[kenberg]

gwnn, on May 24 2010, 05:36 AM, said:

I think the point was that 4H is clearer than 4S . Partner could rightfully assume that he really has spades for a 4S bid.

But apparently it ws not clear enough!!

I was wondering about this also. After 1♣-pass-1♥ it is possible for fourth hand to have 8 or even 9 hearts. I guess their are two competing principles: ASBAF (all strange bids are forcing) versus my own tendency to construe an un-discussed bid as natural if that conceivably could be the case. Of course here we have the added feature that the bid was neither natural nor for take-out but an attempt to take advantage of the (mis-stated) rules. Further, East has heard North's attempted 3♥ call so he knows that Wests call is not based on a long suit, so he only has to choose between take-out (for what?) and to play based not on the holding but on the rules.

Suffice it to say that I have on agreements with any partner as to what special interpretations should be put on a call after the opponents have made a bid out of turn. I have no idea how, as East, I would have taken West's 4♥ call.

Thinking more about it (though I am not sure one should think much more about it) I think what I probably would have done as West is this: After North's 3♥ call I would have said "Wait, I haven't bid yet" and then put out a pass card. Yes I know we are not supposed to make our own rulings but I never would have contemplated even the possibility of such a weird ruling. Not planning on entering the auction before the 3♥ bid (I assume W wasn't) I would not expect any ruling to let me do so productively after the out of turn bid so I would just put out my pass card and we would all go on.

I sometimes, maybe even boringly often, criticize some of the arcane rules. Arcane yes, but usually not bizarre. The same sort of faith that I feel should have allowed N to say "This can't be right" would have led me, as W, to conclude that calling the director when I had no intention of entering the auction would just be wasting everyone's time. Had the ruling been correct, this would have been so.

[gwnn]

hanp, on May 24 2010, 11:55 AM, said:

Are we assuming that partner is stupid? Partner saw the 3H bid as well didn't he?

If I was the partner of the 4H bidder, I would assume that all of

4S
5C
5D

are based on their respective suits. I may or may not assume that he has potentially stretched to bid them based on the relatively high likelihood of his LHO bidding 5H (say, he could have 6 spades for 4S and 7 of a minor for 5m). I would definitely feel I had the authorisation to bid 5 spades over 5 hearts from my RHO. 6 of a minor would be a really improbable move but still possible.

If my p bid 4H it would be quite clearly just taking advantage of the rules to me. I would not assume that he has 8 hearts.

Which of these thoughts made me stupid and why?

[kenberg]

Not 8 hearts since lho bid hearts and rho tried to bid hearts. How about four spades and six diamonds? I don't have any such agreement with anyone and I wouldn't trust partner to work it out by "bridge logic" but it might not be the craziest idea in the world.


I assume that E thought that something like that was intended. Maybe he shouldn't have, but I would not want to be W explaining to my partner that my bid was just my way of fixing the opps by cleverly taking advantage of the rules and therefore should not be taken to actually mean anything.

I like to think that everyone had a laugh over this but if it gets into blame, I would not be all that hard on E. Clearly he made the wrong choice but just as I assume you are not stupid I think we should also assume that E is not stupid. Wrong, obviously, but probably not stupid.

[ArtK78]

When I became a certified club director (and this was over 30 years ago) one of the first things that I learned was that all directors should make their rulings of law with their rule books open to the applicable law(s). When I made rulings, I always tried to follow that rule, even if it meant a few moments delay in making the rulings, and even if I was 100% sure of the content of the law that was applicable to the situation.

I know from experience that most directors do not open their rule books when making rulings at a tournament. Perhaps they should be re-taught this very simple rule for making rulings, so that a mistake like the one in the original post does not happen.

I am sure almost all directors at regional and higher levels can make rulings on leads out of turn and exposed cards without consulting the rule books and get the rulings right almost every time. But on something more unusual - such as this situation - the ruling should be made directly from the book so that there is less of a chance of getting the ruling wrong.

[gwnn]

Well to me 4H is clearly natural. This is from the guy who didn't pass
1c-1s-x-2h
4h
I know, but I'd definitely take it as natural

[blackshoe]

Agree with Art.

In fact, the table ruling was a director error. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with the ruling and asking for a reading from the book. If the director declines, I would appeal.

When I'm playing, I don't make rulings at my table, even when opps say to me "You know the rules. What's the ruling?" I say "The ruling is that we should ask the director for a ruling".

[Fluffy]

east would make a great partnership with my aunt

playing with her I opened 4♠ out of turn, director missruled that I was barred for the rest of the auction, what did she do? open 1♥ and rebid 3♥ vulnerable with ♥Jxxxx and 11 HCP, not a success.

[Jlall]

Radrag, on May 24 2010, 07:00 AM, said:

Jlall, on May 21 2010, 03:52 PM, said:

kenberg, on May 21 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

And I would imagine Rodwell knows the rules for bid out of turn. How come he let this go?

This is not fair, I am obv not Rodwell but I had no idea what the ruling for this kind of situation is, and from all my experiences with top pros very few know stuff like this.

