[TimG]

jkdood, on Jul 30 2008, 12:47 PM, said:

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

In your profile set:

Do you wish to view images in posts, such as smilies and posted images?

to "no".

[mycroft]

or to stop everyone else from seeing it, turn off "enable Stupid Idiotic Graphic Blots on the Face of the Internets" from your posting.

Er, sorry, did I say that? I meant Smilies/emoticons. :) b)

[jkdood]

First test:
a) I went to my profile
I changed the images setting to NO

[jkdood]

Ha ha seems that a) works BUT auto-changes it to a capital
(test2)

[jkdood]

OK now a) using b) mycrofts solution
(test3)

[jkdood]

Ok Thanks mycroft and others
FINAL POST (by me) on this nonsense (Sorry folks)

The first solution - changing my profile, only affected what I saw, the smiley went away and the " b" showed but it was a Capital B

This means other readers without changing THEIR profile settings, still see the annoying smiley, which adversely impacts readability (or enjoyability in some cases)

(I changed my setting back to YES, the default (most will have) and the smiley Came Back)

The second soution seems best, for obvious reasons. Thanks.

[Cascade]

jtfanclub, on Jul 31 2008, 05:01 AM, said:

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.

The director bit comes in Law 9 which details how to deal with an irregularity.

B. After Attention Is Drawn to an Irregularity

1. (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

( Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

© Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled.

(d) The fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does not affect the rights of the opponents.

2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

This last point prohibits further action after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

This would make a 1NT opening by north illegal if attention had been drawn to the bid out of turn. However when attention has not been drawn to the bid out of turn as stated in the opening post there is no constraint on taking further action.

Therefore it seems logical to me if no one has noticed the bid out of turn that north would be entitled to make his opening bid. I mean how come you stop someone bidding at his turn when no one has noticed that some irregularity has occurred.

[Cascade]

and further

LAW 10 - ASSESSMENT OF RECTIFICATION

A. Right to Determine Rectification

The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive – see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative.

The application is not automatic it is the director alone who determines the application of some other law.

As a player you have no right to rule law such and such applies and sort out the issue.

The procedure following an irregularity is:

1. The irregularity occurs

2. Someone (hopefully a player) draws attention to it

3. Someone (maybe but not necessarily the same person/player) calls the director

4. The director makes a ruling

Between 2 and 4 the laws prohibit further actions from any player.

There is no such prohibition between 1 and 2.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jul 30 2008, 04:08 PM, said:

Therefore it seems logical to me if no one has noticed the bid out of turn that north would be entitled to make his opening bid. I mean how come you stop someone bidding at his turn when no one has noticed that some irregularity has occurred.

This is still out of left field. Even if you can't stop him, that doesn't make it legal. In the same way you couldn't stop the opening bid out of turn even though that wasn't legal. I truly can't believe you still believe what you are saying here.

[Cascade]

LH2650, on Jul 31 2008, 06:58 AM, said:

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.

This is not correct.

We do not follow this procedure until after attention has been drawn to the irregularity.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 31 2008, 09:14 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 30 2008, 04:08 PM, said:

Therefore it seems logical to me if no one has noticed the bid out of turn that north would be entitled to make his opening bid.  I mean how come you stop someone bidding at his turn when no one has noticed that some irregularity has occurred.

This is still out of left field. Even if you can't stop him, that doesn't make it legal. In the same way you couldn't stop the opening bid out of turn even though that wasn't legal. I truly can't believe you still believe what you are saying here.

I am sitting there as north going about my business - counting up my high-card points deciding whether or not to upgrade my 14 or open my offshape 16 with 1NT or whatever else I happen to be thinking or not thinking.

I make my 1NT bid as I am the dealer.

And then someone notices that south has already bid.

Are you truly saying that north has done something wrong?

I think not.

