Pay Attention Partner!

[barmar]

No UI, pointing out an irregularity doesn't suggest anything about your hand. Many/most people would point it out without even thinking about what they hold. I'm surprised to see anyone feels differently.

The issue isn't that they pointed out the irregularity, it's the manner in which they did it. A simple, calm "It's not your turn" doesn't suggest much, but an annoyed "Pay attention, partner!" might indicate that they have a hand that really wanted to open.

[bixby]

The issue isn't that they pointed out the irregularity, it's the manner in which they did it. A simple, calm "It's not your turn" doesn't suggest much, but an annoyed "Pay attention, partner!" might indicate that they have a hand that really wanted to open.

 

I really don't see how it indicates anything at all about South's hand. As others have pointed out, North, knowing that South is barred, is highly likely to bid 3NT at his proper turn. So if we were to psychoanalyze South's comment and try to infer what his annoyance shows about his hand, the last thing we would expect is for South to have a hand that would simply respond 3NT to a 1NT opener anyway -- which is what he has (assuming that, like me, he wouldn't bother with Stayman when he's 4-3-3-3). So we might think that South is upset because he has a 3-count and foresees that the likely 3NT contract will fail, or that he has 19 and regrets missing a cold slam. Or maybe he has a distributional hand and wants to transfer. But the one thing we wouldn't guess is what he actually has.

 

Result stands.

[aguahombre]

Bixby has good points, as do all who say we cannot infer anything from the annoyance.

 

But, let's nail em anyway for doing it :rolleyes:

[JanM]

Anyone remember the Ron Andersen story? He was known for reading opponents' tells. In 4th chair, he opened 2NT when it was lefty's deal. The bidding reverted to Lefty, who passed his 19-count as dealer, and after two more passes, Ron folded up his garbage hand (less than 6 pts).

 

Anyway, it has been told so many times it might be true.

 

It's definitely true - Ron used to tell it with much delight, and much more embellishment too - first he opened 2NT, then the Director came and told him he was out of turn, so he tried opening 2NT again, then I've forgotten the rest, only that it always had his auditors rolling on the floor, and the eventual result was as you stated.

[billw55]

The Anderson story is funny, but I am not understanding why his lefty didn't simply accept the 2NT call and double it.

[lalldonn]

The Anderson story is funny, but I am not understanding why his lefty didn't simply accept the 2NT call and double it.

Because he thought he would get to double 3NT?

[cherdano]

The Anderson story is funny, but I am not understanding why his lefty didn't simply accept the 2NT call and double it.

Probably LHO was one of those fancy players who thinks double shows a minor and a major :P

[aguahombre]

I said he knew the rules thoroughly, back then. I didn't study them as well. Do we know whether LHO was even allowed to accept?

[mycroft]

Pass is insane. 1NT is more reasonable, especially at MPs, where +150, especially when I can play better than the room, may score well even if some do get to game, and +120 might win us the board, too - +anything might win us the board.

 

If East is looking to get North to pass that hand knowing partner has 0-25 for his pass, given that he wouldn't knowing that partner has 0-10 for his pass, East is reaching.

 

Having said that, I would try as TD to find out whether the method of pointing out the irregularity was unusual, or for what reasons it likely was to come out this way. If I am convinced that it is reasonable to believe that the outburst demonstrably suggested strength (as opposed to North being more-than-usually unaware today, say like me in Everett, where I revoked twice in one session and missed partner's count signal on a third hand) then yes, maybe +150. But I'm betting against it, pending the investigation.

[JanM]

Probably LHO was one of those fancy players who thinks double shows a minor and a major :P

 

As I recall the story, it happened at a Sectional or Regional in Nebraska and LHO was the classic LOL.

[pran]

I said he knew the rules thoroughly, back then. I didn't study them as well. Do we know whether LHO was even allowed to accept?

Under the laws of 1933 and 1935 LHO could accept the call out of turn by calling before any attention had been drawn to the irregularity. In that case the auction continued without any penalty.

 

Once attention was called to a bid out of turn at the offender's partner's turn to call this illegal bid was void, the turn to call was given to offender's RHO and offender's partner was barred from any further participation in the auction on that board.

 

This law was changed in (either 1943 or) 1949.

[aguahombre]

Sounds good, but I am not sure why it reverted to the RHO when the LHO was dealer and no one except the offender had acted. What were the changes in the 40's, and were they in effect in the 70's?

[pran]

Sounds good, but I am not sure why it reverted to the RHO when the LHO was dealer and no one except the offender had acted. What were the changes in the 40's, and were they in effect in the 70's?

