[inquiry]

glen, on Jul 28 2008, 06:00 PM, said:

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?

Well, this was the last board of the last round, so there was little need to throw the fellow out per se. Second, I did not give all the details, as I was just more curious about how South could make ANY bid given the ton of UI she held. If she bids anything with her 11 count, there would be at least other options (pass, 2D, etc) so I think the board might not be reasonably player if my partner rejects the bid out of turn. If I got a horrible result due to some shot like 5D on this piece of cheese, would it be fair for me to protest the board due to UI?

I also partially wondered about the issue if I psyched an opening bid, what affect that would have on her NOT TAKING advantage of the UI she held.

I am not sure what the director told my partner away from the table, as i was EAST and had no apparent say in whether to accept the opening bid out of rotation, nor the consequences on how the auction would continue since north has now also bid out of rotation.

I will say, all in all 3 directors got involved. The one who handled the case was fairly young, and the north player wanted "a senior director" because the young guy did not know the correct ruling (we got the correct ruling, btw). The director was forceful that he was the director in charge of this event. And it became a little inflammatory between them... mostly all on the side of the north player who was out of control.

[Cascade]

I cannot see any fault with the 1NT bid.

Yes his partner has bid.

Noone has drawn attention to that irregularity.

Even if north had noticed that south had bid out of turn he is not obligated to draw attention to it L9A4

"L9A4. There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partner’s apparently mistaken explanation)."

So it seems to me that north is perfectly entitled to bid 1NT.

Therefore after attention is drawn to the irregularity by south I can see no reason to stop south using the information from the 1NT bid.

Obviously the complication is that north also conveyed UI that the 1NT was intended as a strong 1NT opening.

I would be inclined to let south make whatever bid he likes barring north from this point.

While there is UI as noted there is also plenty of authorized information - north was the opening bidder; north bid 1NT without waiting for west to pass - this all points to 1NT being intended as an opening bid.

However I would penalize north for blatantly conveying UI especially if he is the director that he claims to be.

There is also the possibility of a disciplinary penalty for his behaviour.

If the irregularity had been noted before north bids then I think I would invoke L37 which would require north south to pass throughout. This could of course turn out well for the offending side if e.g. 6D fails on a 4-0 trump break or the like. I don't think that it would be automatic to invoke L23 to correct that rub of the green result.

"LAW 37 - ACTION VIOLATING OBLIGATION TO PASS

B. Offender’s LHO does not Call before Rectification

...

1. any bid, double or redouble, by a player required by law to pass is cancelled.

2. a pass is substituted, the auction continues and each member of the offending side must pass whenever it is his turn to call. Law 23 may apply. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply.
"

[jdonn]

Wayne aren't you ignoring that even if North notices his partner bid out of turn, it's no longer north's turn to act so 1NT is still UI? The fact he is the dealer is irrelevant, the auction has already begun.

[jkdood]

So Law 16 DOES say:

Offending Side
For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorised information


Hmmn, I guess it is AI for South that his partner must pass throughout but it is UI that his partner either has (a) 1NT opening or ( b ) 1NT response to 1D ?

Did I interpret that correctly THIS try?

So a logical "guess" with the South hand supposedly knowing nothing about North's hand type could be anything... and LF LA is surely NOT to allow 3N or higher. OK I slap myself and take back my unseemly observations:-)

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 29 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

Wayne aren't you ignoring that even if North notices his partner bid out of turn, it's no longer north's turn to act so 1NT is still UI? The fact he is the dealer is irrelevant, the auction has already begun.

I am not sure about this. What makes you think that another player doing something incorrectly makes it not your turn?

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jul 28 2008, 10:47 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 29 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

Wayne aren't you ignoring that even if North notices his partner bid out of turn, it's no longer north's turn to act so 1NT is still UI? The fact he is the dealer is irrelevant, the auction has already begun.

I am not sure about this. What makes you think that another player doing something incorrectly makes it not your turn?

A player doing something incorrectly doesn't automatically change your turn. A player bidding makes it the next player's turn, whether the bid was "correct" or not.

[nige1]

IMO the director should revert the result to 1♦+5. Although if 5♦+1 is a zero then justice could be said to be done by specifying that the result stands for both sides and imposing separate penalties on South for the deliberate use of unauthorised information, and North for coaching and belligerence. IMO disqualification is the least penalty appropriate for North.

Suppose, however, in a different universe, that

• North had not rabbited on and
  
• South had ethically passed or settled for a ♦ partscore and
  
• it transpired that NS could make no game.

In those different circumstances, how should you rule ? IMO, the director would then have to rule "rub of the green" and EW would have to live with the damage.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 29 2008, 04:07 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 28 2008, 10:47 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 29 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

Wayne aren't you ignoring that even if North notices his partner bid out of turn, it's no longer north's turn to act so 1NT is still UI? The fact he is the dealer is irrelevant, the auction has already begun.

