[kfay]

This auction occurred at the local regional last week:

N/S vulnerable
N   E   S   W
1♣-P-1♥-
3♥- DIRECTOR!

E/W were a decent local pair and N was Eric Rodwell, not that it really matters.

Perhaps the directors here can elaborate on the rulebook but what happened was Rodwell bid 3♥ before W passed. The director explained that if W decided to bid, S was banned for 1 round assuming that N didn't bid some number of hearts. N also couldn't double.

West now bid 4♥

North passed and..... EAST BID 5♦!!! Doubled for 1100

[aguahombre]

Nice 4♥ by West. Too bad CHO wasn't more into it. I think Rodwell would have enjoyed and laughed about having to collect 50 cents per undertrick.

[hrothgar]

kfay, on May 21 2010, 08:06 PM, said:

This auction occurred at the local regional last week:

N/S vulnerable
N   E   S   W
1♣-P-1♥-
3♥- DIRECTOR!

E/W were a decent local pair and N was Eric Rodwell, not that it really matters.

Perhaps the directors here can elaborate on the rulebook but what happened was Rodwell bid 3♥ before W passed. The director explained that if W decided to bid, S was banned for 1 round assuming that N didn't bid some number of hearts. N also couldn't double.

West now bid 4♥

North passed and..... EAST BID 5♦!!! Doubled for 1100

Wow...

Needless to say, I've never seen an auction like this.

My best guess is that West is operating to the max. He/she recognized that North can't double a 4♥ contract and South is barred. Given the vulnerability, East can take zero tricks in 4♥ and still score better than -620.

Brilliant plan. Sadly, East wasn't operating on the same wavelength and traded a chance at a near top for a bottom.

[RMB1]

kfay, on May 21 2010, 06:06 PM, said:

Perhaps the directors here can elaborate on the rulebook but what happened was Rodwell bid 3♥ before W passed.  The director explained that if W decided to bid, S was banned for 1 round assuming that N didn't bid some number of hearts.  N also couldn't double.

This last bit isn't true. North can double.

If West passes, North must bid 3H. Law 31A1

If West bids, North can pass, bid, double or redouble (if admissible). Law 31A2
If North shows hearts, then South must pass once. Law 31A2a
If North does not show hearts, then South must pass throughout. Law 31A2b

So if West bids 4H, North can double. But West would not bid 4H if the director had given the right ruling. So we are in "director's error" territory.

[gordontd]

kfay, on May 21 2010, 06:06 PM, said:

The director explained that if W decided to bid, S was banned for 1 round assuming that N didn't bid some number of hearts.  N also couldn't double.

I don't see this ruling in the Law book:

Quote

LAW 31: BID OUT OF ROTATION
When a player has bid out of rotation, has passed artificially or has passed
partner’s artificial call (see Law 30C), and the call is cancelled the option in Law
29A not having been exercised, the following provisions apply:
A. RHO’s Turn
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,
and 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).

[kfay]

Alright. Seemed strange to me.


Could have been awesome!

[gwnn]

What else do you want me to do TD would you like me to stand upside down until RHO decides what his call is?

[Jlall]

Even if the way the director described it was true and I was smart enough to figure out the loophole and bid 4H I would never do that. I know that most won't agree with that since it's legal etc, but this is not what the game is all about to me.

[billw55]

Jlall, on May 21 2010, 01:33 PM, said:

Even if the way the director described it was true and I was smart enough to figure out the loophole and bid 4H I would never do that. I know that most won't agree with that since it's legal etc, but this is not what the game is all about to me.

Interesting. Weren't you one of the ones who supported Meckwell in the thread about the multi bid and provided defense controversy with the Singapore team? For example:

Quote

Guess that's where we're different, I don't expect any of my opps to behave in such a way and I don't see why it's fair to. They are well within their rights to gain any advantage they can within the laws, and I don't think less of any of my opps if they choose to do so.