I didn't bother to quote the complete law on calls out of turn so I limited myself to the specific case of a bid at partner's turn to call. Overlooking that it was LHO's turn to call I should have written that the auction reverted to him (LHO). (The offender's partner was still barred from further participation in the auction.)

 

The laws on calls out of turn have always been rather complicated (for good reasons!) so if you are really interested I suggest that you search for the relevant versions. The preface in the laws specify when revisions were made.

 

(The major change in the forties seems to have been that offender's LHO became allowed to call after attention was drawn to the irregularity but before any ruling was made, thereby accepting the call out of turn.)

[nige1]

Anyone remember the Ron Andersen story? He was known for reading opponents' tells. In 4th chair, he opened 2NT when it was lefty's deal. The bidding reverted to Lefty, who passed his 19-count as dealer, and after two more passes, Ron folded up his garbage hand (less than 6 pts). Anyway, it has been told so many times it might be true.

A slander on the deceased? Anyway I agree with Vampyr that South bellowing "Pay attention partner, I'm dealer" is more than just drawing attention to an infraction and the director may construe it as a sign of frustration from a player with a good hand. North knows he has only one shot and the suspected UI may suggest going high rather than low. I suppose PhilKing may be right, however, that the anger implies a bad hand, instead. That may depend on South's knowledge of the laws.

[aguahombre]

A slander on the deceased?

Do you really have Jan Martel blocked, or do you just not know that when we repeat a story which the subject himself told it is not slander? Or libel because we wrote it.

[CamHenry]

The issue isn't that they pointed out the irregularity, it's the manner in which they did it. A simple, calm "It's not your turn" doesn't suggest much, but an annoyed "Pay attention, partner!" might indicate that they have a hand that really wanted to open.

 

It could, however, indicate that it's the third time this session that partner's done something stupid (passed me in a splinter; revoked to let through the contract; misplayed an easy 6NT...) and we're still only on board 8. Though I try to be a considerate (and polite!) partner, sometimes I lapse.

[billw55]

Do you really have Jan Martel blocked, or do you just not know that when we repeat a story which the subject himself told it is not slander? Or libel because we wrote it.

No, not slander.

 

But objectively: an expert player deliberately commits an infraction to gain an advantage, and this (according to Jan) against a low level player in a lowish level event. He then tells the story repeatedly and with gusto. I do think this reflects poorly on his bridge ethics.

[nige1]

Do you really have Jan Martel blocked, or do you just not know that when we repeat a story which the subject himself told it is not slander? Or libel because we wrote it.

I read the only the post to which I replied. I queried whether the gossip were slanderous. I intended no offence :(

[barmar]

It could, however, indicate that it's the third time this session that partner's done something stupid (passed me in a splinter; revoked to let through the contract; misplayed an easy 6NT...) and we're still only on board 8. Though I try to be a considerate (and polite!) partner, sometimes I lapse.

Didn't I mention this possibility in my earlier post? That's why I wrote "might indicate" in the post to which you replied.

 

The basic point is that when attention is drawn in an excited manner the TD has to decide what, if anything, the tone demonstrably suggests. On the other hand, if attention had been drawn clamly, there probably would be no issue at all.

[aguahombre]

If attention had been drawn clamly, there probably would be no issue at all.

Those two words are actually synonymous.

[gordontd]

OK, but that ship has sailed. A normal bridge auction is no longer possible.

Accepting the call out of turn ensures a normal bridge auction, although not the same auction as would otherwise have taken place.

[mycroft]

And in this case, very likely detrimental to the NOS. Strong NT systems being what they are, they've managed to rightside a contract that may not have been able to be rightsided any other way (be it South opening a light-but-acceptable 1M vs transfer, or West opening with a preempt, or...)

 

In many cases I'm happy to accept such a call (not as often an opening bid out of turn, but definitely an insufficient bid) because it easily could be wrong for the opponents (or it's good for my hand). The classic "limiting bid" is not one of them.

[barmar]

Those two words are actually synonymous.

You quoted 14 words, I can't figure out which two you're referring to.

[aguahombre]

You quoted 14 words, I can't figure out which two you're referring to.

calmly and clamly.

[lamford]

When partner opens a strong no trump out of turn, you know that he is going to correct it to 3NT exactly 100% of the time. If I had a balanced 3-count, I would be this annoyed - :angry: :angry: :angry:. With a balanced 13, on which I would have simply raised to 3NT, much less so B-) .

Then you are illegally communicating with your partner who will pass when you are very annoyed, and open 3NT when you are less so.