Double Checking

[G_R__E_G]

I'm pretty sure I made the correct ruling last night just wanted to be sure....

 

ACBL club game. North is the dealer but before North makes a call East pulls the stop card out of their bidding box and places it on the table. Before anything further happens, West tells East that it's not their turn to bid. My ruling was that no bid had actually taken place but that West was in possession of UI. I told North to make their call and that the auction would continue on normally from there. I told West that they needed to be very careful not to use the UI that they had due to the stop card being displayed and finally, I told N/S that if they felt that West did use the UI and that it damaged them that they should call me back. All good?

[gordontd]

I'm pretty sure I made the correct ruling last night just wanted to be sure....

 

ACBL club game. North is the dealer but before North makes a call East pulls the stop card out of their bidding box and places it on the table. Before anything further happens, West tells East that it's not their turn to bid. My ruling was that no bid had actually taken place but that West was in possession of UI. I told North to make their call and that the auction would continue on normally from there. I told West that they needed to be very careful not to use the UI that they had due to the stop card being displayed and finally, I told N/S that if they felt that West did use the UI and that it damaged them that they should call me back. All good?

Sounds good to me.

[ArtK78]

I think that East should be barred from using the stop card for the remainder of the auction.

 

:)

[G_R__E_G]

I think that East should be barred from using the stop card for the remainder of the auction.

 

:)

 

Lol - good idea. Maybe I just should have removed it from his bidding box altogether. :-) The main reason I ask is that N/S tried to tell me that East had "bid" and that the same rules as a bid out of turn should have applied. I, obviously, disagreed.

[blackshoe]

N/S were clearly wrong.

Bidding box regulation: A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made.

Two cards in the bidding box — Alert and Stop — are not bidding cards.

[barmar]

N/S were clearly wrong. Two cards in the bidding box — Alert and Stop — are not bidding cards.

Some boxes also have a "Tournament Director" card. I've never seen anyone use it, though.

[jeffford76]

I'm pretty sure I made the correct ruling last night just wanted to be sure....

 

ACBL club game. North is the dealer but before North makes a call East pulls the stop card out of their bidding box and places it on the table. Before anything further happens, West tells East that it's not their turn to bid. My ruling was that no bid had actually taken place but that West was in possession of UI. I told North to make their call and that the auction would continue on normally from there. I told West that they needed to be very careful not to use the UI that they had due to the stop card being displayed and finally, I told N/S that if they felt that West did use the UI and that it damaged them that they should call me back. All good?

 

You may have expressed it differently at the table, but I would be wary of instructing a pair to call me back if they thought the opponents had used UI. That makes any return call appear to be an accusation. More neutral language would be preferred. Or simply return yourself at the end of the hand and ask what the result was. It will be pretty obvious if N/S is upset about something or if W did something weird.

[wyman]

You may have expressed it differently at the table, but I would be wary of instructing a pair to call me back if they thought the opponents had used UI.

 

I agree with this.

 

However, "call me back if you feel damaged" is the most common instruction I've heard given in these situations (ACBL).

[jeffford76]

I agree with this.

 

However, "call me back if you feel damaged" is the most common instruction I've heard given in these situations (ACBL).

 

I think this is an example of "more neutral language".

[wyman]

I think this is an example of "more neutral language".

 

Certainly more neutral than what OP said. I still feel this suggests "...damaged -- by someone's use of the UI." But I don't have a suggestion for an improvement, so...

[blackshoe]

Some boxes also have a "Tournament Director" card. I've never seen anyone use it, though.

 

I think some of the directors around here removed all those from the boxes. :P

[iviehoff]

Before anything further happens, West tells East that it's not their turn to bid.

This part of the course of events has not been discussed. I think we can call this "drawing attention to an irregularity" rather than "illegal communication", so I think it is OK.

[Zelandakh]

Certainly more neutral than what OP said. I still feel this suggests "...damaged -- by someone's use of the UI." But I don't have a suggestion for an improvement, so...

How about "Call me back if you feel there might have been any damage"? That way you are asking them to call you back even if they are not sure, so (hopefully) no accusation is even suggested.

[blackshoe]

This part of the course of events has not been discussed. I think we can call this "drawing attention to an irregularity" rather than "illegal communication", so I think it is OK.

Well, it looks to me like an attempt to prevent an irregularity.

[iviehoff]

Well, it looks to me like an attempt to prevent an irregularity.

I agree, it does look just rather like that. But the law only talks about attempts to prevent irregularities when it is dummy that does it. Dummy is explicitly permitted to do that in certain limited circumstances. In other cases, I think an attempt to prevent partner's irregularity must be inappropriate communication.

