[fito]

this case is from Spanish Teams Championsiph. Top level players.

The bidding goes:

North East South West
1♥ pass 1♠ 3♣
2NT (TD!!!) 3NT

After the insuficient bid of 2NT, and before the TD came to the table, East doesn't bid and South bids 3NT out of turn.

What must the TD acts to approach to this case??

[pran]

fito, on Dec 24 2009, 08:06 AM, said:

this case is from Spanish Teams Championsiph. Top level players.

The bidding goes:

North East South West
1♥ pass 1♠ 3♣
2NT (TD!!!) 3NT

After the insuficient bid of 2NT, and before the TD came to the table, East doesn't bid and South bids 3NT out of turn.

What must the TD acts to approach to this case??

The first option is for East to accept the insufficient bid of 2NT.

If he does then the Director has no more problems; he has a simple case of a call out of turn from South and shall apply Law 29; and if West do not accept the call (3NT) out of turn apply Law 31a.

So we consider the situation if East does not accept the insufficient bid.

In that case the insufficient bid must be replaced with a legal bid or pass (law 27B).

Now what about South's call out of turn?

The laws have no explicit rule for this situation, but the only logical decision is that this call out of turn is cancelled together with the insufficient bid, and the only immediate consequence we can draw from the laws is that this call has given North extraneous information which he is prohibited from using when selecting his replacement call (or any further call in this auction). Both withdrawn calls (2NT by North and 3NT by South) can of course result in lead restrictions according to Law 26.

The one ruling that the Director must definitely not consider at this time is to cancel the board and award an artificial adjusted score. However, he should stand ready after the play of the board is completed to investigate if (in his opinion) East/West has been damaged because of the irregularities committed by North and South, and in case award an adjusted score.

[mjj29]

pran, on Dec 24 2009, 05:54 AM, said:

[The laws have no explicit rule for this situation, but the only logical decision is that this call out of turn is cancelled together with the insufficient bid, and the only immediate consequence we can draw from the laws is that this call has given North extraneous information which he is prohibited from using when selecting his replacement call (or any further call in this auction). Both withdrawn calls (2NT by North and 3NT by South) can of course result in lead restrictions according to Law 26.

Actually I was going to say that after the correction by north, south should still be considered to have made a BOOT which in addition may also now be insufficient (if north corrects to 3N). If north makes a correction which should silence south then we have a BOOT which is also a bid made when required to pass, which the law also deals with.

Also don't forget the PP for making any action before the director has arrived once summonned

[bluejak]

pran, on Dec 24 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

The laws have no explicit rule for this situation, but ...

I seem to remember - correct me if I am wrong - that when I said some time ago that the Laws were very poor on multiple infractions you said I was wrong. Well, this is a good example.

pran, on Dec 24 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

... the only logical decision is that this call out of turn is cancelled together with the insufficient bid, and the only immediate consequence we can draw from the laws is that this call has given North extraneous information which he is prohibited from using when selecting his replacement call (or any further call in this auction). Both withdrawn calls (2NT by North and 3NT by South) can of course result in lead restrictions according to Law 26.

As mjj29 makes clear, this is not the only logical consequence: in fact I would rule as mjj29 suggests.

[pran]

bluejak, on Dec 24 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

pran, on Dec 24 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

The laws have no explicit rule for this situation, but ...

I seem to remember - correct me if I am wrong - that when I said some time ago that the Laws were very poor on multiple infractions you said I was wrong. Well, this is a good example.

pran, on Dec 24 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

... the only logical decision is that this call out of turn is cancelled together with the insufficient bid, and the only immediate consequence we can draw from the laws is that this call has given North extraneous information which he is prohibited from using when selecting his replacement call (or any further call in this auction). Both withdrawn calls (2NT by North and 3NT by South) can of course result in lead restrictions according to Law 26.

As mjj29 makes clear, this is not the only logical consequence: in fact I would rule as mjj29 suggests.

What is the legal base for making a bid that was sufficient at the time it was made insufficient because of subsequent events?

Where in the laws can you find any foundation for having a player bound to a call he has made when a previous call made by any player is cancelled for whatever reason?

As far as I can remember (I do not bother now to search my files of WBFLC minutes etc.) there is an established principle that when multiple irregularities have occurred they shall be handled in cronological sequence. This may of course affect the nature of and conditions for a later irregularity, and it can very well for instance reduce the nature of a later call to just become an extraneous remark.

