Ruling from Vegas

[blackshoe]

"Simultaneous" is not defined in the laws. We use the dictionary definition - and these calls were not simultaneous. Calling them simultaneous is a stretch — and not one the TD should be willing to make.

[Cascade]

Now lets stay with the facts and the laws.

 

The moment the 1♦ bid was made, the irregularity BOOT occurred.

 

From this moment on Law 29 is working and because of §29A the player to act is now offenders LHO. There is no such note in Law 29 that says that it's effect only starts if the Td is present or called. It also does not say some thing like "if a BOOT is noticed", Law 29 describes the proper procedure to follow after a BOOT. It says that if offenders LHO just puts down a bid of his own, he made use of §29A. A clear example that Law §29 is working independent of the notice of the irregularity.

 

So Waynes argument that it is still North turn to make a call is wrong.

 

North violates the procedure installed by law §29 with a BOOT. This is the 2nd irregularity.

L29 or any other law cannot be invoked until someone notes the irregularity. In this case the BOOT by south was not noted until after north bid. This is entirely an issue for east-west as north-south have no responsibility to note their own irregularity.

 

Until someone draws attention to the irregularity it is north's bid as no ruling can be made on an irregularity that no one notices.

 

L29A is merely saying that if west sees south bid but does not realize that it was south's turn but makes an otherwise normal call thinking it is his turn then it will be treated as normal and not as an infraction.

 

So when no one has noted the irregularity whose turn is it? Do we have to sit there forever hoping that someone will notice?

 

Until an irregularity has been drawn attention to it is as if that irregularity has not occurred.

[Cascade]

"Simultaneous" is not defined in the laws. We use the dictionary definition - and these calls were not simultaneous. Calling them simultaneous is a stretch — and not one the TD should be willing to make.

What do you think simultaneous means?

 

If one bid was made (hit the table) a nanosecond or two before another are they simultaneous? If not then in practice there is no such thing as a simultaneous bid.

 

For me if both bids were in the process of being made at the same time I would consider them simultaneous. I think that this is the intention of the law.

 

Given that in this case no one noted the bid by south before north bid it is unclear to me exactly when south's bid was made and therefore whether or not it was entirely made before north started to make his bid.

 

From the facts presented I would certainly consider the possibility that they were simultaneous. And if there was no convincing evidence to the contrary given that no one noticed I would be willing to rule that the bids were simultaneous.

[blackshoe]

You're fishing, Wayne. Nothing in the OP gives any intimation that the bids were simultaneous. If that possibility existed, the OP would have said so. It didn't happen.

[jtfanclub]

L29 or any other law cannot be invoked until someone notes the irregularity.

Where in the world did you find this?

 

Law 29 has specific rules for what to do if the irregularity is not noted and the next player makes a call. So of course the rule is there before somebody notes the irregularity.

 

Furthermore, I can invoke the Laws even when there is no irregularity to note. For example, the contract is 4♥. Each defender thinks it's their partner's turn to lead. What do you do? You invoke the laws, of course. But where is the irregularity?

 

But, I'm sure you have some source for this idea, somewhere.

[Cascade]

L29 or any other law cannot be invoked until someone notes the irregularity.

Where in the world did you find this?

 

Law 29 has specific rules for what to do if the irregularity is not noted and the next player makes a call. So of course the rule is there before somebody notes the irregularity.

 

Furthermore, I can invoke the Laws even when there is no irregularity to note. For example, the contract is 4♥. Each defender thinks it's their partner's turn to lead. What do you do? You invoke the laws, of course. But where is the irregularity?

 

But, I'm sure you have some source for this idea, somewhere.

Ok I didn't really mean any other law. I meant a penalty provision or other consequence of an infraction.

[Cascade]

You're fishing, Wayne. Nothing in the OP gives any intimation that the bids were simultaneous. If that possibility existed, the OP would have said so. It didn't happen.

I am not convinced but i wasn't at the table.

 

The only evidence I can imagine for this could be that someone, presumably east-west noticed the bid out of turn but did not for some reason draw attention to it.

 

I would want an explanation of why this occurred. I don't think this is unreasonable.

[jtfanclub]

The only evidence I can imagine for this could be that someone, presumably east-west noticed the bid out of turn but did not for some reason draw attention to it.