I am not sure about this. What makes you think that another player doing something incorrectly makes it not your turn?

A player doing something incorrectly doesn't automatically change your turn. A player bidding makes it the next player's turn, whether the bid was "correct" or not.

I can't find this in the laws.

[jtfanclub]

[quote name='Cascade' date='Jul 29 2008, 11:24 PM'] A player doing something incorrectly doesn't automatically change your turn. A player bidding makes it the next player's turn, whether the bid was "correct" or not. [/QUOTE]
I can't find this in the laws. [/quote]
Actually, it's a lot less clear than that. If it's my deal, and LHO opens out of turn, either me or my partner can now legally bid. If I bid, it's as if the opponent never called, and if my partner bid, then the call is accepted. Law 28 B and 29B.

Actually, that's interesting. If I read law 29B correctly, The 1[di] was canceled, the 1NT call was made, but the 1NT call was illegal. That would make Law 37 apply.

"A bid, double, or redouble by a player who is required by law to pass is canceled, and (penalty) the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call..."

So, South's call is canceled, North is barred by South's bid out of turn, and South is barred by North's action violating obligaiton to pass. So the result, assuming EW don't wish to bid, is a passout.

Which is interesting, because I thought that would be the 'right' result even though I wouldn't be able to defend it. But in fact, it is defensible.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jul 29 2008, 11:24 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 29 2008, 04:07 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 28 2008, 10:47 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 29 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

Wayne aren't you ignoring that even if North notices his partner bid out of turn, it's no longer north's turn to act so 1NT is still UI? The fact he is the dealer is irrelevant, the auction has already begun.

I am not sure about this. What makes you think that another player doing something incorrectly makes it not your turn?

A player doing something incorrectly doesn't automatically change your turn. A player bidding makes it the next player's turn, whether the bid was "correct" or not.

I can't find this in the laws.

It seems patently obvious. Are you sure it doesn't mention in the laws that bids travel around the table clockwise? I'm also sure it says the dealer bids first, but once someone else has illegally bid first I would be willing to bet it doesn't say the dealer bids next!

[Cascade]

[quote name='jtfanclub' date='Jul 30 2008, 05:00 PM'] [quote name='Cascade' date='Jul 29 2008, 11:24 PM'] A player doing something incorrectly doesn't automatically change your turn. A player bidding makes it the next player's turn, whether the bid was "correct" or not. [/QUOTE]
I can't find this in the laws. [/QUOTE]
Actually, it's a lot less clear than that. If it's my deal, and LHO opens out of turn, either me or my partner can now legally bid. If I bid, it's as if the opponent never called, and if my partner bid, then the call is accepted. Law 28 B and 29B.

Actually, that's interesting. If I read law 29B correctly, The 1[di] was canceled, the 1NT call was made, but the 1NT call was illegal. That would make Law 37 apply.

"A bid, double, or redouble by a player who is required by law to pass is canceled, and (penalty) the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call..."

So, South's call is canceled, North is barred by South's bid out of turn, and South is barred by North's action violating obligaiton to pass. So the result, assuming EW don't wish to bid, is a passout.

Which is interesting, because I thought that would be the 'right' result even though I wouldn't be able to defend it. But in fact, it is defensible. [/quote]
I don't think this is right.

North is not barred until the director makes a ruling.

If north bids before a ruling has been made then I am inclined to think that he is just bidding at his proper turn.

He has no obligation to draw attention to south's irregularity and possibly might not have even noticed it.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 30 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 29 2008, 11:24 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 29 2008, 04:07 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 28 2008, 10:47 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 29 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

Wayne aren't you ignoring that even if North notices his partner bid out of turn, it's no longer north's turn to act so 1NT is still UI? The fact he is the dealer is irrelevant, the auction has already begun.

I am not sure about this. What makes you think that another player doing something incorrectly makes it not your turn?

A player doing something incorrectly doesn't automatically change your turn. A player bidding makes it the next player's turn, whether the bid was "correct" or not.

I can't find this in the laws.

It seems patently obvious. Are you sure it doesn't mention in the laws that bids travel around the table clockwise? I'm also sure it says the dealer bids first, but once someone else has illegally bid first I would be willing to bet it doesn't say the dealer bids next!

South bidding out of turn does not automatically make it West's turn to bid. In particular West has the option of not accepting the bid out of turn. This option however cannot be exercised until attention has been drawn to the irregularity and the director has come and made a ruling.

Until attention has been drawn to the irregularity it is still north's turn to bid. The law is silent on the consequences of any "normal" action that occurs after an irregularity but before attention has been drawn to it.

This is what the law says with regard to the progression of the auction:

"B. The First Call
The player designated by the board as dealer makes the first call.
C. Successive Calls
The player to dealer’s left makes the second call, and thereafter each
player calls in turn in a clockwise rotation."