 

However in the present case one irregularity has already been committed. Thus partner is permitted to draw attention to it. Although the words do look like trying to prevent an irregularity, nevertheless they also look like just the kind of words that would naturally be used to draw attention to the irregularity already committed.

 

So that is why I compared inappropriate communication with drawing attention to an irregularity, and decided that on balance this is permitted as the latter.

[barmar]

Trying to prevent an irregularity would be if you see him reaching for the bidding box, and remind him that it's not his turn. While this does technically seem to be an infraction, it seems like only a SB would make an issue of it.

[pran]

Well, it looks to me like an attempt to prevent an irregularity.

You cannot prevent an irregularity after it has been comitted (and completed). What you do then is calling attention to the irregularity.

[pran]

I agree, it does look just rather like that. But the law only talks about attempts to prevent irregularities when it is dummy that does it. Dummy is explicitly permitted to do that in certain limited circumstances. In other cases, I think an attempt to prevent partner's irregularity must be inappropriate communication.

 

However in the present case one irregularity has already been committed. Thus partner is permitted to draw attention to it. Although the words do look like trying to prevent an irregularity, nevertheless they also look like just the kind of words that would naturally be used to draw attention to the irregularity already committed.

 

So that is why I compared inappropriate communication with drawing attention to an irregularity, and decided that on balance this is permitted as the latter.

When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

(My enhancement)

[iviehoff]

Trying to prevent an irregularity would be if you see him reaching for the bidding box, and remind him that it's not his turn. While this does technically seem to be an infraction, it seems like only a SB would make an issue of it.

I agree with your analysis of that specific case, but it doesn't necessarily follow to other cases. Inappropriate communication, including trying to prevent an irregularity, gives rise to unauthorised information. Sometimes that UI may be significant.

 

Saying "having none, partner" is trying to prevent a (further) irregularity of a revoke being uncorrected. It is something that has from time to time been explicitly permitted, or explicitly prohibited. Under the present laws of it being explicitly permitted (with possible regional election otherwise), we may still be concerned about the UI which arises from why partner chose to ask at that moment. Many partners only ask when their count suggests what they see is "impossible".

 

In the case of unauthorised information bringing someone's attention to their mispulled bid, precedent is that the unintended bid may be corrected without penalty, regardless of the manner of attention being brought. Though some people worry about whether it is really proper or fair. I wouldn't put it high up my list of things that the lawmakers need to think again about.

[iviehoff]

Law 9A3

You are quite correct. I overlooked that, despite searching the lawbook for "prevent". So I've been wittering nonsense. My apologies.

[barmar]

Saying "having none, partner" is trying to prevent a (further) irregularity of a revoke being uncorrected. It is something that has from time to time been explicitly permitted, or explicitly prohibited. Under the present laws of it being explicitly permitted (with possible regional election otherwise), we may still be concerned about the UI which arises from why partner chose to ask at that moment. Many partners only ask when their count suggests what they see is "impossible".

This seems like another case where I must be the luckiest player around, or maybe just oblivious. My experience with people who ask this is that they're very consistent: they almost always ask the first time their partner shows out of each suit. The reason I DON'T ask is because I've never been able to get myself in the habit of doing it regularly, and I don't want to do it only in cases where I'm surprised.

 

Of course, there are some poor players who indicate surprise when partner shows out in other ways: facial expressions or exclamations. I hope I don't do this.

[pran]

[...] Inappropriate communication, including trying to prevent an irregularity, gives rise to unauthorised information. Sometimes that UI may be significant.

[...]

"Trying to prevent an irregularity" as specified in Law 9A3 is explicitly legal and therefore not inappropriate communication! The same applies to asking questions as specified in Law 20F and elsewhere.

 

However, all such actions are likely to create UI (which itself is not illegal!), and it is the responsibility of any players receiving such UI to avoid violating Law 16 by letting their choices of actions be influenced from it.

[blackshoe]

I agree, it does look just rather like that. But the law only talks about attempts to prevent irregularities when it is dummy that does it.

Nonsense.

 

Law 9A3, in part: Any player, however, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

Edit: I see Sven already pointed this out. :)

[blackshoe]

You cannot prevent an irregularity after it has been comitted (and completed). What you do then is calling attention to the irregularity.

The potential irregularity we're talking about here is a call out of turn, which has not yet happened.

[mjj29]

How about "Call me back if you feel there might have been any damage"? That way you are asking them to call you back even if they are not sure, so (hopefully) no accusation is even suggested.

I usually go with "Call me back if you'd like me to have a look at the hand afterwards"