Out of turn bids

[polecat69]

The following happened at a local club last night and I'm not sure the Director got the ruling right; nor am I sure he got it wrong.

 

On the hand in question East was dealer. The bidding started with West putting down a pass card, i.e. bid out of turn. The next act was East putting down a pass card (note neither North nor South had bid). At this point the Director was called.

 

What is the correct ruling and procedure in this case?

[mink]

My opinion about multiple calls out of turn is that the last one should be handled first when asking opps if they accept it (Law 29A). So here I would ask South if he likes continue, and if yes, nothing else happens. If South refuses to call, East's pass is withdrawn and he is instructed to pass the first time it is his turn to bid. Now North has the opportunity to call, and if he refuses, too, West's pass is withdrawn, too. East, the dealer, is now required to start with a pass, and after South calls, West is required to pass, too (Law 30A). It is not likely that Law 23 has to be applied in this case, and an UI is not very likely, too.

 

Karl

[axman]

The following happened at a local club last night and I'm not sure the Director got the ruling right; nor am I sure he got it wrong.

 

On the hand in question East was dealer. The bidding started with West putting down a pass card, i.e. bid out of turn. The next act was East putting down a pass card (note neither North nor South had bid). At this point the Director was called.

 

What is the correct ruling and procedure in this case?

 

By law the first call is made by dealer [L17A] and dealer’s partner made the first call. That call was OOT. Dealer’s partner is an offender [A] of L17A

 

By law the second call is made by dealer’s LHO [L17B] and dealer made the second call. That call was OOT. Dealer is an offender of L17B.

 

A and B are offending at the same time.

 

In the case L29 provides that [L29A] the offender’s LHO, if he now calls then the COOT is considered in rotation. As N and S are an LHO of an offender then should either of them call then both OOT passes are considered in rotation; otherwise, if neither of N or S do not call the COOT [as in- both passes] is canceled and the auction [subject to L30A] reverts to dealer [and be aware of L23].

[mycroft]

Remember Law 33. "the next act" sounds like it was after a time, but it could very easily have been close enough to simultaneous to trigger this ruling.

 

I will admit that I have a tendency to wide-range my "simultaneous", with the table's approval.

 

This is something that has always bothered me, though; I'm dealer, I know I'm dealer, I stop caring about the table while I try to figure out what my plan is. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[gordontd]

The bidding started with West putting down a pass card, i.e. bid out of turn.

Actually a Pass Out Of Rotation, not a Bid Out of Rotation - different laws apply.

[sfi]

My understanding is we have to deal with the infractions in order of occurrence. North has the first option - to accept West's pass out of rotation. If so, then East's pass becomes a pass out of rotation subject to Law 30. The auction would proceed with North calling next and East having to pass at their first turn to call.

 

If North does not accept West's pass, then the auction reverts to East. I can't see any reason why the pass can be withdrawn so it stands, and West must pass at their first turn.

 

We are also directed to Law 23, but it's hard to see how West could see that the irregularity could damage North-South.

 

In short, North gets to decide whether North or South calls first, and both East and West pass in the first round of the auction.

[blackshoe]

My understanding is we have to deal with the infractions in order of occurrence.

What gives you that idea?

[sfi]

Nothing I could find in the laws. I stated it that way so that my understanding could be corrected if wrong.

 

What is the accepted approach?

[RMB1]

What is the accepted approach?

None

 

The laws do not deal with multiple infractions. There are two plausible approaches: to deal with the infractions in the order they occurred, or to unwind the infractions, dealing with the last infraction first. Nothing in the laws supports either approach.

[iviehoff]

TD has discretion to deal with multiple offences in any order, as has been said above. It is usually the most successful approach to deal with them in the order in which they occur, unless there is pressing need to deal with the second offence. But the law does not require this.

 

Suppose we deal with the first offence first. So N is asked to decide about W's call.

1) If N rejects it, then E's call is now in turn and the auction proceeds; W must pass at his next turn to call.

2) If N accepts it, there is no rectification for W's call, and it is now N's turn to call. But E has called so E's call is out of turn. Normal rectification of that follows.

 

I prefer this to reverse order approach, because it all seems a lot easier and less strained. Mink had to make a pragmatic ruling that if the second call out of turn is accepted, then there can no longer be any rectification of the first offence. That seems more of a strain on the laws: there is no practical alternative, but it isn't really legally supported. But, as has been repeatedly said, there is no absolute ruling on what order offences have to be dealt with.

 

Given that the present situation is far from unprecedented - a player whose turn it is to call may fail to notice a call out of turn and call himself - probably there ought to be a specific arrangement on how to deal with it. L28B tells us what to do when it is a member of the other side that then calls, but fails to tell us what to do if it is the partner of the offender.

[barmar]

The laws do not deal with multiple infractions. There are two plausible approaches: to deal with the infractions in the order they occurred, or to unwind the infractions, dealing with the last infraction first. Nothing in the laws supports either approach.

Have the WBFLC or RAs provided any guidance?

[iviehoff]

Have the WBFLC or RAs provided any guidance?

How to deal with multiple irregularities or infractions is not mentioned in the EBU white book. If WBFLC had said anything, it would be in there.

[RMB1]

Have the WBFLC or RAs provided any guidance?

The unwritten guidance from the top of the EBU is to make a practical ruling that follows the laws for the individual infractions where possible, and to do so clearly and confidently. In that way the players will believe you and no appeals committee are unlikely to see your ruling and will not overturn it if asked.

[sfi]

None

 

The laws do not deal with multiple infractions. There are two plausible approaches: to deal with the infractions in the order they occurred, or to unwind the infractions, dealing with the last infraction first. Nothing in the laws supports either approach.

 

One practical effect of dealing with the last infraction first in this particular instance is that the first thing we do is offer South the option of accepting Dealer's pass out of turn. Intuitively this seems odd.

[alanmet]

In this particular instance the outcome will be both partners have to pass the first round.

More interestingly what would happen if both partners had bid?

UI everywhere, could the auction continue normally, maybe cancel the board and give an artificial adjusted score!!

What do you reckon?

Alan

[pran]

In this particular instance the outcome will be both partners have to pass the first round.

More interestingly what would happen if both partners had bid?

UI everywhere, could the auction continue normally, maybe cancel the board and give an artificial adjusted score!!

What do you reckon?

Alan

PASS out of turn not accepted: Read, understand and apply Law 30

BID out of turn not accepted: Read, understand and apply Law 31