[sanst]

pescetom, on 2021-June-27, 13:08, said:

Agree with this of course, but IMO the interesting point of contention is the assertion by sfi that the opener is no longer bound by system.
Do we all agree, and if so how does this translate in terms of alerting and explanation in the various scenarios?
Our regulations assume that opener *is* bound by system.

So do ours and I don’t read anything in the Laws that permits you to do as you like after a bid out of turn. If you make a habit of it or have an agreement to do so, you should inform the opponents of this. An infraction doesn’t mean that the offenders loose their rights.
Somehow I get the feeling that many are looking for loopholes in the Laws when that’s not illegal. I don’t like it. Bridge is a game of fairness, not a playground for legal niceties. I expect players to take the laws 72, 73 and 74 as the main guideline for their behavior and attitude at the table - or computer nowadays.

[pran]

sanst, on 2021-June-28, 01:58, said:

So do ours and I don’t read anything in the Laws that permits you to do as you like after a bid out of turn. If you make a habit of it or have an agreement to do so, you should inform the opponents of this. An infraction doesn’t mean that the offenders loose their rights.
Somehow I get the feeling that many are looking for loopholes in the Laws when that’s not illegal. I don’t like it. Bridge is a game of fairness, not a playground for legal niceties. I expect players to take the laws 72, 73 and 74 as the main guideline for their behavior and attitude at the table - or computer nowadays.

The short form is that any player may make any call he likes, but he may not deviate from his published agreements unless his deviation will be at least as surprising to his partner as it is to his opponents.

(And he may of course not call attention, not to his partner nor to his opponents, to the fact that he has committed such deviation)

[sfi]

sanst, on 2021-June-28, 01:58, said:

So do ours and I don’t read anything in the Laws that permits you to do as you like after a bid out of turn. If you make a habit of it or have an agreement to do so, you should inform the opponents of this. An infraction doesn’t mean that the offenders loose their rights.

Law 40A3 allows dealer to make any call so long as it is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding. You are right that if the side has explicitly discussed what to do, they will be constrained. But nobody discusses agreements here and it's rare enough that the partnership will not have implicit understandings (as one data point, I play quite a lot of bridge and have not encountered this situation in a tournament for at least two decades).

sanst said:

Somehow I get the feeling that many are looking for loopholes in the Laws when that’s not illegal. I don’t like it. Bridge is a game of fairness, not a playground for legal niceties. I expect players to take the laws 72, 73 and 74 as the main guideline for their behavior and attitude at the table - or computer nowadays.

Bridge is still a game one plays to win, and law 10C3 says "When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select the most advantageous action." This law is referring to the choice of whether or not to accept the bid out of turn, but then you have law 73E. It explicitly allows dealer to "attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play [with caveats outlined by Pran]". I don't find anything in laws 72-74 that suggests choosing a non-systemic call as dealer in this situation is problematic.

The short answer is that you get to do what you think is right to get a good score on the hand as long as you follow the laws, don't use UI and don't have hidden agreements.

[mycroft]

Ah, apologies. I frequently respond without quoting, because it's obvious to whom I'm speaking. My first comment in this thread was all in response to the OP, not to any of the other responses.

I thought it was obvious; this time it wasn't. My fault.

I don't know about the "ethics of psyching"; but if partner has a 10 count with 4 hearts, I assume he's not giving me a limit raise here. I mean, I think it's arguable that partner will assume I'm "in third seat", knowing that partner can't have a good hand - as he is entitled to, because the call out of turn is AI to her, too.

Also, if we play Precision and open all 9s that look like 10s, this is a minor deviation based on the state of the match, no? What if I open all 11s (which I do)? People keep saying "a king of the opening isn't a psych, it's just Good Judgement". But only when they do it against me, not the other way around, it seems.

[nige1]

Bad_Wolf, on 2021-June-26, 21:26, said:

I am the dealer. My RHO opens 2NT strong out of turn. I don't accept. What, if any, are my legal obligations at this point? I ask because I was the director when this occurred and, as I discovered later, the dealer opened an average 8 count. I had no problem with this but a director I respect thought it was "dodgy". Opinions?

You are director when RHO opens 2NT, out of turn. You don't accept the call. Now, please clarify:

• Had RHO opened 2NT on an average 8 count? or
• After RHO now passed, did you, dealer, open on an average 8 count?

[blackshoe]

I think Bad_Wolf should clarify whether he was a playing director, and whether if so he was also the dealer in this incident. This assumes, of course, that he was in fact the director, whether playing or not. Maybe he should clarify that too.

That said, the answer to the question in the OP ("What are dealer's legal obligations after he does not accept his RHO's LOOT?") is simple: make a legal call. He can psych or otherwise deviate from his agreements if he likes, so long as there is no partnership understanding about such calls. He can call according to his partnership understandings. He chose, apparently, to deviate from his agreements. That's legal. It's not "dodgy" or unethical. His side has no obligation (and indeed his partner cannot, because he doesn't know) to tell their opponent that he has deviated from partnership understanding. In fact, if asked, his side should describe the partnership agreement as to the meaning of his call, not what he has in his hand.