Take Advantage of the Rules!!

[gordontd]

BTW: Most mistakes where I play are ethical. eg asking about 1C opening when having good clubs, bidding with border line hands when partner tanked,... I don't call TD for this because often the opps don't understand what is wrong.

If nobody asks the TD to explain it to them, they never will understand.

[kgr]

BTW: Most mistakes where I play are ethical. eg asking about 1C opening when having good clubs, bidding with border line hands when partner tanked,... I don't call TD for this because often the opps don't understand what is wrong.

If nobody asks the TD to explain it to them, they never will understand.

Initially I tried to explain it myself, but I gave up

[gwnn]

Explaining yourself is NOT better than calling the TD. It is illegal and -at least to me- very annoying and condescending.

[kenberg]

Random thoughts

 

I need to read better. It was a Regional. I thought Club. If Rodwell was playing I thought that must be one hell of a club.

 

 

Ok, Regional. That's a pretty bad ruling for a Regional. Difficult situations are, well, difficult. Ruling on a call out of turn should be routine. Yes I have seen calls out of turn, and not just the first call. In some auctions it is more or less obvious that the opponents will be passing at every turn. Sometimes the bidding side, absorbed in their complexities, "sees" a pass card that has not been played. I make errors, everyone makes errors, but that ruling, at a Regional, is hard for me to understand.

 

I did not intend any criticism of Rodwell, or West, or anyone except the director. I was expressing amazement that things could go that far off track.

 

I am more than content to let it be. It is definitely a fun story, I apologize if I have appeared not to appreciate a good story on its own terms.

[Rossoneri]

Explaining yourself is NOT better than calling the TD. It is illegal and -at least to me- very annoying and condescending.

Agreed.

 

Pretty funny story, but thoroughly let down by the wrong ruling given by the director!

[kgr]

Explaining yourself is NOT better than calling the TD. It is illegal and -at least to me- very annoying and condescending.

I had the following at the club against two LOLs (with playing TD) playing 4 hands against this pair:

hand 1:

Partner opened 1♣ and I declared a game contract. My RHO asked during the bidding what the 1♣ opening was and how many clubs it promised. She had a good 5c♣.

hand 2:

My partner opened 1♦ and I played 3NT. With LHO on lead, RHO asked before the lead if 1♦ was real. She had a good 5 or 6c♦.

...Actually RHO asked more then once in both hands.

Luckily LHO did not lead ♣ or ♦, not that she was very ethical , but she didn't get the clue.

=> Why can I not (try) to explain RHO that she shouldn't do this?

 

 

Something else: Before I knew anything about the laws, I declared 3NT in an important match. RHO cashed 4 Spades and then played ♥A. LHO revoked on that trick. I thought that I was already down before the revoke and noted 3NT-1. Now I would ask that trick back and note 3NT= (Most opps will do the same if they know the law)

[gwnn]

Because it is illegal and annoying and condescending.

[kenberg]

In addition, often the players who explain rules to opponents have no clue what they are talking about. letting something go is fine, at least at the club level. Calling the director is fine. Explaining to the opponents what they have done wrong without calling the director is definitely not fine.

 

Lately I have been playing some at a local club, a nearby and very pleasant place. No one but an absolute beginner would mistake me for an expert but we usually come in first or second. I have told my partner that if we continue to play there we should vary from NS to EW. Maybe we should play there, maybe we shouldn't, but I never call the director except for something clear cut such as a revoke. I offer suggestions only if asked and maybe not then.

 

Regionals are a different story. An entirely different story.

[Fluffy]

at my local its not so rare to see my opponents asking me to rule when something wrong happens myself, they just don't want director to be summoned at the table and every look at them. Unless we are forgiving a revoke/penalty card, we summon director regardless of course.

[ggwhiz]

Explaining yourself is NOT better than calling the TD. It is illegal and -at least to me- very annoying and condescending.

 

100% correct as per a previous post in Laws and Rulings(?) where a self-styled expert rudely told an opponent they were not allowed to bid after a hesitation in the middle of an auction!

 

Even being polite about any situation doesn't make you right. 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.

[aguahombre]

Very interested in these last things as pertain to club ethics and how to handle them. Shouldn't it be a new thread somewhere?

 

The constant problem of director walking tighrope, and players doing the same because they might seem consescending vs teaching players what is right --etc..

is worth exploring further, IMO.

[hanp]

Why would west bid 4H? He can also bid 4S, 5C or 5D and play there undoubled right? Surely one of these contracts would be down fewer?

[gwnn]

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

[hanp]

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

[Radrag]

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/about/lawsCommissionMembers.html

[kenberg]

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]

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? :wacko:

[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 :wacko:

[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". :wacko:

[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]

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/about/lawsCommissionMembers.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]

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.bridgebase.com/index.php?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

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). 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).