2C out of turn

[lamford]

Last night a player opened 2C out of turn. (Blue Book compliant). She was third to speak and it was not accepted. Her partner then decided to pass a 12-count, as he vaguely understood the bit about "comparable call" and thought bidding might prevent partner making a comparable call. The next person, with balanced dross, thought about bidding but decided against it. Third hand now again opened 2C and the auction proceeded "normally" and 6NT was reached for a big score when the person on lead did not have the cashing ace and 6NT made an overtrick. My questions are:

 

a) Is passing the 12-count using the UI that partner wants to open 2C and may have no comparable call if one opens 1NT (I am pretty sure they were playing weak NT)?

 

b) Should I have ruled that "without the assistance" of the BOOT, the result could well have been different in that 6NT would probably have been the other way round and the leader "might well" have cashed the AC?

 

[To clarify; I was TD and was called and did my best to explain all aspects of this law]

Edited January 25, 2018 by lamford

[pran]

Last night a player opened 2C out of turn. (Blue Book compliant). She was third to speak and it was not accepted. Her partner then decided to pass a 12-count, as he vaguely understood the bit about "comparable call" and thought bidding would silence his partner. The next person, with balanced dross, thought about bidding but decided against it. Third hand now again opened 2C and the auction proceeded "normally" and 6NT was reached for a big score when the person on lead did not have the cashing ace and 6NT made an overtrick. My questions are:

 

a) Is passing the 12-count using the UI that partner wants to open 2C and may have no comparable call if one opens 1NT (I am pretty sure they were playing weak NT)?

 

b) Should I have ruled that "without the assistance" of the BOOT, the result could well have been different in that 6NT would probably have been the other way round and the leader "might well" have cashed the AC?

My immediate reaction is that there is an element either of Director's error or of failure to call the Director here.

 

Dealer should be informed that whatever call he makes in his turn to call his partner will not be silenced. He (dealer) is the player who may be silenced at his next turn to call (depending on what call the offender makes at her first legal time to call).

 

Unless the Director was called as required (Law 9B) I would simply rule that the table result stands.

[barmar]

Dealer should be informed that whatever call he makes in his turn to call his partner will not be silenced. He (dealer) is the player who may be silenced at his next turn to call (depending on what call the offender makes at her first legal time to call).

Isn't that why he chose to pass? He was worried that whatever partner bid would not be comparable, so then he would be barred. Which means partner would be effectively forced to set the final contract on his response to the 1NT opening.

 

Probably the only comparable call after the 1NT opening would be a leap to slam. If it's the wrong strain, opener probably can't judge it, so even if he's not technically barred by that bid, he'll almost certainly have to pass.

[pran]

Last night a player opened 2C out of turn. (Blue Book compliant). She was third to speak and it was not accepted. Her partner then decided to pass a 12-count, as he vaguely understood the bit about "comparable call" and thought bidding would silence his partner. [...]

Dealer should be informed that whatever call he makes in his turn to call his partner will not be silenced. He (dealer) is the player who may be silenced at his next turn to call

Isn't that why he chose to pass? He was worried that whatever partner bid would not be comparable, so then he would be barred. Which means partner would be effectively forced to set the final contract on his response to the 1NT opening.

 

Probably the only comparable call after the 1NT opening would be a leap to slam. If it's the wrong strain, opener probably can't judge it, so even if he's not technically barred by that bid, he'll almost certainly have to pass.

NO!

OP clearly tells us that he (the dealer) was misinformed about who might be silenced and was worried that it could be his partner.

(It could be him at his next turn to call, but never his partner i.e. the offender)

[RMB1]

Law 31B1 says that dealer has UI. Choosing to Pass appears to be a breach of Law 16B and Law 73C1.

The TD should adjust on the basis that dealer makes his systemic opening bid and responder is still subject to Law 31B2.

[pran]

Law 31B1 says that dealer has UI. Choosing to Pass appears to be a breach of Law 16B and Law 73C1.

The TD should adjust on the basis that dealer makes his systemic opening bid and responder is still subject to Law 31B2.

No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

Unless dealer received complete explanation of all matters regarding the rectification he can claim ignorance of the laws and not be held accountable for possible break of (for instance) laws 16B or 73C1 with his choice of his first call in turn.

[sanst]

Let's assume the director was called and explained the situation clearly, what would you consider a comparable call after a 1NT opening? I think a jump to 4♣ (Gerber) or to 4NT, either Blackwood or quantitative, to qualify. That doesn't mean that you don't have to judge whether the BOOT didn't give the offender's side an advantage. In this case it probably did, so the answer to your second question is "Yes".

[BudH]

Assuming dealer was properly informed not to use the UI from the withdrawn 2♣ (opening) bid and that dealer might be required to pass once on his next (second) call depending on his partner's next call, the question becomes "how many others would open the bidding with dealer's hand?". From the description, it doesn't appear clear that opener has an opening bid with his 12 HCP hand, so seeing the hand held would help us judge a lot. I suppose you could poll the dealers at other tables and see if it was opened at other tables. (I have a feeling this time the hand might well have opened at over half the tables.)