This seems to say clearly that even after south has bid out of turn that east (to the left of dealer) bids second.

[jtfanclub]

Cascade, on Jul 30 2008, 05:21 AM, said:

I don't think this is right.

North is not barred until the director makes a ruling.

The rules say:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAW 29 PROCEDURE AFTER A CALL OUT OF ROTATION
A. Forfeiture of Right to Penalize
Following a call out of rotation, offender's LHO may elect to call, thereby forfeiting the right to penalize.

B. Out-of-Rotation Call Canceled
Otherwise, a call out of rotation is canceled (but see A preceding), and the auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call. Offender may make any legal call in proper rotation, but his side may be subject to penalty under Law 30, Law 31 or Law 32.

and

LAW 31 BID OUT OF ROTATION
When a player has bid out of rotation (and the bid is canceled, as the option to accept the bid has not been exercised - see Law 29):

A. RHO's Turn
When the offender has bid (or has passed partner's call when it is a convention, in which case section A2( applies) at his RHO's turn to call, then:

1. RHO Passes
If that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call out of rotation, and when that call is legal there is no penalty.

2. RHO Acts
If that opponent makes a legal bid, double or redouble, offender may make any legal call; when this call

(a) Repeats Denomination
repeats the denomination of his bid out of rotation, (penalty) offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23).

( Does Not Repeat Denomination
does not repeat the denomination of his bid out of rotation, the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply, and (penalty) offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23).

B. Partner's or LHO's Turn
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see anything in there about a director. I see that the bid is canceled because the West did not elect to call. I see that bidding reverts to North, but he must pass whenever it is his turn to call. And then, of course, rule 37 applies for bidding when you were required to pass.

Where does it say anything about 'director must make a ruling before these rules apply'?

And the question of whether he drew attention or whether he even noticed is specious. There is nothing mentioning drawing attention or noticing...most of the rules in fact assume that violations were accidental. How is North's not noticing South's bid out of turn any different than South not noticing that North was the dealer? Not noticing is not an excuse. As for drawing attention, North could have simply passed to not draw attention. You can't break the rules with the excuse of 'well, I did it to not draw attention' either.

[jkdood]

Well this is seriously off topic, but maybe timely:

I am glad it is not just me that posts
(a) Point 1
( Bee ) Point 2

and the Bee in parens shows up as a smiley.
Very annoying, I suppose it would be nice if the forum had a built-in edit just like some do for unacceptable 4-letter words and such.

Anyway, what is the trick (if any) to make ( bee ) come out as desired?

[glen]

jkdood, on Jul 30 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

Anyway, what is the trick (if any) to make ( bee ) come out as desired?

a.) I find this very annoying as well
b.) It forces the use of a period

[jillybean]

a.)
b.)
c.)

a )
b )
c )

a
b
c

[jkdood]

Testing

paren + b + paren: (
paren + space + b + paren: ( b )
b + paren:
B + space + paren: b )

[Gerardo]

• a
  
• b
  
• c

[LIST=a]
[*] a
[*] b
[*] c
[/LIST]

[nige1]

Thank you, Gerardo. It seems that ...

[LIST=a][*] Cat.[*] Dog.[*] Car.[*] Radio.[/LIST]
[LIST=1][*] Cat.[*] Dog.[*] Car.[*] Radio.[/LIST]
[LIST=A][*] Cat.[*] Dog.[*] Car.[*] Radio.[/LIST]
[LIST=I][*] Cat.[*] Dog.[*] Car.[*] Radio.[/LIST]
[LIST=i][*] Cat.[*] Dog.[*] Car.[*] Radio.[/LIST]

... produces ...

• Cat.
  
• Dog.
  
• Car.
  
• Radio.

• Cat.
  
• Dog.
  
• Car.
  
• Radio.

• Cat.
  
• Dog.
  
• Car.
  
• Radio.

• Cat.
  
• Dog.
  
• Car.
  
• Radio.

• Cat.
  
• Dog.
  
• Car.
  
• Radio.

... just like in HTML.
Incidentally, in the UK, which of the 4 (Cat, Dog, Car, Radio) is the odd one out

• Before 1971?
  
• After 1987?

[LH2650]

Cascade, on Jul 30 2008, 05:21 AM, said:

If north bids before a ruling has been made then I am inclined to think that he is just bidding at his proper turn.

Once there has been a call out of rotation, one must follow Law 29 - Procedure After a Call Out of Rotation. It is as simple as that.

Cascade, on Jul 30 2008, 05:21 AM, said:

He has no obligation to draw attention to south's irregularity and possibly might not have even noticed it.

True. West may make a call, thereby forfeiting the right to penalize. North has every right to wait and hope for that, but any call by North constitutes another irregularity.