[bluejak]

I cannot find a legal basis. Let me say it again: the Laws do not handle multiple irregularities well.

But your assumption that you have a legal basis for an alternative method is also flawed.

[blackshoe]

pran, on Dec 24 2009, 07:33 AM, said:

As far as I can remember (I do not bother now to search my files of WBFLC minutes etc.) there is an established principle that when multiple irregularities have occurred they shall be handled in cronological sequence. This may of course affect the nature of and conditions for a later irregularity, and it can very well for instance reduce the nature of a later call to just become an extraneous remark.

I did bother to search the minutes, and the CoP, and I find no reference to any such principle. I think your memory is faulty.

[mink]

I do not think that the solutions presented so far by pran and mjj29 are appropriate.

Pran wants to cancel the 3nt bid in case that the 2nt bid is not accepted, but he fails to quote a legal basis for this cancellation and just states that it is "logical".

mjj29 thinks the 3nt might become a insufficient bid. This cannot be right, because at the time when the bid was made it was clearly sufficient according to Law 18C: The last preceding bid was 2nt, and 3nt clearly supersedes this. Anything that North or East might bid later is not preceding.

Taking into account blackshoe's finding that the order in which two or more irregularities should be handled is nowhere specified, the TD should decide what he handles first.

I clearly would chose the bid out of turn and would first ask West if he accepts the 3nt bid. If he does, he implicitly accepts the insufficient bid by North, too. Law 29A supports this as it states that any rectification is forfeited by a call by West.

If West does not accept the 3nt, this bid is canceled according to Law 29B. Now I ask East if he accepts the 2nt by North. If he does, it is his turn to call, and for the offending side Law 31A applies.

I West does not accept, it is North's turn to call, and therefore Law 31B applies, forcing North to pass.

Law 26 applies for the 2nt and the 3nt bid if canceled.

Karl

[axman]

mink, on Dec 25 2009, 06:30 PM, said:

I do not think that the solutions presented so far by pran and mjj29 are appropriate.

Pran wants to cancel the 3nt bid in case that the 2nt bid is not accepted, but he fails to quote a legal basis for this cancellation and just states that it is "logical".

mjj29 thinks the 3nt might become a insufficient bid. This cannot be right, because at the time when the bid was made it was clearly sufficient according to Law 18C: The last preceding bid was 2nt, and 3nt clearly supersedes this. Anything that North or East might bid later is not preceding.

Taking into account blackshoe's finding that the order in which two or more irregularities should be handled is nowhere specified, the TD should decide what he handles first.

I clearly would chose the bid out of turn and would first ask West if he accepts the 3nt bid. If he does, he implicitly accepts the insufficient bid by North, too. Law 29A supports this as it states that any rectification is forfeited by a call by West.

If West does not accept the 3nt, this bid is canceled according to Law 29B. Now I ask East if he accepts the 2nt by North. If he does, it is his turn to call, and for the offending side Law 31A applies.

I West does not accept, it is North's turn to call, and therefore Law 31B applies, forcing North to pass.

Law 26 applies for the 2nt and the 3nt bid if canceled.

Karl

I searched TFLB because that was where I expected such an admonition[ to resolve irregularities in their chronological order]. Not there. The principle has been around for a great long time; nevertheless, longevity need not be a valid judge of its efficacy. I do recollect an occasion that the WBF reiterated the principle [during the last two years] that I made a mental note that such an utterance was ill considered.

However, that does not prevent silliness that results from adhering to such principle:

In this case I point to providing first [in accordance with the principle] for the remedy of 2N not accepted- where N must substitute a sufficient call that is not X or XX. At this point the last call in force is 3N so necessarily to substitute a bid legally it must supersede 3N. And seeing as W has not yet called after 3N the TD would thereby also be instructing N to do his substituting for 2N OOT. And since the substituting would be OOT it would seem to me that the substitution ought to be subject to the penalty for COOT.

While I would not be surprised that there are situations that remedies in the order of irregularity are satisfactory I don't recollect ever coming across one.

[blackshoe]

axman, on Dec 25 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

I do recollect an occasion that the WBF reiterated the principle [during the last two years] that I made a mental note that such an utterance was ill considered.

Do you recall the context?

[axman]

blackshoe, on Dec 25 2009, 10:26 PM, said:

axman, on Dec 25 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

I do recollect an occasion that the WBF reiterated the principle [during the last two years] that I made a mental note that such an utterance was ill considered.