[jkdood]

Reminder:
At the start of this thread, it did say:

"Before anyone notes the bid out of turn, NORTH opens 1NT"

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jul 30 2008, 04:21 PM, said:

I am sitting there as north going about my business - counting up my high-card points deciding whether or not to upgrade my 14 or open my offshape 16 with 1NT or whatever else I happen to be thinking or not thinking.

I make my 1NT bid as I am the dealer.

And then someone notices that south has already bid.

Are you truly saying that north has done something wrong?

I think not.

North has done something illegal. If you mean wrong in the moral sense, I always seem to lose these arguments.

[jtfanclub]

Cascade, on Jul 30 2008, 04:21 PM, said:

I make my 1NT bid as I am the dealer.

And then someone notices that south has already bid.

Are you truly saying that north has done something wrong?

Yes, of course I am.

You make your 1NT bid as you are the dealer.

And then somebody notices that the auction has already gone 1♥ 2♣ 2♥ as your LHO opened out of turn and your partner didn't say anything.

What is it exactly that you think should happen here?

You are responsible for your partner. If he leads out of turn, you don't get to make a lead as well and then say "well, it should have been my lead". If your partner doesn't show up to the table, you're required to wait until he gets there. If your partner accepts a non-opening lead out of turn, you don't get to skip RHO. And so on and so forth.

Sorry, but moral outrage isn't in the book of laws. Absolutely you can be restricted in what you can do by the actions of your partner. Even if normally you wouldn't have such a restriction.

[jkdood]

Well, in your current example isn't it legally and morally your turn to call, and 1NT simply insufficient?

[jtfanclub]

jkdood, on Jul 30 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

Well, in your current example isn't it legally and morally your turn to call, and 1NT simply insufficient?

Yes it is.

But morally you should be allowed to bid 1NT, right? You're the dealer! You should be allowed to bid 1♣ if you want to!

But the truth is, actions at the table can change what you're legally allowed to do.
Even if you're dealer.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 31 2008, 10:07 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 30 2008, 04:21 PM, said:

I am sitting there as north going about my business - counting up my high-card points deciding whether or not to upgrade my 14 or open my offshape 16 with 1NT or whatever else I happen to be thinking or not thinking.

I make my 1NT bid as I am the dealer.

And then someone notices that south has already bid.

Are you truly saying that north has done something wrong?

I think not.

North has done something illegal. If you mean wrong in the moral sense, I always seem to lose these arguments.

What is illegal? I have yet to see the law that north broke.

"Before anyone notes the bid out of turn, NORTH opens 1NT"

There is a case to argue that this was a simultaneous bid. We would certainly need some evidence that south bid before north not at the same time. I would rule simultaneous if there was any overlap.

[jkdood]

I don't propose to say that we know (and interpret) the laws better than those that have earlier dwelled (dealt?) on the above mess, but legally anyway it seems we have fleshed out that:

The 1NT bid (made pre-attention-drawing) is legal and should stand
The partner who said 1D has made an illegal out of turn bid (TD called and his LHO can decline or accept it)
If declined, bidding reverts to dealer's LHO, and the normal penalties for bid out of turn are imposed upon the 1D caller (and his side.)

[jtfanclub]

Cascade, on Jul 30 2008, 05:49 PM, said:

There is a case to argue that this was a simultaneous bid. We would certainly need some evidence that south bid before north not at the same time. I would rule simultaneous if there was any overlap.

Now you're just going off on a tangent.

Let's assume that South bid, and while West was considering whether to accept North made a 1NT bid. Why are you throwing in things like simultaneous?

I've already given you the rules, and even posted them here. 29 says that the call is canceled, 31 says that North is barred. Your argument seems to be that the rules don't count until the director is called.

Suppose it was two calls? South bid 1♦ and West bid 2♥. Is North's 1NT insufficient or not?

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jul 30 2008, 05:49 PM, said:

What is illegal? I have yet to see the law that north broke.

You posted it yourself. Something about the dealer going first I believe.