What you see is what you get

[dburn]

East opens 3♥. South pauses for 10 seconds before bidding 3♠. West calls the Director to point out that it was South's deal. What is the ruling?

 

East opens 3♥. South pauses for 10 seconds before bidding 1♠. West calls the Director to point out that this is insufficient. South says "But it's my deal." What is the ruling.

[helene_t]

OOOT (+ IB in case 2) accepted in both cases, no?

[gordontd]

Law 28B

[axman]

Law 28B

 

Note that 28B is somewhat of a tautology. It basically says that after a BOOT that if it is a particular player's turn to call, and he does so, then such call is in rotation; and such call forfeits rectification of BOOT.

 

And it would seem that after E BOOT then it would be S's turn, and in the two cases S acted.

 

It appears that L29A speaks such that S being LHO of E, that by acting forfeits rectification for BOOT. And for the second case S would be subject to an IB.

[whereagles]

1st case is a "play on" ruling.

 

2nd case does indeed seem to be 28B.

 

And.. try this on youtube: :)

"What you see is what you hear" - Wim Mertens

[blackshoe]

28B or 29A, which takes precedence?

[gordontd]

28B is designed to ensure that a player who has failed to notice that his opponent has committed an infraction is not penalised for it. It describes what happens in a particular situation, one that applies here, rather than offering options for a player to exercise.

[gordontd]

Ton Kooijman's commentary on the laws says that the director should find out what was the intention of the player whose turn it properly was to call. He ends by saying "The TD has to understand that Law 29A does not prevail over Law 28B."

[pran]

I think that the only situation where a conflict between Laws 28B and 29A is at all possible is when the player that calls in his turn to call is the offender's LHO and the call he makes is a sufficient bid.

 

If the player in turn to call is not the offender's LHO then Law 29A is obviously not applicable.

 

If the player in turn to call is the offender's LHO but makes a call that would be illegal if the call out of turn were accepted then accepting the call out of turn is insane and again Law 29A obviously not applicable.

[RSliwinski]

I think that the only situation where a conflict between Laws 28B and 29A is at all possible is when the player that calls in his turn to call is the offender's LHO and the call he makes is a sufficient bid.

 

If the player in turn to call is not the offender's LHO then Law 29A is obviously not applicable.

 

If the player in turn to call is the offender's LHO but makes a call that would be illegal if the call out of turn were accepted then accepting the call out of turn is insane and again Law 29A obviously not applicable.

Really?

I am the dealer and my RHO makes a BOOT by bidding 3 hearts. I do not notice that this was a BOOT but i mistakenly think he opened with 2 hearts and with my strong hand with lots of spades I bid 2 spades. Why should not 29A apply?

(It could also be to my advantage since we play weak 2 majors).

[pran]

Really?

I am the dealer and my RHO makes a BOOT by bidding 3 hearts. I do not notice that this was a BOOT but i mistakenly think he opened with 2 hearts and with my strong hand with lots of spades I bid 2 spades. Why should not 29A apply?

(It could also be to my advantage since we play weak 2 majors).

Because then you have accepted the call out of turn from your RHO and next committed a violation of Law 27 (Insufficient bid).

 

You wouldn't be particularly interested in being treated as the offending side in this situation - would you?

 

I assume you would prefer to have the 3♥ OBOOT cancelled under Law 28B and have the auction continued from your 2♠ bid (and all information from the cancelled 3♥ bid being unauthorized for your LHO)?

[RSliwinski]

Because then you have accepted the call out of turn from your RHO and next committed a violation of Law 27 (Insufficient bid).

 

You wouldn't be particularly interested in being treated as the offending side in this situation - would you?

 

I assume you would prefer to have the 3♥ OBOOT cancelled under Law 28B and have the auction continued from your 2♠ bid (and all information from the cancelled 3♥ bid being unauthorized for your LHO)?

What I prefer is beside the point ( and actually I would prefer to accept BOOT and then if my LHO does not accept 2 spades change it to 3 spades, which would not barred my partner - instead of opening weak 2 spades). What you suggest is that I should lie to TD when he asks me about why I bid 2 spades.

