[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 31 2008, 11:17 AM, said:

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.

North is the dealer. No one has noted the irregularity. He thinks he is bidding first.

From the opening post not until after he has bid 1NT did anyone suggest they had noticed the out of turn bid.

If this is clearly wrong for north as you state then that allows a dubious east west to intentionally not draw attention to the out of turn bid hoping that north will compound the error by bidding. Surely this cannot be the intention of the laws.

[Cascade]

jtfanclub, on Jul 31 2008, 11:00 AM, said:

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?

I don't think so.

If no one noted the out of turn bid then at the point where attention was drawn to the irregularity we have two bids one each from north and south on the table.

The first issue to be determined would be if one occurred before the other or if they occurred simultaneously.

The presumption if no one had noted that south bid out of turn would be that either they occurred simultaneously or that only the south bid was out of turn.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jul 30 2008, 06:47 PM, said:

North is the dealer.  No one has noted the irregularity.  He thinks he is bidding first.

He thinks he is bidding first but he is wrong. It's not legal to bid out of turn simply because you think you are bidding in turn, just as it's not legal for me to play a diamond when a heart is led simply because I don't think I have any hearts when I actually do have one. I mean seriously, why is this so controversial to you!

Quote

From the opening post not until after he has bid 1NT did anyone suggest they had noticed the out of turn bid.

Yes, at that point the two illegal bids were discovered and the poor director had to decide what to do.

Quote

If this is clearly wrong for north as you state then that allows a dubious east west to intentionally not draw attention to the out of turn bid hoping that north will compound the error by bidding.  Surely this cannot be the intention of the laws.

Is it better for a dubious north to notice partner's bid, pretend he didn't, then take advantage of what he saw when he chose his opening bid? Or to notice his partner's bid, pretend he didn't, then just open the bidding really quickly before the opponents get a chance to accept the (first) bid out of turn? You are taking this argument in a silly direction. The first quoted part above and my reply are all that matter.

[blackshoe]

According to the OP, clearly 1NT and 1♦ were not simultaneous, so Law 33 does not apply. If it did apply, the TD would rule that the auction has proceeded normally from North's 1NT opening, and South's 1♦ is insufficient. But that's not what happened.

Yes, it was North's turn to bid. Yes, he thought he was opening the bidding. Yes, no one had yet drawn attention to South BOOT. So what? Once EW speak up about a perceived irregularity, you call the director (that's law 9) and you do nothing else until he comes and makes a ruling (also law 9). On the actual situation at the table, Hotshot suggested — correctly — that the TD will deal with any potential infractions in reverse chronological order - iow, we deal with North's 1NT bid first. That bid, whatever North intended, and whoever's turn it "really" was to bid, was out of turn, given South's bid (we have not yet dealt with that; we are for the moment treating it as legal). Thus "1NT stands" is wrong - it is out of turn, and is dealt with under Law 29A or Law 31B. Once we have dealt with that, then we deal with the 1♦ bid. It's not explicitly stated in the laws that we do it this way, but this is the way we do it.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 31 2008, 12:10 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 30 2008, 06:47 PM, said:

North is the dealer.  No one has noted the irregularity.  He thinks he is bidding first.

He thinks he is bidding first but he is wrong. It's not legal to bid out of turn simply because you think you are bidding in turn, just as it's not legal for me to play a diamond when a heart is led simply because I don't think I have any hearts when I actually do have one. I mean seriously, why is this so controversial to you!

Quote

From the opening post not until after he has bid 1NT did anyone suggest they had noticed the out of turn bid.

Yes, at that point the two illegal bids were discovered and the poor director had to decide what to do.

Quote

If this is clearly wrong for north as you state then that allows a dubious east west to intentionally not draw attention to the out of turn bid hoping that north will compound the error by bidding.  Surely this cannot be the intention of the laws.

Is it better for a dubious north to notice partner's bid, pretend he didn't, then take advantage of what he saw when he chose his opening bid? Or to notice his partner's bid, pretend he didn't, then just open the bidding really quickly before the opponents get a chance to accept the (first) bid out of turn? You are taking this argument in a silly direction. The first quoted part above and my reply are all that matter.

He doesn't have to pretend the laws are clear that he has no obligation to draw attention to an irregularity by his side.

[jkdood]

"It's not explicitly stated in the laws that we do it this way, but this is the way we do it. "

I agree with the first part (and it seems the letters of the laws would allow the 1NT OPENING BID AS DEALER to stand) and wonder WHY you say the 2nd part, on what basis other than "the way we do it"?

[blackshoe]

It's how I was taught - by experienced and well respected experts in the laws. Including, as it happens, some members of the WBF and ACBL LCs. It is also, presumably, how they do it. I have, and will probably in future, argue with those people on some aspects of the laws. I won't on this.

[jkdood]

Thank you for the explanation.