[Ant590]

billw55, on May 21 2010, 08:14 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 21 2010, 01:33 PM, said:

Even if the way the director described it was true and I was smart enough to figure out the loophole and bid 4H I would never do that. I know that most won't agree with that since it's legal etc, but this is not what the game is all about to me.

Interesting. Weren't you one of the ones who supported Meckwell in the thread about the multi bid and provided defense controversy with the Singapore team? For example:

Quote

Guess that's where we're different, I don't expect any of my opps to behave in such a way and I don't see why it's fair to. They are well within their rights to gain any advantage they can within the laws, and I don't think less of any of my opps if they choose to do so.

pwned!

[Cyberyeti]

This may not be a correct ruling but I've had the same one. LHO was counting her points while I was looking at xx, xxx, xxx, xxxxx and she opened 2C before I psyched.

I was told that her partner was silenced and LHO couldn't double. The winning action at love all was to open 4N which makes 2 tricks (limit is 10 declaring for opponents). I think I bid 3C and opps bid 3N for a flat board.

[kfay]

Ant590, on May 21 2010, 02:37 PM, said:

billw55, on May 21 2010, 08:14 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 21 2010, 01:33 PM, said:

Even if the way the director described it was true and I was smart enough to figure out the loophole and bid 4H I would never do that. I know that most won't agree with that since it's legal etc, but this is not what the game is all about to me.

Interesting. Weren't you one of the ones who supported Meckwell in the thread about the multi bid and provided defense controversy with the Singapore team? For example:

Quote

Guess that's where we're different, I don't expect any of my opps to behave in such a way and I don't see why it's fair to. They are well within their rights to gain any advantage they can within the laws, and I don't think less of any of my opps if they choose to do so.

pwned!

Not sure about this.

To me the situations are dissimilar.

In one someone made a mechanical error/mental mistake and you punish them for it.

In the other one someone is in clear violation of the rules (with the evidence hearsay I have it seems like they even knew this) and it's not just a simple mistake, so you punish them for that.

I see a lot of difference. Although, the latter situation is where the Bridge World editorials make their money, and I'm not convinced either way. This, however, was a teams event so you don't harm many other tables of matchpointers by pretending the whole thing never happened.

[Jlall]

Ant590, on May 21 2010, 02:37 PM, said:

billw55, on May 21 2010, 08:14 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 21 2010, 01:33 PM, said:

Even if the way the director described it was true and I was smart enough to figure out the loophole and bid 4H I would never do that. I know that most won't agree with that since it's legal etc, but this is not what the game is all about to me.

Interesting. Weren't you one of the ones who supported Meckwell in the thread about the multi bid and provided defense controversy with the Singapore team? For example:

Quote

Guess that's where we're different, I don't expect any of my opps to behave in such a way and I don't see why it's fair to. They are well within their rights to gain any advantage they can within the laws, and I don't think less of any of my opps if they choose to do so.

pwned!

How is this pwned.

Again in this scenario I would never EXPECT my opps to not do this if they figured it out, and I would never criticize them for doing this.

The quote of me is very carefully worded, I never said I would do what Meckwell did and if you read between the lines I implied that I personally would not do that.

This is analagous to taking advantage of a penalty card which everyone does/I don't care if they do, but I personally do not believe in doing so.

I always expect my opps to do whatever they can legally to gain advantage, especially in a high level event, call me cynical! I don't believe in imposing my own morals on others.

Edit: And fwiw people have argued that I am in fact behaving unethically/unfairly to my team/the field because I don't accept penalty cards (there have been threads on this also). Some have told me it is illegal. But at the very least I can accept the penalty card and not take some "finesse" because of it (eg dummy has Qx, I have Ax, they have a penalty card and I know they have the king, I can lead the queen for a gain). That is very similar to me, and I would not do it, but I would always expect my opps to do it and not look down upon them for it.

[minimonkey]

I know it is not a real reason but I would bid 4H here for sure if I saw it.