[pran]

What I prefer is beside the point ( and actually I would prefer to accept BOOT and then if my LHO does not accept 2 spades change it to 3 spades, which would not barred my partner - instead of opening weak 2 spades). What you suggest is that I should lie to TD when he asks me about why I bid 2 spades.

No, what I suggest is that you come straight with the Director.

 

If you use Law 29A and accept the 3♥ OBOOT and then bid 2♠ then the Director should eventually adjust the final result on the board if he deems that you have gained from this action. (Law 27D)

 

There is nothing you can achieve by using Law 29A that you cannot also (and legally!) achieve by using Law 28B in this situation.

[campboy]

There is nothing you can achieve by using Law 29A that you cannot also (and legally!) achieve by using Law 28B in this situation.

You may (as here) have a bid that describes your hand well if you accept the BOOT, but not if you have to open the bidding.

 

I would question the "legally" too. It is certainly legal to use 29A, because 29A says you "may" do so. On the other hand, as Gordon pointed out, 28B is not an option available to you; it just tells the TD what to do if you attempt to open the bidding.

 

Finally, there is no reason to "use" 28B at all, as you are always better off calling the director and getting the appropriate rectification.

[pran]

You may (as here) have a bid that describes your hand well if you accept the BOOT, but not if you have to open the bidding.

 

I would question the "legally" too. It is certainly legal to use 29A, because 29A says you "may" do so. On the other hand, as Gordon pointed out, 28B is not an option available to you; it just tells the TD what to do if you attempt to open the bidding.

 

Finally, there is no reason to "use" 28B at all, as you are always better off calling the director and getting the appropriate rectification.

A call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn it was to call before rectification has been assessed for a call out of rotation by an opponent. Making such a call forfeits the right to rectification for the call out of rotation. The auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn, but Law 16D2 applies.

(My Enhancement)

 

This makes it quite clear that if your RHO opens the auction with a bid (say 3♥) when you are the dealer then, while you certainly are allowed to accept this OBOOT (Law 29A) you are also allowed to use Law 28B, have the OBOOT cancelled and open the auction with your own bid provided you do so before rectification has been assessed for the OBOOT. And you do not forfeit this right by calling the Director! (Law 9B1c)

 

In your case it certainly is a reason to use Law 28B as that is your only way to make a legal 2♠ bid. (You will of course first of all Call the Director.)

[RSliwinski]

(My Enhancement)

 

This makes it quite clear that if your RHO opens the auction with a bid (say 3♥) when you are the dealer then, while you certainly are allowed to accept this OBOOT (Law 29A) you are also allowed to use Law 28B, have the OBOOT cancelled and open the auction with your own bid provided you do so before rectification has been assessed for the OBOOT. And you do not forfeit this right by calling the Director! (Law 9B1c)

 

In your case it certainly is a reason to use Law 28B as that is your only way to make a legal 2♠ bid. (You will of course first of all Call the Director.)

But this is not a situation which we discuss. The situation is that I have already bid 2 spades over RHOs 3 hearts. So now it is up to TD to make the decision and he has to ask me about my intention. Did I mean to open the bidding with weak 2 spades or did I accept the 3 hearts bid and made an IB of 2 spades. I of course meant the second and that what I tell him so he will apply 29 A. saying that I wanted to open the bid with 2 spades is a lie which is of course very easy to detect - who would open with weak 2 spades holding strong hand with spades.

[blackshoe]

I do not expect players to lie at the table. Yes, it can happen — but if it's happening often enough at a particular place that the director expects it, he's got bigger problems than this one ruling.

 

I do expect to gather as many facts — including dealer's intention in this kind of case — as possible, and to base my ruling on the preponderance of the evidence. If dealer tells me his intent was to accept the opening bid out of turn, then Law 28 does not apply. If he tells me he was opening the bidding, Law 28 does apply. In the first case in the OP, it's unclear what dealer's intent was, so I must investigate. In the second case, "but it's my deal" indicates that this is a Law 28 situation, not Law 27.

