomes, even though most people in 3rd seat might gamble to bid game if they had opened out of turn and their partner was barred (without hearing a bid from their partner) with her hand, what are the logical alternatives. Logical alternatives become important here because she got in possession of a boat load of UI... including her partner making it clear he had a 15-17 1NT hand (rather than say a 1NT response to 1♦ by just not waiting for my partners bid). This is no longer the normal situation with an opening bid out of turn rejected. Now 3rd seat is "protected" from any wild bid, in fact, she said at the table she considered opening 6♦ (after you had a 1NT opener). I suspect 17+11 = 28 was not enough for her to "risk it". But you see the problem.

Normally she is allowed to bid game with a horrible 11 in the "hope" (wish) to get back to normal result. But here, she is in possession of a "BOAT-LOAD" of UI. I wondered if the hand was playable because there has to be LA to bidding game -- especially since she needed "coaching" from her partner (yet another violation).

[jtfanclub]

I still think there's a very good argument for...

South bid out of turn, barring North.
Then North bid out of turn, barring South.
And as a result, both players must pass througout the auction.

It would not have occurred to me had we not had this discussion. Previously ATT, I would have ruled as your directors ruled, and adjusted any game bid to a part score if it worked.

[blackshoe]

I do not see anything in the laws that indicates that any particular amount of UI from partner, even a "boat-load", could render a board unplayable. I suppose one could invoke Law 12A2:

Quote

The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below)

on the grounds that per TD judgement the amount of UI present makes normal play impossible, but that begs the question "what is normal play?" 12C2 says

Quote

When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained...

and that seems a bit more restrictive than 12A2. A result can be obtained.

The new laws allow an artificial adjusted score when "the possibilities are numerous or not obvious" even after a result has been obtained, but I don't think that allows the TD to shortcut obtaining the result. The current laws don't say that, anyway. In fact, the current 16A2 explicitly instructs the TD to require the auction and play to continue. The question whether UI was used is to be answered after the play.

[inquiry]

blackshoe, on Aug 2 2008, 10:35 AM, said:

The current laws don't say that, anyway. In fact, the current 16A2 explicitly instructs the TD to require the auction and play to continue. The question whether UI was used is to be answered after the play.

Which is in fact what the director did and said. His statement was there was so much UI that the board may not be "playable" but to go ahead and bid and play and he would review it after play was over.

In fact, as I said, he pulled up a chair and sat behind 3rd seat until the auction was over, and then he went off with his rule book open!

For what it is worth, while 3rd seat was considering what to bid, and while the director was at the table, dealer (who was barred) kept telling 3rd seat that she could bid 3NT... and the director kept telling him he could not say such things and such coaching was not allowed. This was causing a lot of the problem. Note the director never told 3rd seat that she could not bid 3NT, just her partner that he was not allowed to coach..... but that is a different issue too (although probably goes to unplayable and what the ruling might have been if she had bid 3NT).

[blackshoe]

Personally, I wonder why the dealer, after making all those comments, and continuing to make them after being told to stop, wasn't slapped with a disciplinary penalty. I would think the ACBL "standard" of 25% of a top would be too little. I'd go 50%, at least.

Again, the coaching passes UI - and the laws don't say that makes the board unplayable. And it was played. The question then becomes "do we adjust the score, and if so, to what do we adjust it?"

[jtfanclub]

Incidentally, I happened to play against Mike Flader today, and asked him "North is dealer, South opened 1 diamond out of turn, and then North bids 1NT before West does anything. What is your ruling?"

And his ruling was both North and South are barred from the auction. Law 37.

Now, obviously, I didn't mention the UI or the question of simultaneous or whether thinking was an action. Nonetheless, I think the concept is correct here. And if both are barred, everything else becomes moot.

[Apollo81]

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

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

He should have been thrown out of the event for this, at minimum. That is what would happen in any other sport.

[blackshoe]

jtfanclub, on Aug 2 2008, 08:42 PM, said:

Incidentally, I happened to play against Mike Flader today, and asked him "North is dealer, South opened 1 diamond out of turn, and then North bids 1NT before West does anything. What is your ruling?"

And his ruling was both North and South are barred from the auction. Law 37.

Now, obviously, I didn't mention the UI or the question of simultaneous or whether thinking was an action. Nonetheless, I think the concept is correct here. And if both are barred, everything else becomes moot.

Interesting. Law 37 says

Quote

A bid, double or redouble by a player who is required by law to pass is canceled, and (penalty) each member of the offending side must pass whenever it becomes his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side). The lead penalties of Law 26 may apply. (If offender's LHO calls, see Law 35B.)

Note that North was not (yet) required by law to pass at the time he bid, because we don't know whether West will accept South's BOOT.

If Mike's right, then Inquiry's assumption that the table ruling was correct is wrong.

[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on Aug 4 2008, 12:36 AM, said:

Note that North was not (yet) required by law to pass at the time he bid, because we don't know whether West will accept South's BOOT.

If Mike's right, then Inquiry's assumption that the table ruling was correct is wrong.

Doesn't matter. It's always an illegal bid by North.

I would not have figured it out at the table...but apparently Mike would have.

[blackshoe]

An illegal bid, maybe, but not "by a player who is required by law to pass", so Law 37 does not apply.