Why?

Because I know if it happened to me I would just laugh and tell the story to other people, it is a good one. Seems like a fun way to play.

Frazer

[kenberg]

I don't have any great problem with W bidding 4♥ although i certainly enjoy the result.

The whole thing is a bit weird. My first thought was that can't possibly be the right ruling but then maybe it could. I have never been able to follow acbl logic.

But posters are presenting evidence that it is not the right ruling.

A bid out of turn is hardly some obscure screwball event that a director cannot be expected to know about. If Rodwell is playing I imagine this is not the worst game in the world. What's up with the director?

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

As a teenager I learned that it is best not to tell cops that they are in error even if they are, but here I am at a safe distance so I can speak up. Sounds like SNAFU to me.

[Jlall]

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.

In a recent regional in Florida, playing vs Meckwell, my partner (Grue) led out of turn, and I asked Meck if he knew his options and he was like "I think so but I'm not sure, let's call the director."

Lead out of turn is way way way more common. Pretty much the only ones I know are lead out of turn and revoke (though I always call the director in the latter just in case). I def don't know when someone is barred for one round, or barred forever, and I don't know if I've ever seen a bid out of turn when it wasn't an opening bid. Arguably since I'm youngish/post on forums/whatever I would be more likely to know this than most professional bridge players like Rodwell.

I would take an average forum poster over even Fred for knowing the basic rules in situations like this, and certainly over Rodwell. It seems like there is a misconception about how well these top pros know the rules in situations like this.

[kenberg]

I am glad to hear this. I pretty much just let the director rule however he rules and don't fuss, but I thought that just showed my lack of competitive spirit.

Still, in this case. If I understand the logic of the ruling the following could happen:

RHO bids 5H, rkc. LHO, not realizing that I have not yet put out another pass card, bids 6♠. I summon the director, get my ruling, bid 7NT, announce that I concede the rest of the tricks, and score up minus 650. Ah yes, another triumph for restoring equity.

It just seems that the table reaction would be "That can't be right". I realize you would not do it. Again, glad to hear it. But the rules really should not permit it and it seems impossible that they would. Someone would have (just did) use this gimmick and it would get fixed.


The whole thing just seems bizarre.


Of course it was posted for its humorous content and I do appreciate the humor, particularly the karma induced 1100.

[dburn]

kenberg, on May 21 2010, 06:06 PM, said:

RHO bids 5H, rkc. LHO, not realizing that I have not yet put out another pass card, bids 6♠. I summon the director, get my ruling, bid 7NT, announce that I concede the rest of the tricks, and score up minus 650. Ah yes, another triumph for restoring equity.

It just seems that the table reaction would be "That can't be right". I realize you would not do it. Again, glad to hear it. But the rules really should not permit it and it seems impossible that they would.

As has been pointed out (twice, in fact) they don't.

[kenberg]

Right, they don't. i understand that. I was speculating on how Rodwell could let it go by. Justin says the experts are not walking rule books. OK. I accept and even like that. But this ruling is so odd that I think even I would say something along the lines of "I don't actually know what the rules are, but this can't be what they say. Please show me where it says that."


A lot is let pass at a club game, even (maybe especially) with rather high level players. Perhaps that's it.

[the hog]

billw55, on May 22 2010, 02:14 AM, said:

Jlall, on May 21 2010, 01:33 PM, said:

Even if the way the director described it was true and I was smart enough to figure out the loophole and bid 4H I would never do that. I know that most won't agree with that since it's legal etc, but this is not what the game is all about to me.

Interesting. Weren't you one of the ones who supported Meckwell in the thread about the multi bid and provided defense controversy with the Singapore team? For example:

Quote

Guess that's where we're different, I don't expect any of my opps to behave in such a way and I don't see why it's fair to. They are well within their rights to gain any advantage they can within the laws, and I don't think less of any of my opps if they choose to do so.

Yes indeed. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.