[axman]

(My Enhancement)

 

This makes it quite clear that if your RHO opens the auction with a bid (say 3♥) when you are the dealer then, while you certainly are allowed to accept this OBOOT (Law 29A) you are also allowed to use Law 28B, have the OBOOT cancelled and open the auction with your own bid provided you do so before rectification has been assessed for the OBOOT. And you do not forfeit this right by calling the Director! (Law 9B1c)

 

In your case it certainly is a reason to use Law 28B as that is your only way to make a legal 2♠ bid. (You will of course first of all Call the Director.)

 

I suggest reading the law again. Canceling a call comes from application of L29. Application of L28B prohibits rectification of COOT (which includes prohibiting canceling it).

[pran]

I suggest reading the law again. Canceling a call comes from application of L29. Application of L28B prohibits rectification of COOT (which includes prohibiting canceling it).

At last!

 

I am surprised nobody pointed out my foolish error earlier (yes I completely forgot Law 29B when we just discussed the apparent conflict between L29A and L28B.

 

Of course the most advantageous choice by South in his example is to have the 3♥ OBOOT cancelled under Law 29B and then make his own opening bid at his own choice.

[blackshoe]

I suggest reading the law again. Canceling a call comes from application of L29. Application of L28B prohibits rectification of COOT (which includes prohibiting canceling it).

The last sentence of Law 28B reads "the auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn, but Law 16D2 applies."

 

According to the laws, "cancelled" means the same thing as "withdrawn" so it seems clear that dealer's RHO's bid in this case is not "cancelled". In fact, it never happened — except that inferences from this bid that "never happened" are UI to the OS ("Law 16D2 applies"). Note that 16D2 applies, not 16D1, so inferences from the bid are not authorized to the NOS. If the lawmakers had wanted those inferences to be AI, the law would say "Law 16D applies".

Edited April 16, 2015 by blackshoe
changed "29B" to "28B" which is what I actually quoted.

[pran]

The last sentence of Law 29B reads "the auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn, but Law 16D2 applies."

Another case of incomplete quotation!

 

Unless A applies, a call out of rotation is cancelled and the auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call. Offender may make any legal call in proper rotation, but his side may be subject to the provisions for rectification in Law 30, 31 or 32.

and the Reference to Laws 30, 31 and 32 must not be overlooked or forgotten. The relevant Law among these always applies when a call out of rotation is cancelled according to Law 29B.

 

According to the laws, "cancelled" means the same thing as "withdrawn" so it seems clear that dealer's RHO's bid in this case is not "cancelled". In fact, it never happened except that inferences from this bid that "never happened" are UI to the OS ("Law 16D2 applies"). Note that 16D2 applies, not 16D1, so inferences from the bid are not authorized to the NOS. If the lawmakers had wanted those inferences to be AI, the law would say "Law 16D applies".

So in this case West must pass whenever it is his turn to call. (Law 31B)

 

(During the auction in progress! There is a tale about a player who had received such a ruling and then consistently passed during the next three weeks - until finally someone discovered and clarified the misunderstanding.)

[blackshoe]

Another case of incomplete quotation!

My mistake. I was quoting the last sentence of 28B. My quote of that sentence is indeed complete.

[axman]

... — except that inferences from this bid that "never happened" are UI to the OS ("Law 16D2 applies"). Note that 16D2 applies, not 16D1, so inferences from the bid are not authorized to the NOS. -snip-

 

I suggest reading the law again. Creating UI in 16D2 arises from canceled/withdrawn calls.

[blackshoe]

Okay, then. Law 28B says 16D2 applies, so how, in your opinion, does it apply?

[pran]

Okay, then. Law 28B says 16D2 applies, so how, in your opinion, does it apply?

Isn't that obvious?

[...] The auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn, but Law 16D2 applies.

The enhanced part of Law 28B makes it clear that the call out of turn must be considered made and withdrawn for the purpose of applying Law 16D2 (although it shall have no other effect on the auction or play).