BudH

Of course, the proper choice, especially if you are offender’s RHO, is “Director, please.”

Ed, I find nothing other than the definition of a control bid in any ACBL document and nothing that says it is alertable. Do you have a source? You appear to be saying that 1H-3H-3S control bid is alertable which is never alerted, in my experience, in ACBL play. (Of course, many things, like visually alerting and announcing, are done by a very small minority.) Same for an inverted minor auction where several control bids might be made below 3NT.

East can prefer the lead out of turn to stand. West can then object if he wants - his choice stands if defenders (without conferring) disagree.

If an adjusted score is given on this one due to "could have known....", then it is very likely all kinds of circular and warped logic can find in some way that a player COULD have known his infraction could have been beneficial to his side, and we'd rule a potential adjusted score on the large majority of calls out of turn. This is NOT what the lawmakers intended.

I think six tricks is most likely, and the chance of only five tricks is low enough not to use a weighted average.

This is always a tough call. There is the argument that you should simply give him all the tricks and move to the next board. Others would say this gentleman is going to be giving tops to many other opposing pairs and we need to get our top when it is offered just to keep up with some of the other pairs in our direction.

If you used SB's reasoning to think this should apply, then you'd apply this law nearly all the time. It is ludicrous to suggest North bid out of turn with the thought he may later nail an opponent for a penalty, when by doing so he may easily miss a slam if his partner had a moderate hand.

The idea of "cover cheaply" or something similar is "play the lowest card which is higher than any card played to this trick thus far".

It would be easier if "cover cheaply" was used here and "win it" only used when dummy is last to play to the trick. (Yes, it would be even easier if Law 46A was consistently followed, or (more realistically) if only a few of the Law 46B choices were used. "Low spade", "top spade", "ruff low", "ruff high", "trump low", and "trump high" are commonly used and should have no ambiguity. "Win it" certainly has potential for more ambiguity.)

In the ACBL, it is still announceable for all 1NT openings.

Yeah, Ed, I know you and I don't agree on this. In my opinion, I think knowledge partner attempted to make a call (which was illegal and withdrawn) all by itself is UI even without knowledge of what the withdrawn call happened to be. And knowing the specific call that was withdrawn is even more information about offender's hand that offender's partner is not entitled to possess.

I guess we will agree to disagree on this one, since Law 16A1c to me means I am allowed to know all of the laws and regulations, including what happens and the procedure the Director will follow if partner makes a COOR. But when, after the Director explains to the table the proper procedure, including offender’s partner being informed not to use UI from the withdrawn call and that he will need to pass once if offender does subsequently NOT use a comparable call, in my opinion even knowing offender called out of turn, even if not knowing the SPECIFIC withdrawn call, should not be information allowed to be used by offender’s partner. (That is, offender's partner should not allowed to "be cute" to make it easier for offender's partner to use a comparable call.) But as I said, we agree to disagree. Yet another question needing official answering by the laws commissions. Note the difference when offender (not the offender’s PARTNER) gets creative to keep his partner in the auction, such as withdrawn pass, then with partner as dealer 1D-Pass-2NT invitational holding two 4-card majors as a comparable call to keep partner in the auction, which presumably is allowed and not to be adjusted by the Director if a great result not obtainable otherwise occurs. If all of the examples of these types discussed on here, Bridgewinners, and other major forums worldwide were covered in detail by the laws commissions and published, hopefully by this summer, it would be EXTREMELY beneficial.

Ed, not sure to what you are objecting. My contention of Laws 30B1(a) and Law 31B1 stating UI law applies to offender’s partner until offender makes his next (legal) call which the Director will judge to be comparable or not?

Can weejonnie or lamford give us a law reference supporting the claim that the fact partner made a COOR (call out of rotation) is AI in connection with offender’s partner choosing his call before offender makes his (potentially comparable) call? (I think it is UI, not AI, for reasons I have already stated.)

A bid is UI if it is a withdrawn bid by partner and partner has not yet made a comparable call (or cheapest bid showing same denominations for insufficient cases).

I would not allow 1NT to be considered comparable. But I can see the logic in it being “similar meaning”. If we are supposed to allow that much flexibility (as seen by those possible future examples we hope to see issued by the laws commissions soon), then I’ll adjust my personal standard of “similar meaning”.