But I think it is fair to assume that Rodwell should know the correct ruling:

http://www.acbl.org/...ionMembers.html

So you think Rodwell knew the ruling, but disadvantaged his own side by not saying anything and allowed them to screw him by bidding 4H, even though if he did know the real law and said something they would not be able to do this? Ok.

[Keeper1]

blackshoe, on May 24 2010, 09:46 AM, said:

In fact, the table ruling was a director error. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with the ruling and asking for a reading from the book. If the director declines, I would appeal.

Of course, this assumes that the director can find the appropriate part of the book in a timely manner...the thread below relates to a situation where I asked (repeatedly) for a "book" ruling on almost exactly the issue raised in this case...the eventual ruling was indeed given under "director error" after the non-offenders, trying to take advantage of the "no-double" guidance, pushed us into a making doubled slam.

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=35821

Since these do not seem to be isolated incidents, I suspect the ruling that the insufficient/out-of-turn bidder "can't double" reflects some ACBL guidance somewhere. I presume that it is meant to be short-hand intended to prevent the player benefitting from barring partner by turning an ambiguous or take-out double into a penalty double, but taken literally (and particularly applied indiscriminately to later rounds) it can lead to absurd results.

I did win an appeal, but the discussion on the thread suggests that I shouldn't have...

[blackshoe]

When a player is required to replace his IB with another call, and does so under Law 27B3, double and redouble are not permitted. When a player passes out of rotation at his partner's turn to call, and the pass is canceled, he must pass throughout, and the call reverts to his partner, who may not double or redouble at this turn (Law 30B2). AFAIK, those are the only places where an otherwise legal double or redouble is not permitted.

The relevant law in the case at hand is

Law 31A said:

When the offender has called at his RHO’s turn to call, then: 1. If that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call out of rotation. When that call is legal there is no rectification. 2. If that opponent makes a legal* bid, double or redouble, offender may make any legal call. When this call [a] repeats the denomination of his bid out of rotation, offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23). [b] does not repeat the denomination of his bid out of rotation, or if the call out of rotation was an artificial pass or a pass of partner’s artificial call, the lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23).

[Benoit35]

To me, it isn't all that obvious that North should be allowed to double 4♥. At the very least, he should not be allowed to make a penalty double (i.e. if he doubles, his partner can't pass). I have no idea if the rules cover this, but the auction below looks very different when one knows that your partner intended to support your hearts:

1♣ - p - 1♥ - 4♥
X - p - ?

Under such a ruling, NS would eventually reach 5♥, a nice reward (but not an outrageous one) for West.

Probably a good case for never letting me become a Director...

[blackshoe]

It may be that doubling 4♥ should be ruled illegal use of UI, but that's a separate issue, and you can't tell a player that he can't take such a call, you can only tell him his obligation not to take advantage of UI, and then adjust the score later if he fails in that duty.

[vuroth]

ggwhiz, on May 22 2010, 10:48 AM, said:

When I don't want to call a Director against rookies, I might gently suggest that they ask what the rules are after the session and note that I'm not sure but it's the Directors job.

Well, feel free to call the director on me. If nothing else, maybe getting comfortable with director calls will help a rookie like me not be so terrified the next time I have to call the director.

I don't want to derail the thread, but getting a few director visits to the table is probably GOOD for rookies - helps to put them at ease, and reduces the likelihood that they'll get steamrolled by some club shark.

[mycroft]

I'm sure I've said this before, but I teach the new players that the proper response to opponents trying to "teach" them the laws (most commonly phrased as "I could call the director for that, but...") is to call the TD and explain to them what happened.

First, it is evidence that it's the table's right and responsibility to call the TD, not just the non-offenders'.
Second, it helps defuse the "Call the cops" mentality of TD calls that sometimes exists - frankly, I tend to call when our side has caused the problem, simply because I'm less likely to sound like I'm "calling the cops" than at least some of my opponents...
Third, if the experienced pair *are* trying to intimidate the new players (and there are still players who do this on purpose, never mind the ones who don't know they're doing it "deliberately"), having the new players call the TD makes it clear that they're not going to be intimidated.
Fourth, one of three things happen:
- what the NOS was complaining about actually was wrong, and the NOS knows what would happen; if they didn't want to take advantage of the penalty, L81C5 exists for a reason. Even if the new players do get hit with a rectification they could have avoided by not calling the TD, at least they'll know what happens for the next time (or it happens against them).
- what the NOS was complaining about actually was wrong, but the NOS knows the "wrong" rectification; this is common, and this method stops the growth of old wives' tales like "dummy can't revoke" or "just make it sufficient". Frequently the OS learns of options they have that nobody at the table knew about...
- what the NOS was complaining about was just fine, actually, and this is a good way to discourage this kind of new-player intimidation. "He hesitated, and she bid!" "So, I think for 5 minutes, and open 1C, Precision. Partner has to pass the forcing call?" (and then checking, as usual, if the so-called hesitation actually existed, that the UI wasn't used, and explaining to the hesitating side (in the NOS' hearing, as they need to hear it, clearly) what their rights and responsibilities are when a break in tempo occurs).