I do wonder why, if this is a known rules treatment so to speak, why it is not in the Laws. (I also wonder why a lot of committee and TD "practices" are sorta known but not known - to the general bridge-playing public, like a secret.)

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Jul 31 2008, 12:10 PM, said:

That bid, whatever North intended, and whoever's turn it "really" was to bid, was out of turn, given South's bid (we have not yet dealt with that; we are for the moment treating it as legal).

This is a false premise on which to make a ruling.

1. South's bid was not legal so assuming it was legal is likely to cause problems on the "garbage in garbage out" theory

2. 'Whoever's turn it "really" was to bid' this is the issue. If it was north's turn then he has done nothing wrong. Only if you make the false assumption above that south's bid was legal can you get to the false conclusion that it is not north's turn to bid.

All of this is based on the fact as stated that at the time north bid no one had noted south's bid out of turn.

[nige1]

jkdood, on Jul 30 2008, 08:13 PM, said:

I do wonder why, if this is a known rules treatment so to speak, why it is not in the Laws. (I also wonder why a lot of committee and TD "practices" are sorta known but not known - to the general bridge-playing public, like a secret.)

This is a old problem with Bridge Laws, to which attention has been drawn for decades. The new 2007 laws are about to come on-stream, so now there are unlikely to be amplifications or corrections before 2018.

If you think the current law on bids out of turn could do with simplification and clarification, prepare to be nauseated by the new law 27 on insufficient bids. In spite of seminars in exotic locations, endless discussions, and reams of official interpretation, there is little consensus among directors as to how to apply it.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on Jul 30 2008, 08:13 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 31 2008, 12:10 PM, said:

That bid, whatever North intended, and whoever's turn it "really" was to bid, was out of turn, given South's bid (we have not yet dealt with that; we are for the moment treating it as legal).

This is a false premise on which to make a ruling.

1. South's bid was not legal so assuming it was legal is likely to cause problems on the "garbage in garbage out" theory

2. 'Whoever's turn it "really" was to bid' this is the issue. If it was north's turn then he has done nothing wrong. Only if you make the false assumption above that south's bid was legal can you get to the false conclusion that it is not north's turn to bid.

All of this is based on the fact as stated that at the time north bid no one had noted south's bid out of turn.

That's all well and good, Wayne, but can you provide an argument, based in the laws for another approach?

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Jul 31 2008, 04:00 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 30 2008, 08:13 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 31 2008, 12:10 PM, said:

That bid, whatever North intended, and whoever's turn it "really" was to bid, was out of turn, given South's bid (we have not yet dealt with that; we are for the moment treating it as legal).

This is a false premise on which to make a ruling.

1. South's bid was not legal so assuming it was legal is likely to cause problems on the "garbage in garbage out" theory

2. 'Whoever's turn it "really" was to bid' this is the issue. If it was north's turn then he has done nothing wrong. Only if you make the false assumption above that south's bid was legal can you get to the false conclusion that it is not north's turn to bid.

All of this is based on the fact as stated that at the time north bid no one had noted south's bid out of turn.

That's all well and good, Wayne, but can you provide an argument, based in the laws for another approach?

Quite simply

North has not committed an infraction by bidding since he is the dealer.

"B. The First Call

The player designated by the board as dealer makes the first call."

It has yet to be determined how this applies:

"LAW 29 - PROCEDURE AFTER A CALL OUT OF ROTATION

A. Forfeiture of Right to Rectification

Following a call out of rotation offender’s LHO may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification.

B. Out-of-Rotation Call Cancelled

Unless A applies, a call out of rotation is cancelled 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 the provisions for rectification in Law 30, 31 or 32.
"

since

1. No one has yet noted the call out of rotation

2. West has not called

3. The director has not been called on to make a ruling (and perhaps may not since the infraction may not be noticed)

[blackshoe]

The situation you describe is not what happened at the table. As to "it has not been determined how this applies", I presume by "this" you mean Law 29. I gave a determination of how it applies. Apparently you disagree, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Apparently, you will rule that the 1♦ bid is cancelled, but the 1NT bid is not. I don't see the laws allowing this. Will you allow West the option to accept 1♦? Why not? Will you treat 1♦ as insufficient if it is not accepted? When it was not insufficient when it was made? I don't see how that's possible.

IMO, North has committed an infraction by bidding after his partner has bid, but before his RHO has called. You might convince me it could go either way (you haven't yet), but I don't believe you can convince me I'm wrong. You're welcome to try, though.

[jkdood]

You could make a case that since both calls were made before attention was called to the irregularity, that they are indeed considered simultaneous calls, under the bridge law definition, not the conversational or conventional one.

IF this is so (and some interesting points about it were made earlier in the thread) there is a covering LAW:

LAW 33: SIMULTANEOUS CALLS

A call made simultaneously with one made by the player whose turn it was to call is deemed to be a subsequent call.