Do you recall the context?

At this time I do not recollect.

My sense was that it was a general statement rather than connected to a particular bridge hand. My sense was that it was during this year. If I had made a note of it I suspect that the note may be lost either in a crash of my email program or the fragmented remains of my primary machine which is in its death throws <sigh>.

My recollections do go back many years while DWS was posting to blml for the very large number of occasions where he asserted that the proper approach was to resolve multiple irregularities in the order of occurrence; and there being so many opportunities for Endicott, Schoder, and TK to say otherwise yet they did not makes it no surprise to me that some statement has been made.

While it isn't a priority should I stumble onto the documentation I'll let you know.

[blackshoe]

axman, on Dec 25 2009, 11:31 PM, said:

While it isn't a priority should I stumble onto the documentation I'll let you know.

I'd appreciate it.

[pran]

I expect qualified directors to resolve situations not explicitly handled in the laws from their knowledge of what the laws indeed do say so that they can understand what principles to apply.

A Director may never refuse to make a ruling on the ground that he cannot find an explicit law for the situation. He must always to the best of his ability make a ruling that satisfies the interests of the game of bridge.

In the given case we have an insufficient bid by North, and after East called attention to this irregularity South made a call. This is a situation so extraordinary that no wonder the laws have no explicit rule for it.

The easy part is that South violated Law 9B2.

Shall it at all be possible for South with his irregularity to deprieve East of his rights under law 27? To me the answer is an obvious: NO.

Say that East for instance wants to accept the insufficient bid in order to bid three in a suit? West is not allowed to know East's intentions before deciding what to do with South's call out of turn if he were to decide this before the Law 27 situation was first resolved.

So to me it is clear that first of all the Director must resolve the situation with the insufficient bid by North.

East may accept this bid and then we have the simple case of South making a bid out of sequence. This is easily handled so I shall not proceede further along this line.

Now what is the situation caused by South's premature call when East does not accept North's insufficient bid?

Does the 3NT bid by South stand until West eventually decides whether or not to accept this call out of turn?

Or shall West decide immediately, in which case if West does not accept the call then North is forced to pass for the rest of the auction (including his replacement call for the insufficient bid), and South will be forced to pass because of Law 27B2.

We shall soon find ourselves in a maze with no exit here if we keep on along such lines.

As for legal references: We have several situations where the changing of a call implies changing all subsequent calls in that auction but I am aware of none where a call can be changed without changing subsequent calls.

Law 9C indicates that the handling of an irregularity is in no way suspended by a subsequent action by an offending sie (actually an offender), but rather that it can result in further rectifications.

All this add up to the suggested solution I have already presented: The premature 3NT bid by South is cancelled and represents unauthorized information to North (only), and the 2NT insufficient bid by North is handled under law 27.

Whatever I do I shall not invent new laws to handle this case but rather draw useful inferences from the existing laws as far as possible.

[blackshoe]

pran, on Dec 28 2009, 07:40 AM, said:

Whatever I do I shall not invent new laws to handle this case but rather draw useful inferences from the existing laws as far as possible.

Nobody is inventing new laws. And I'm not at all sure that all your inferences are valid.

[axman]

pran, on Dec 28 2009, 07:40 AM, said:

I expect qualified directors to resolve situations not explicitly handled in the laws from their knowledge of what the laws indeed do say so that they can understand what principles to apply.

A Director may never refuse to make a ruling on the ground that he cannot find an explicit law for the situation. He must always to the best of his ability make a ruling that satisfies the interests of the game of bridge.

In the given case we have an insufficient bid by North, and after East called attention to this irregularity South made a call. This is a situation so extraordinary that no wonder the laws have no explicit rule for it.

The easy part is that South violated Law 9B2.

Shall it at all be possible for South with his irregularity to deprieve East of his rights under law 27? To me the answer is an obvious: NO.

Say that East for instance wants to accept the insufficient bid in order to bid three in a suit? West is not allowed to know East's intentions before deciding what to do with South's call out of turn if he were to decide this before the Law 27 situation was first resolved.

So to me it is clear that first of all the Director must resolve the situation with the insufficient bid by North.

East may accept this bid and then we have the simple case of South making a bid out of sequence. This is easily handled so I shall not proceede further along this line.

Now what is the situation caused by South's premature call when East does not accept North's insufficient bid?

Does the 3NT bid by South stand until West eventually decides whether or not to accept this call out of turn?

