Calls out of rotation (EBU)

[VixTD]

This occurred at a Welsh event yesterday, but it was played under EBU regulations. There wasn't much to smile at for the director, who spent the whole tournament wrestling with the scoring programme, but this afforded a little light relief:

 

South was the dealer, and North opened 1♥ out of turn. I was called, told East she'd have the chance to accept the call, but that if she didn't the bid would be withdrawn, the auction would revert to South and that South would be forced to pass for the remainder of the auction (laws 29A and B and 31B), that lead restrictions may apply if they become the defending side (law 26), and that I may have to award an adjusted score if the offenders gain from the enforced pass (law 23).

 

East was adamant that she didn't want to accept the call, so I told North to replace the 1♥ card in the bidding box, and for South to commence the auction, and repeated that North could make any call she liked, but that South had to pass throughout.

 

South sat back and didn't seem to think he had to do anything, as the decision had been taken for him. West reached uncertainly for the bidding box, wondering if we were all taking South's pass as read. As she did so, East said "Are we starting the auction, then?" and put down a pass card.

 

How do you now deal with East's pass?

[Vampyr]

East's pass is, in part, the result of director's error -- the director should have stayed at the table until the conclusion of the auction, and should have ensured that South passed, not just sat there, at his turn. Perhaps the director did not anticipate that East would become confused at whose bid it was, but if South had been instructed to pass, there would have been no basis for the confusion.

 

I think that making a ruling on this hand is possible but potentially very complicated and prone to error; I will simply award both sides A+ under Law 82C (Director's Error).

[ahydra]

I'd treat it as a pass out of turn and enforce a 1-round pass on East. Why on earth would East think it is her turn when the TD has already said twice that it is South's turn?

 

ahydra

[campboy]

"Director's error" is an oversimplification of what the law actually says, which is:

If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as nonoffending for that purpose.

The ruling given was correct, so this law does not apply. I would go with ahydra's answer. (Of course South needs to be given the option to accept East's pass.)

[VixTD]

East's pass is, in part, the result of director's error -- the director should have stayed at the table until the conclusion of the auction, and should have ensured that South passed, not just sat there, at his turn.

I did not say anywhere that the director had left the table. I was standing over them the whole time, I went over everything at least twice to make sure they knew what they had to do, and knew that South's restriction on bidding was authorized to all players. I didn't think I had to take the bidding card out of the box for South, or tie East's hands to stop her from bidding.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Campboy and the many headed one.

[barmar]

I didn't think I had to take the bidding card out of the box for South, or tie East's hands to stop her from bidding.

When you notice West's uncertainty, you probably should have instructed him to place the Pass card. Some players in this situation will just take the entire stack of Pass cards out and plop them on the table.

 

However, I don't think this excuses East's mistake. You have to deal with it as a new POOT.

[Vampyr]

When you notice West's uncertainty, you probably should have instructed him to place the Pass card. Some players in this situation will just take the entire stack of Pass cards out and plop them on the table.

 

However, I don't think this excuses East's mistake. You have to deal with it as a new POOT.

 

I think the lack of an instruction to South about the Pass card does excuse East's mistake. He evidently thought that it was North who had to pass at every opportunity, and that the latter "kept" his turn to bid.

[barmar]

I don't see how that explains anything. If North had to pass, then it was South's turn to bid. And West was in the process of pulling out his bidding card. I don't see how anything the director said could be confused as suggesting it was East's turn.

[Bbradley62]

This is why I can't ever be a director. I'm sure that my mouth would say to East "are you really that stupid?".

[c_corgi]

This is why I can't ever be a director. I'm sure that my mouth would say to East "are you really that stupid?".

 

Perhaps that is the best approach. You can certainly rule director error after that, even if you are not technically wrong.

[campboy]

What does it matter how much or how little sympathy the TD has for East's COOT? If N/S ask him to waive rectification then he may do so, but I don't think he can on his own initiative.

[RMB1]

What does it matter how much or how little sympathy the TD has for East's COOT? If N/S ask him to waive rectification then he may do so, ...

 

If South wants to avoid East suffering from the POOT, South can accept (and Pass) and the auction will continue without penalty to E/W.

[Bbradley62]

I didn't think I had to take the bidding card out of the box for South...

Why are we allowing South to be an ass? Director to South: "take a pass card out of your bidding box and place it on the table where bids go. Do this every time it is your turn to bid. Failure to do so will result in a 3MP PP (for every occurrence).