It is getting harder and harder for me not to think that 1NT is re-instated and "normal" out of rotation aspects accrue to the 1D bidder, despite what might be some opinions of "current or standing practice".

NORMAL of course is:
"If the second call was out of rotation or insufficient, the call can be accepted as a legal call by the LHO of the offender.

1. It is accepted automatically if LHO calls.

2. If LHO does not choose to accept it, the call is canceled and the appropriate Law and/or penalty is invoked."

PS: True LAWS definition of Simultaneous Calls seem to require that they are made "at about the same time", not sure how many seconds that is and it doesn't really seem to say precisely. But in our example posting case, this description

".... and opens 1♦ (out of order, as north is dealer). Before anyone notes the bid out of turn, NORTH opens 1NT"

it seems like there must have been no more than a few seconds between calls, if that. Considering 1NT and 1D "simulataneous calls" does not seem like such a stretch to me if we have no evidence the 1NT call was meant to "save the day" by a pard who saw what happened and rapidly acted on it before "attention was drawn".

[hotShot]

Now lets stay with the facts and the laws.

The moment the 1♦ bid was made, the irregularity BOOT occurred.

From this moment on Law 29 is working and because of §29A the player to act is now offenders LHO. There is no such note in Law 29 that says that it's effect only starts if the Td is present or called. It also does not say some thing like "if a BOOT is noticed", Law 29 describes the proper procedure to follow after a BOOT. It says that if offenders LHO just puts down a bid of his own, he made use of §29A. A clear example that Law §29 is working independent of the notice of the irregularity.

So Waynes argument that it is still North turn to make a call is wrong.

North violates the procedure installed by law §29 with a BOOT. This is the 2nd irregularity.

[blackshoe]

"Simultaneous" is not defined in the laws. We use the dictionary definition - and these calls were not simultaneous. Calling them simultaneous is a stretch — and not one the TD should be willing to make.

[Cascade]

hotShot, on Jul 31 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

Now lets stay with the facts and the laws.

The moment the 1♦ bid was made, the irregularity BOOT occurred.

From this moment on Law 29 is working and because of §29A the player to act is now offenders LHO. There is no such note in Law 29 that says that it's effect only starts if the Td is present or called. It also does not say some thing like "if a BOOT is noticed", Law 29 describes the proper procedure to follow after a BOOT. It says that if offenders LHO just puts down a bid of his own, he made use of §29A. A clear example that Law §29 is working independent of the notice of the irregularity.

So Waynes argument that it is still North turn to make a call is wrong.

North violates the procedure installed by law §29 with a BOOT. This is the 2nd irregularity.

L29 or any other law cannot be invoked until someone notes the irregularity. In this case the BOOT by south was not noted until after north bid. This is entirely an issue for east-west as north-south have no responsibility to note their own irregularity.

Until someone draws attention to the irregularity it is north's bid as no ruling can be made on an irregularity that no one notices.

L29A is merely saying that if west sees south bid but does not realize that it was south's turn but makes an otherwise normal call thinking it is his turn then it will be treated as normal and not as an infraction.

So when no one has noted the irregularity whose turn is it? Do we have to sit there forever hoping that someone will notice?

Until an irregularity has been drawn attention to it is as if that irregularity has not occurred.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Aug 1 2008, 02:40 AM, said:

"Simultaneous" is not defined in the laws. We use the dictionary definition - and these calls were not simultaneous. Calling them simultaneous is a stretch — and not one the TD should be willing to make.

What do you think simultaneous means?

If one bid was made (hit the table) a nanosecond or two before another are they simultaneous? If not then in practice there is no such thing as a simultaneous bid.

For me if both bids were in the process of being made at the same time I would consider them simultaneous. I think that this is the intention of the law.

Given that in this case no one noted the bid by south before north bid it is unclear to me exactly when south's bid was made and therefore whether or not it was entirely made before north started to make his bid.

From the facts presented I would certainly consider the possibility that they were simultaneous. And if there was no convincing evidence to the contrary given that no one noticed I would be willing to rule that the bids were simultaneous.

[blackshoe]

You're fishing, Wayne. Nothing in the OP gives any intimation that the bids were simultaneous. If that possibility existed, the OP would have said so. It didn't happen.

[jtfanclub]

Cascade, on Jul 31 2008, 03:42 PM, said:

L29 or any other law cannot be invoked until someone notes the irregularity.

Where in the world did you find this?

Law 29 has specific rules for what to do if the irregularity is not noted and the next player makes a call. So of course the rule is there before somebody notes the irregularity.

Furthermore, I can invoke the Laws even when there is no irregularity to note. For example, the contract is 4♥. Each defender thinks it's their partner's turn to lead. What do you do? You invoke the laws, of course. But where is the irregularity?

But, I'm sure you have some source for this idea, somewhere.