 

I would want an explanation of why this occurred. I don't think this is unreasonable.

Hmmm? I sit down at a table. I'm notice I'm 4th hand. I write down the opponent's numbers on the back of my score sheet, and check the opp's CC. Then I take my cards from the board, count them, and sort them into suits, but don't actually look closely, watching for my partner's call so I can alert if necessary.

 

At this point, RHO opens out of turn.

 

So I look at my hand, and look at his bid, and I decide whether I'm going to accept. If I decide to accept, then I bid. If I don't, then I call the director. But there's going to be a rather significant pause there while I consider whether to accept. If I do accept, I won't call the director. After all, why should I let the opps in on whether I realized I could reject the bid? In the OP it sounds like once North realized South had bid out of turn then North immediately made a bid, so it doesn't sound like the delay was inordinate.

 

P.S. I don't see anything in the rules saying that penalties require invocation but other rules do not.

[nickf]

So I look at my hand, and look at his bid, and I decide whether I'm going to accept.  If I decide to accept, then I bid.  If I don't, then I call the director.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd say this position, in itself, is a breach of the Laws. I'd say once an infraction has not just occurred, but noticed, it's incumbent upon the table to call the Director. That you know the relevant Law and can accept/ refuse is commendable but refusing to call the Director, perhaps just not to lose time, is wrong.

 

nickf

sydney

[Cascade]

The only evidence I can imagine for this could be that someone, presumably east-west noticed the bid out of turn but did not for some reason draw attention to it.

 

I would want an explanation of why this occurred.  I don't think this is unreasonable.

Hmmm? I sit down at a table. I'm notice I'm 4th hand. I write down the opponent's numbers on the back of my score sheet, and check the opp's CC. Then I take my cards from the board, count them, and sort them into suits, but don't actually look closely, watching for my partner's call so I can alert if necessary.

 

At this point, RHO opens out of turn.

 

So I look at my hand, and look at his bid, and I decide whether I'm going to accept. If I decide to accept, then I bid. If I don't, then I call the director. But there's going to be a rather significant pause there while I consider whether to accept. If I do accept, I won't call the director. After all, why should I let the opps in on whether I realized I could reject the bid? In the OP it sounds like once North realized South had bid out of turn then North immediately made a bid, so it doesn't sound like the delay was inordinate.

 

P.S. I don't see anything in the rules saying that penalties require invocation but other rules do not.

So you sit there delaying and not calling the director because you think it might be to your advantage and I bid because I am the dealer and think it is my bid and you think I am wrong?

 

Isn't

 

"LAW 10 - ASSESSMENT OF RECTIFICATION

 

A. Right to Determine Rectification

 

The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive – see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative.

"

 

relevant.

 

"LAW 11 - FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO RECTIFICATION

 

A. Action by Non-Offending Side

 

The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law.

"

 

This also seems relevant to me. I would consider thinking and "action". "an act that one consciously wills and that may be characterized by physical or mental activity" www.dictionary.com

 

If you notice the irregularity you have an obligation as a non-offender to call the director anything else that you do damages your rights.

 

Only the offenders have no obligation to draw attention to their irregularity.

[jtfanclub]

So I look at my hand, and look at his bid, and I decide whether I'm going to accept.  If I decide to accept, then I bid.  If I don't, then I call the director.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd say this position, in itself, is a breach of the Laws. I'd say once an infraction has not just occurred, but noticed, it's incumbent upon the table to call the Director. That you know the relevant Law and can accept/ refuse is commendable but refusing to call the Director, perhaps just not to lose time, is wrong.

 

nickf

sydney

Why? It states specifically that you don't have to draw attention to your partner's infraction. I certainly don't think it's incumbent upon the opponents to do so either. I certainly can't find any rule that says that.

 

LAW 29 PROCEDURE AFTER A CALL OUT OF ROTATION

A. Forfeiture of Right to Penalize

Following a call out of rotation, offender's LHO may elect to call, thereby forfeiting the right to penalize.

 

That's all I'm doing. How is this different from knowing that an opponent has revoked, but waiting to say something until the revoke has been established?