[pran]

The important question here, which I believe nobody has noticed is whether we are in

When a player has passed out of rotation before any player has bid the offender must pass when next it is his turn to call and Law 23 may apply.

or in

When, after any player has bid, the offender passes out of rotation at his partner’s turn to call, the offender must pass whenever it is his turn to call, and Law 23 may apply.

 

Sure North has bid before East's pass out of rotation, but does the cancellation of North's bid result in Law 30A being applicable?

 

I see no real reason why it should, the information that can be derived from North's bid is there even after the bid itself has been cancelled, and it is the existence of this information that first silenced South and now leads to Law 30B rather than Law 30A.

 

Consequently the ruling should be that from now on both South and East must pass whenever it is their respective turn to call.

[Vampyr]

Consequently the ruling should be that from now on both South and East must pass whenever it is their respective turn to call.

 

Do you think that the board is playable after this ruling?

[pran]

Do you think that the board is playable after this ruling?

Yes, why not?

[blackshoe]

If both East and South must pass throughout, whatever contract is reached may or may not bear any relation to the contract that would have been reached had there been no irregularity. I think that's what Vampyr is getting at. It seems to me though that a contract will have been reached, and it's certainly possible for the play to proceed on that basis.

 

I think Sven is right — Law 30B2 rather than 30A applies to East's pass out of turn.

 

This is not a case of director's error.

[gnasher]

Sure North has bid before East's pass out of rotation, but does the cancellation of North's bid result in Law 30A being applicable?

 

I see no real reason why it should, the information that can be derived from North's bid is there even after the bid itself has been cancelled, and it is the existence of this information that first silenced South and now leads to Law 30B rather than Law 30A.

I think it unwise to assume that logic was used in writing Law 30.

[pran]

I think it unwise to assume that logic was used in writing Law 30.

Proper training to be a TD includes understanding the logic in the laws.

 

I have no problem with Law 30.

[gnasher]

Proper training to be a TD includes understanding the logic in the laws.

 

I have no problem with Law 30.

Are you saying that if I believe that a particular law lacks logic, that makes me unfit to be a TD?

[pran]

Are you saying that if I believe that a particular law lacks logic, that makes me unfit to be a TD?

I would expect you being able to show why (in your opinion) the law lacks logic rather than just asserting it without any reasoning.

[VixTD]

The important question here, which I believe nobody has noticed is whether we are in

Law 30A: When a player has passed out of rotation before any player has bid the offender must pass when next it is his turn to call and Law 23 may apply.

or in

Law 30B2(a): When, after any player has bid, the offender passes out of rotation at his partner’s turn to call, the offender must pass whenever it is his turn to call, and Law 23 may apply.

 

Sure North has bid before East's pass out of rotation, but does the cancellation of North's bid result in Law 30A being applicable?

This was why I thought it was interesting. I enforced a one-round pass on East, but I did say the laws weren't entirely clear.

 

I also wasn't sure we shouldn't go back to law 29A and say that East's pass has accepted North's bid out of rotation, even though it clearly wasn't intended as such and she had already stated that she wasn't accepting it.

[PeterAlan]

Surely at the point that E places the Pass card on the table it is still S's turn to call: this is recognised by Law 28A which explicitly covers the position if (here) W calls without waiting for S's enforced Pass. Either W's reach for the bidding box has been sufficient to have established that W has made a call, or, as I assume from the wording of the OP applies here, it has not, in which case it's still S's turn to place the Pass on the table. Law 30B2(a) is therefore not in point (in either scenario).

 

It seems to me (until someone persuades me otherwise) that the only sensible interpretation is that

 

1. 
    
   
2. it's still S's turn to make the enforced call of Pass
   
3. E has Passed out of turn when it's LHO's turn to call
   
4. S may accept E's Pass by making the enforced Pass; otherwise
   
5. no player has yet bid (in the words of the Laws, N's call has been "cancelled")
   
6. Law 30A rather than 30B therefore applies, and
   
7. E's Pass is withdrawn, S Passes, the auction proceeds, but E must Pass when it is next his/her turn to call.
   

As it's S's not W's turn to call, to regard N's cancelled bid as leaving us in "After Any Player Has Bid" territory would mean Law 30B3 rather than 30B2(a) applying, and it would be nonsensical to regard E's Pass as a "change of call" when there haven't yet been any calls, by E or anybody else, left on the table: this clearly isn't the situation that 30B3 is intended to cover.

[Vampyr]

If both East and South must pass throughout, whatever contract is reached may or may not bear any relation to the contract that would have been reached had there been no irregularity. I think that's what Vampyr is getting at.

 

Rather. I think that a) we have by now strayed far from the territory of "normal play" and b) the director allowed this to happen by standing around while South didn't bother to pass and confusion among the other players was evident.