Thanks to offender’s comment, we know the insufficient bid was intended to show spades - no need for all that “attributable” stuff! To allow opener to not be barred, responder will need to either: 1. Make the cheapest bid which shows spades 2. Make a comparable call (a call which shows 4-plus spades with more than a very weak hand - or with “similar meaning”) Would 1NT be allowed to be comparable? a. Hand strength is definitely more limited (about 7 to 11 HCP instead of 5-plus HCP). b. Suit length for a 1NT bid would nearly always be 3-plus spades with some spade strength. This is not more defining than 4-plus spades. However, it is up to the Director to judge if this is similar enough to be allowed as a comparable call. If the Director allows 1NT to be comparable, opener is not barred and the auction continues normally. Later, if the Director feels the extra information (four or five spades in responder’s hand instead of three spades) allowed offenders a good score, the score can be adjusted.

Law 31B1 says Law16C2 applies to dealer’s call. Law 16C2 says due to the UI (knowledge that partner tried to open out of turn AND what bid he tried to make) you can’t choose a call demonstrably suggested by the UI. Seems clear to me dealer is required to make his call as if he took his cards out of the board with no other (prior attempted) calls in the auction, i.e., not knowing anything about a withdrawn partner’s call. I don’t see Law 16A1(c ) (information specified in a law) changing that. Same for Law 10C4 (appropriate for offenders to make any call advantageous to their side ....), because it says “subject to Law 16C2...”.

It may be AI to know you will be barred for one round if partner fails to use a comparable call. But it’s UI to know the withdrawn call to help you know what might be best at this point,

Assuming dealer was properly informed not to use the UI from the withdrawn 2♣ (opening) bid and that dealer might be required to pass once on his next (second) call depending on his partner's next call, the question becomes "how many others would open the bidding with dealer's hand?". From the description, it doesn't appear clear that opener has an opening bid with his 12 HCP hand, so seeing the hand held would help us judge a lot. I suppose you could poll the dealers at other tables and see if it was opened at other tables. (I have a feeling this time the hand might well have opened at over half the tables.) Looks like an adjusted score would be in order if it's relatively clear to open dealer's hand (unless playing Roth-Stone!).

One reason why, when two tables are sharing boards, you want the two Norths to be players who will pay attention and change to the correct board number when necessary. (The Bridgemate screen warns about playing boards out of order, as a precaution, which in this case is OK at one of the sharing tables.)

On #2, the hand record is in no way accessible to the players, especially if you do NOT allow the players to self-correct a contract/declarer/opening lead/result. It is used solely to check the opening lead is in declarer's LHO's hand. On #3, the players only learn the input opening lead is not in the LHO's hand of the declarer input into the Bridgemate unit when E/W attempt to approve the contract/declarer/opening lead/result. A score correction cannot occur without the Director's knowledge if you are not allowing player corrections during the same round. On #4, only the Director at his computer can see if one or more tables has input a suspicious result. While ensuring nobody can see his computer screen, he can check the result(s) flagged as possibly suspicious. If necessary, he can check the entered score is correct. Often, you know immediately the error and why it was flagged. That being the case, it sounds like you would agree on all of them. I can't stress enough STRONGLY encouraging North to enter ALL possible information (contract, declarer, and especially the opening lead) immediately after the opening lead.

If you really think this is a big concern, then disable the feature to allow the players (only in the current round) to change a result (contract, declarer, opening lead, result) after being entered and accepted by opponents. It isn't that big an inconvenience for the Director. In my case, I find most of the time the players are not correcting it themselves and are calling me over. The only difference for me correcting it is I don't need to enter the Director confirmation code. I do think it is valuable to have all of the following enabled: 1. Opening lead entry 2. Hand record uploaded to the Bridgemates 3. Opening lead checked to be in declarer's LHO's hand 4. Suspicious contract detection feature (can be set for double dummy check within a chosen number of tricks and/or total tricks from NS and EW if the same denomination is declared in each direction within a chosen number of tricks)

I would never have the player score correction enabled in a tournament setting. But in a one or two section club setting, it is fine to use this feature.

Gordon, you’re correct. Not only is forcing an offender’s partner to pass once in Law 24 and applicable only after the first call, but penalty cards only occur under Law 24 and not under Law 16D.