Or shall West decide immediately, in which case if West does not accept the call then North is forced to pass for the rest of the auction (including his replacement call for the insufficient bid), and South will be forced to pass because of Law 27B2.

We shall soon find ourselves in a maze with no exit here if we keep on along such lines.

As for legal references: We have several situations where the changing of a call implies changing all subsequent calls in that auction but I am aware of none where a call can be changed without changing subsequent calls.

Law 9C indicates that the handling of an irregularity is in no way suspended by a subsequent action by an offending sie (actually an offender), but rather that it can result in further rectifications.

All this add up to the suggested solution I have already presented: The premature 3NT bid by South is cancelled and represents unauthorized information to North (only), and the 2NT insufficient bid by North is handled under law 27.

Whatever I do I shall not invent new laws to handle this case but rather draw useful inferences from the existing laws as far as possible.

Let us say to first remedy the IB. case [a] E condones the IB so he makes a call. This call de facto condones the COOT [as well] thereby depriving W the opportunity to penalize the COOT. As I recall that was the argument for going first after the IB.

Case [b] E does not condone the IB so now N corrects. In this instance it looks to me that NS have combined to take three turns to the EW zero turns. It looks to me that EW gets the worst of it which is the right thing <sarcasm> since they broke no rules.

[mink]

pran, on Dec 28 2009, 01:40 PM, said:

Law 9C indicates that the handling of an irregularity is in no way suspended by a subsequent action by an offending sie (actually an offender), but rather that it can result in further rectifications.

Hi Pran,

I do not mind that you just repeat with other what you said in your previous post in order to defend your dogma that several irregularities have to be handled in the same order as they occurred. But I do mind that you incorrectly cite a law in order to support your flawed argument. Law 9C reads:

Quote

Any premature correction of an irregularity by the offender may subject him to a further rectification (see the lead restrictions in Law 26).

Please note that there is a difference between "offender" and "offending side". In our case, the offender (North) did not try to correct anything prematurely, and therefore this law is just not applicable here.

Karl

[nige1]

fito, on Dec 24 2009, 02:06 AM, said:

this case is from Spanish Teams Championsiph. Top level players.
North East South West
1♥ pass 1♠ 3♣
2NT (TD!!!) 3NT
After the insufficient bid of 2NT, and before the TD came to the table, East doesn't bid and South bids 3NT out of turn.

IMO, it is hard to recover from this mess. Unless the victims are keen to let the law-breakers off the hook, may the director cancel the board and assign a score?

[pran]

mink, on Dec 28 2009, 08:56 PM, said:

pran, on Dec 28 2009, 01:40 PM, said:

Law 9C indicates that the handling of an irregularity is in no way suspended by a subsequent action by an offending sie (actually an offender), but rather that it can result in further rectifications.

Hi Pran,

I do not mind that you just repeat with other what you said in your previous post in order to defend your dogma that several irregularities have to be handled in the same order as they occurred. But I do mind that you incorrectly cite a law in order to support your flawed argument. Law 9C reads:

Quote

Any premature correction of an irregularity by the offender may subject him to a further rectification (see the lead restrictions in Law 26).

Please note that there is a difference between "offender" and "offending side". In our case, the offender (North) did not try to correct anything prematurely, and therefore this law is just not applicable here.

Karl

I sure know the difference between offender and offending side.
And I wrote "indicates", not "states" or any word to that effect.

My main point is that when the laws have no rule that is directly applicable to a particular situation the Direector must use the existing laws and try to decide the intention, and to the best of his ability anticipate what the lawmakers might decide if and when that particular situation is raised.

One means for such anticipation is to look for what other laws might give of guidance because of similarity to the situation in question.

[pran]

nige1, on Dec 28 2009, 11:27 PM, said:

fito, on Dec 24 2009, 02:06 AM, said:

this case is from Spanish Teams Championsiph. Top level players.
North East South West
1♥ pass 1♠ 3♣
2NT (TD!!!) 3NT
After the insufficient bid of 2NT, and before the TD came to the table, East doesn't bid and South bids 3NT out of turn.

IMO, it is hard to recover from this mess. Unless the victims are keen to let the law-breakers off the hook, may the director cancel the board and assign a score?

That is never an option unless the board has been destroyed beyond repair. And in this case there are several ways the board can be saved for play. The Director must decide which way he will select in order to maintain the objectives of the game of bridge best possible.