 

 

If I notice but do not draw attention to an irregularity, what law have I violated?

[jtfanclub]

I would consider thinking and "action".

Holy crap.

 

You're actually serious? You think the NOP forfeits their rights if they *think*?

 

This is, um. No. I give up.

 

You win.

[Cascade]

I would consider thinking and "action".

Holy crap.

 

You're actually serious? You think the NOP forfeits their rights if they *think*?

 

This is, um. No. I give up.

 

You win.

No I think you "may" forfeit your right.

 

You said you were doing this to gain an advantage other than from simply thinking about a bridge problem.

 

I certainly think that is inappropriate.

 

If you want to think about whether or not to accept the bid out of turn you can do that equally well after you have called the director.

[Cascade]

Why? It states specifically that you don't have to draw attention to your partner's infraction. I certainly don't think it's incumbent upon the opponents to do so either. I certainly can't find any rule that says that.

The normal standard in such a case where something is specifically stated is to assume that what is similar but not stated does not apply.

 

Therefore I would interpret the fact that it specifically states that offenders have no obligation to draw attention to the irregularity to indicate that non-offenders do have an obligation to draw attention to the irregularity if they notice.

 

Otherwise we have a mess like we have here where some people think that non-offenders can manipulate proceedings so as to gain an advantage that they would not have if they called the director.

[Echognome]

Why?  It states specifically that you don't have to draw attention to your partner's infraction.  I certainly don't think it's incumbent upon the opponents to do so either.  I certainly can't find any rule that says that.

The normal standard in such a case where something is specifically stated is to assume that what is similar but not stated does not apply.

 

Therefore I would interpret the fact that it specifically states that offenders have no obligation to draw attention to the irregularity to indicate that non-offenders do have an obligation to draw attention to the irregularity if they notice.

 

Otherwise we have a mess like we have here where some people think that non-offenders can manipulate proceedings so as to gain an advantage that they would not have if they called the director.

I guess the concrete example is as follows:

 

We are defending a contract and declarer leads from the wrong hand and it's your partners turn. Is it unethical to not call attention to the irregularity to first see if your partner wants to accept the lead out of turn? Of course the difficulty with such a premise is how you can possibly prove that the non offender even noticed the irregularity.

[jtfanclub]

You said you were doing this to gain an advantage other than from simply thinking about a bridge problem.

Huh? Whether I accept an out of rotation bid or not is a bridge problem. That's what I'm thinking about.

 

Otherwise we have a mess like we have here where some people think that non-offenders can manipulate proceedings so as to gain an advantage that they would not have if they called the director.

 

So if you know that an opponent has revoked, can you wait until the revoke is established to call the director, or not? How about if an opponent hesitates?

 

This is just...arrgh. If South opens out of turn, and West forfeits his rights to any penalty because the thought, or blinked, or something, it is still West's turn to bid. If North bids, he is still bidding out of turn. There are only two possibilities in the Laws: South's bid is valid (because the opponents forfeited their right to penalize) or South's bid is not valid (because the director was called and South's bid was cancelled). There is no half-state where you can have bids go South then North skipping West without North being in violation of the Law.

 

What's you're arguing is that West's thinking is an action that forfeits the right to call the director for a violation that hasn't even occurred yet. Not only are you arguing that West's thinking establishes South's bid as legal, but then it also establishes any bidding out of turn North-South do in the future.

 

I don't get it. I just don't.

[mike777]

Once you notice a bid out of turn, at whatever point in time of the deal, what are your legal/ethical obligations? Perhaps if you notice this as dummy you need to wait until after the hand? Otherwise, I am guessing they are to call the director? I assume if you realize there is a bid out of turn, even if your own or partners, during the bidding and ignore it this is unethical or a violation of rule or regulation?

[inquiry]

I was at the table. The bids were not close to simultaneous. I saw South open, and several seconds I saw north bid --- before my partner had bid. I then noticed that it was North's deal. My partner pointed out North;s "bid out of turn", I noted south's opening out of turn too... Then I called the director.

[mike777]

"L9A4. There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partner’s apparently mistaken explanation).""

 

 

Hmm this seems to be a bit wierd....If I know my partner has broken the law or a regulation I have no ethical obligation or duty to call a director? Example bid or lead out of turn.