 

Looks like an adjusted score would be in order if it's relatively clear to open dealer's hand (unless playing Roth-Stone!).

[blackshoe]

Highly unlikely there are many playing Roth-Stone in Paul's North London (or wherever it is) club.

 

It looks to me like dealer's pass was not based on UI, but rather on a misunderstanding of the laws. It's up to the director (assuming he was called) to make sure dealer understands the relevant law before he chooses a call. If the director wasn't called, that's on the players (all four of them).

[lamford]

Highly unlikely there are many playing Roth-Stone in Paul's North London (or wherever it is) club.

 

It looks to me like dealer's pass was not based on UI, but rather on a misunderstanding of the laws. It's up to the director (assuming he was called) to make sure dealer understands the relevant law before he chooses a call. If the director wasn't called, that's on the players (all four of them).

I did explain that the opener could make any call he chose, but could not use the UI of his partner's 2C BOOT, and that if the BOOTer made a comparable call (if there was one) then the auction would continue. If she did not or could not, then opener would be barred [i confess I did not clarify this was for one round only]. His hand was opened at all tables either with 1D or a weak NT and was a standard opening bid. When it went Pass-Pass-2C, I stated that the auction should now continue and I would look at the hand after and returned to my table (I was a playing director). I think that it is AI that his partner has to make a comparable call to avoid barring the opener (it arises from the procedures in the Laws) and one would never use Stayman opposite a barred partner for example. I think he used the AI that his partner had to make a comparable call, rather than the UI of his partner having a strong hand. If he had opened 6NT, for example, that would have been an example of using the UI of the 2C bid. Interesting, and quite complicated. On the actual auction, a club lead should have been a standout, and I did not adjust. It seems that he believed that it was AI that his partner would have to make a comparable call to avoid barring him and, as he was told that by the director, that was a normal supposition to make.

[lamford]

Let's assume the director was called and explained the situation clearly, what would you consider a comparable call after a 1NT opening? I think a jump to 4♣ (Gerber) or to 4NT, either Blackwood or quantitative, to qualify. That doesn't mean that you don't have to judge whether the BOOT didn't give the offender's side an advantage. In this case it probably did, so the answer to your second question is "Yes".

I don't think 4NT is permitted. It tells partner you have a balanced invite which would open 2C, rather than a balanced invite which was a 2NT opener, or a balanced invite just short of that. It is quite hard to construct a hand that would open 2C but would only invite slam opposite a weak NT. And if 1D was opened, it is hard to find a comparable call.

[paulg]

I think he used the AI that his partner had to make a comparable call, rather than the UI of his partner having a strong hand.

I'm not so sure.

 

When you hold a weak no trump and you know partner has 23+, then it is unlikely that the opponents will bid and passing will get you back to a normal auction, so it may be a worthwhile risk.

 

If partner had opened a weak two hearts out of turn, then you would be more inclined to open a weak no trump and give partner a chance to compete having limited your hand.

[pran]

I did explain that the opener could make any call he chose, but could not use the UI of his partner's 2C BOOT, and that if the BOOTer made a comparable call (if there was one) then the auction would continue. If she did not or could not, then opener would be barred for the remainder of the auction. His hand was opened at all tables either with 1D or a weak NT and was a standard opening bid. When it went Pass-Pass-2C, I stated that the auction should now continue and I would look at the hand after and returned to my table (I was a playing director). I think that it is AI that his partner has to make a comparable call to avoid barring the opener (it arises from the procedures in the Laws) and one would never use Stayman opposite a barred partner for example. I think he used the AI that his partner had to make a comparable call, rather than the UI of his partner having a strong hand. If he had opened 6NT, for example, that would have been an example of using the UI of the 2C bid. Interesting, and quite complicated. On the actual auction, a club lead should have been a standout, and I did not adjust. It seems that he believed that it was AI that his partner would have to make a comparable call to avoid barring him and, as he was told that by the director, that was a normal supposition to make.

Your ruling was incorrect!

A.

[...]

2. If that opponent makes a legal8 bid, double or redouble, offender may make any legal call:

(a) When the call is a comparable call (see Law 23A), there is no further rectification. Law 26B does not apply, but see Law 23C.

(b) When the call is not a comparable call (see Law 23A), offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call. Laws 16C, 26B and 72C may apply.

B. Partner’s or LHO’s Turn to Call

When the offender has bid at his partner’s turn to call, or at his LHO’s turn to call if the offender has not previously called, then:

1. Offender’s partner may make any legal call at his proper turn, but Law 16C2 applies.

2. Offender may make any legal call at his correct turn and the Director rules as in A2(a) or A2(b) above.

So if the replacing call is not "comparable" then offender's partner is barred once only, not for the rest of the auction.

[nige1]

Law 31B1 says that dealer has UI. Choosing to Pass appears to be a breach of Law 16B and Law 73C1.

The TD should adjust on the basis that dealer makes his systemic opening bid and responder is still subject to Law 31B2.

Interesting case, Lambert . A consequence of the current daft laws about illegal calls.

To an ordinary player, RMB1's interpretation of the current law is right.

No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification

This law imposes an obligation on the players

but is Pran right that failure "to explain all matters..." is a director error?

 

Suppose the director fails to explain and a player now breaks the law because of ignorance of the relevant law.

• Should he be exonerated completely?
• Or is there a (default) obligation on a player to know the law, anyway?
• Without the director explanation, how should the director rule...
• Result stands (as recommended by Pran)?
• Or a split score (NS 6N+1, EW something else e.g. 6N=)

[pran]

[...]

Result stands (as recommended by Pran)?

[...]

My suggestion was explicit for this example.

 

All four players (dummy included) are responsible for calling the Director when attention has been drawn to an irregularity. Failure to do so will often result in any right to compensation for the irregularity being forfeited (e.g. "table result stands").

 

In the case of Director's error we have

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 non-offending for that purpose

which obviously often will result in a split score.

[nige1]

Sorry I misrepresented Pran's view

[lamford]

I'm not so sure.

 

When you hold a weak no trump and you know partner has 23+, then it is unlikely that the opponents will bid and passing will get you back to a normal auction, so it may be a worthwhile risk.

 

If partner had opened a weak two hearts out of turn, then you would be more inclined to open a weak no trump and give partner a chance to compete having limited your hand.

That is interesting. If you open a weak NT and partner transfers to hearts, having opened a weak 2H, you should be barred as the transfer is not a comparable call, as partner is now known not to be game-forcing, and you are less likely to break or compete to the three level. Is it UI that partner will have a number of calls that he cannot make if you open the bidding when you have been told that by the TD? If you would have opened a multi, are you still forced to do so, knowing that some of partner's calls will bar you, disastrously?

[lamford]

Your ruling was incorrect!

 

So if the replacing call is not "comparable" then offender's partner is barred once only, not for the rest of the auction.

I agree, but the effect is the same, as the auction would end when the dealer was forced to pass. I think I just stated that if a comparable call was made, the auction would continue as normal, but if it was not or could not be made the opener would have to pass. I don't recall stating that this was for the rest of the auction, as there would be no more auction.

[sanst]

I don't think 4NT is permitted. It tells partner you have a balanced invite which would open 2C, rather than a balanced invite which was a 2NT opener, or a balanced invite just short of that. It is quite hard to construct a hand that would open 2C but would only invite slam opposite a weak NT. And if 1D was opened, it is hard to find a comparable call.

I agree with you that 4NT quantitative is not comparable, but as Blackwood it is.

[blackshoe]

I agree with you that 4NT quantitative is not comparable, but as Blackwood it is.

How so?

[BudH]

I think he used the AI that his partner had to make a comparable call, rather than the UI of his partner having a strong hand. If he had opened 6NT, for example, that would have been an example of using the UI of the 2C bid. Interesting, and quite complicated. On the actual auction, a club lead should have been a standout, and I did not adjust. It seems that he believed that it was AI that his partner would have to make a comparable call to avoid barring him and, as he was told that by the director, that was a normal supposition to make.

 

It may be AI to know you will be barred for one round if partner fails to use a comparable call.

 

But it’s UI to know the withdrawn call to help you know what might be best at this point,

[helene_t]

A quantitative 4NT would be about 21-22 HCPs. Is that the range for the 2♣ opening? If the 2♣ opening is 22-23 then the UI puts opener under ethical pressure not to accept unless he has an absolute max.

 

Obviously if the range for the 2♣ opening (followed by a 2NT rebid) is 21-22 then 4NT is comparable.

[barmar]

A quantitative 4NT would be about 21-22 HCPs. Is that the range for the 2♣ opening? If the 2♣ opening is 22-23 then the UI puts opener under ethical pressure not to accept unless he has an absolute max.

 

Obviously if the range for the 2♣ opening (followed by a 2NT rebid) is 21-22 then 4NT is comparable.

The law says "same or similar meaning". A 1-2 point difference could be considered close enough for "similar".

[weejonnie]

How so?

Because it has the same purpose (forcing a response from partner to describe a feature of his hand)?

 

I would also suspect that any jump response (unconditionally game forcing and taking control of the auction) would be comparable. Possibly a 5NT call (if used to ask partner to bid 6 with a minimum and 7 with a maximum) would also be comparable.

 

NB : opener's partner cannot pass because he thinks partner will not have a comparable call. The fact that partner made a call out of turn is authorised. the fact that partner made a 2♣ call out of turn is unauthorised.

[lamford]

I agree with you that 4NT quantitative is not comparable, but as Blackwood it is.

I have only seen 1NT-4NT treated as Blackwood by beginners, and in a sense by experts who play that if opener moves on he shows aces at the five level and a five-card suit at the six-level. And 21-22 balanced, in reply to Helene, is not a quantitative raise; that hand goes straight to 6.