[jdonn]

"L9A4. There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partner’s apparently mistaken explanation).""

 

 

Hmm this seems to be a bit wierd....If I know my partner has broken the law or a regulation I have no ethical obligation or duty to call a director? Example bid or lead out of turn.

That is correct. So in the given case if you see your partner opened the bidding out of turn, you are free to sit there and twiddle your thumbs and hope that your RHO doesn't notice and makes a bid over it. If that happens, you have legally taken advantage of your opponent's inattention to avoid an adverse ruling for partner's infraction.

 

Apparently some (one?) continue to misinterpret. Not drawing attention to the infraction isn't the same thing as pretending it never happened. You don't have to tell the opponents that it wasn't your partner's turn to bid, but partner's bid still did occur, making it the next player's turn. In a similar vein, if partner's opening bid was alertable then you must alert it, but you needn't say that it wasn't his turn to bid when you are explaining the bid.

[inquiry]

Jdonn is correct in his last point.. here is a case in point.

 

Assume you revoke during play. Later you notice that you revoked, you are not required to tell the opponents. But when someone claims, you do not put your cards back in the board, or throw them down face down. You face your remaining cards. If they discover your revoke, fine, you pay the price.... You are not required to point it out, but You are not allowed to hide it either. I feel this is similiar to his point about twiddling your thumbs.

[blackshoe]

So I look at my hand, and look at his bid, and I decide whether I'm going to accept.  If I decide to accept, then I bid.  If I don't, then I call the director.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd say this position, in itself, is a breach of the Laws. I'd say once an infraction has not just occurred, but noticed, it's incumbent upon the table to call the Director. That you know the relevant Law and can accept/ refuse is commendable but refusing to call the Director, perhaps just not to lose time, is wrong.

 

nickf

sydney

No. Law 9 is specific on this point: no one is required to call attention to an irregularity. It is only after attention is called that the director must (1997 laws)/should (2007 laws) be called.

[blackshoe]

Only the offenders have no obligation to draw attention to their irregularity.

This turns out not to be the case.

 

Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call."

 

Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong)

 

The same provisions appear in the 1997 laws.

[jtfanclub]

Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong)

 

The same provisions appear in the 1997 laws.

Ah, I missed that in the introduction! Thank God, we won't have an argument about what "may" means.

 

Lemme just give an example of why you don't call the director in this situation.

 

(1♦) 1NT (P) 2♥!

(-P-) 2♠ (P) 3NT

(-X-) P (P) (P)

 

What do you lead, as the passer?

 

Same auction, but after the 1♦....

 

"Director! My opponent bid out of turn!"

"OK, you may accept the bid. If you do, then you continue as if he had been dealer. If you don't, then the auction will go back to the original dealer, this person who bid out of turn's partner will be barred from the bidding, and there may be lead penalties".

"What lead penalties?"

"Well, if you end up declarer, and the opponent never bids diamonds, then you'll be able to forbid a diamond lead, most likely."

"OK, I'll accept the bid and bid 1NT"

 

Remember, everything here is AI, including that they may have been able to bar a ♦ lead but didn't. Tells you something about his hand, doesn't it?

 

When it says you can "elect" to simply bid in turn and by implication accept the bid out of turn, it means just what it says. Even Cascade now says that you only have to "invoke" for penalties. But accepting a bid out of turn is not a penalty. It's simply...bidding in turn.

 

There's actually several Coups that can be performed by bidding or leading out of turn, and then watching to see if the opponents accept or decline the irregularity. The best defense against these is, when you want to accept, simply follow smoothly and not give them the information they were looking for.

[LH2650]

Inquiry effectively gave the ruling that he received, and stated that it was correct, in his first two posts, and I doubt that Cascade or blackshoe have convinced him (and certainly not me) that the ruling was incorrect. Perhaps it is about time that he expanded upon the details of the original ruling and his current opinion.

 

The question that he originally asked has hardly been addressed - whether South could get lucky with a guess. Here, the answer is no, because of the UI. (I believe that 3N is a reasonable call, given the vulnerability and the fact that partner is barred, but I also believe that a poll would find LAs). In general, I think the answer is yes, because I see nothing that disallows it.