Is the stop card of a non-call UI?

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk5h9432d754cq976&w=sqj7hkq6dkqt9c543&n=s62haj875d32cakj8&e=sat9843htdaj86ct2&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p(out%20of%20turn)1n2h(H%2Bm)2n(Leb)p3c(forced)d(clubs)3s(INV)p4sppp]399|300[/hv]

IMPs, lead ♥4, result 4♠-1

 

East was actually the dealer here, but the software does not allow a COOT. East started to use a stop card, intending to open 2S, but South passed out of turn before East could call. The TD ruled it was a POOT and West decided to accept it and bid 1NT. East showed an invite with 5+ spades, usually six, and West accepted. Even with the king and queen of hearts wasted it was on the spade finesse, but that failed and declarer was one off. The two questions I have are:

 

a) Is the use of the stop card by East, prior to the pass out of turn, UI or AI to West, a member of the non-offenders, and if UI does she have to carefully avoiding using that UI in order to decide whether to accept the pass out of turn?

 

b) During the auction, West knows that East must have been intending to open a weak Two Spades, but she also knows that from the authorised auction. What are her LAs, and that depends of course on whether the cancelled stop card is UI?

 

And board 34 from the LMBA teams, not from a North London club. No SB or Chch present!

[pescetom]

I may be wrong but I can't see which part of law would make the Stop UI to West. Admittedly I can't see where it would be clearly categorised as AI either. But if information arising from a withdrawn call is authorised to the non-offending side, then it seems logical that information arising from a legal call interrupted by a call out of turn should be authorised also.

 

Whatever the orientation of Director, I think he has a duty to inform West of it before she decides whether to accept the POOT or not.

[lamford]

I may be wrong but I can't see which part of law would make the Stop UI to West. Admittedly I can't see where it would be clearly categorised as AI either. But if information arising from a withdrawn call is authorised to the non-offending side, then it seems logical that information arising from a legal call interrupted by a call out of turn should be authorised also.

 

Whatever the orientation of Director, I think he has a duty to inform West of it before she decides whether to accept the POOT or not.

The TD did state that he thought the stop card was UI to West, but we did not challenge that. FrancesHinden, when consulted, also thought it was probably UI, but I think it is probably AI. ["arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations", although it does say, "see BI" which includes extraneous information so both arguments have validity']. The fact that a withdrawn call is authorised for the non-offenders is the silver bullet for me.

[Vampyr]

The fact that a withdrawn call is authorised for the non-offenders is the silver bullet for me.

 

Do werewolves understand Bridge Law?

[pran]

Law 16A1c says:

 

A player may use information in the auction or play if:

.....

{c} it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following);

 

STOP is a legal remark indicating that the player is about to make a call with certain attributes. This remark is not part of the following call.

So West is in no way restricted during his auction or play from the uncompleted STOP from East.

 

(I am fully aware of the restrictions in Law 16B1 but do not see how South's call out of turn can make these restrictions relevant.

The alternative is to rule that "STOP" is indeed part of the following call in which case Law 33 shall apply as below.)

 

Had East come as far as to (at least partially) making his call then the applicable Law would have been Law 33 Simultaneous calls and South's PASS would not have been a call out of turn but a call subsequent to East's opening call when completed.

[sanst]

Pran is right: it’s a Law 33 case. The stop isn’t a call as such, but part of the call. If not, it would be extraneous information, but, since it’s legal procedure, it’s part of the game and therefore not extraneous. That makes it AI.

The TD was wrong here, it wasn’t a POOT, but a subsequent call. Anyway, it probably didn’t make any difference in this case. Maybe W had not bid game, but 3♠, which makes. No way of telling now.

This problem is due to the unregulated position of the stop card. It’s not in the Laws, though in the Dutch lawbook there’s an appendix about bidding boxes which makes it part of the Laws over here, but it’s nowadays a standard part of the game. Does anyone know whether the WBFLC has published anything about it?

[pescetom]

...

STOP is a legal remark indicating that the player is about to make a call with certain attributes. This remark is not part of the following call.

So West is in no way restricted during his auction or play from the uncompleted STOP from East.

 

(I am fully aware of the restrictions in Law 16B1 but do not see how South's call out of turn can make these restrictions relevant.

The alternative is to rule that "STOP" is indeed part of the following call in which case Law 33 shall apply as below.)

 

Had East come as far as to (at least partially) making his call then the applicable Law would have been Law 33 Simultaneous calls and South's PASS would not have been a call out of turn but a call subsequent to East's opening call when completed.

 

 

Pran is right: it’s a Law 33 case. The stop isn’t a call as such, but part of the call. If not, it would be extraneous information, but, since it’s legal procedure, it’s part of the game and therefore not extraneous. That makes it AI.

The TD was wrong here, it wasn’t a POOT, but a subsequent call.

 

I don't think Pran is saying it was a Law 33 case - he says that would be an alternative to how he sees - and he doesn't seem to accept that the Stop is part of the call.

 

I agree with you that the Stop is effectively part of the call, but I don't agree with your conclusion that this becomes a Law 33 case. Law 33 talks about a call "made simultaneously" - I take that as meaning that it is difficult or impossible to establish which call appeared first. That is not the case if East places pass on the table when North has only shown the Stop card, or even for that matter when North has extracted cards from the bidding box but not yet shown his call.

[pran]

I don't think Pran is saying it was a Law 33 case - he says that would be an alternative to how he sees - and he doesn't seem to accept that the Stop is part of the call.

 

I agree with you that the Stop is effectively part of the call, but I don't agree with your conclusion that this becomes a Law 33 case. Law 33 talks about a call "made simultaneously" - I take that as meaning that it is difficult or impossible to establish which call appeared first. That is not the case if East places pass on the table when North has only shown the Stop card, or even for that matter when North has extracted cards from the bidding box but not yet shown his call.

The laws consider two different actions to be "simultaneous" if they overlap in time so that neither is definitely subsequent to the other.

 

In our case with East dealer:

If East says (for instance) "one" and South (interrupting) says something that can be the first syllable of a call then South legally makes a call simultaneously with East.

 

If East pulls a card from the bid box and South at the same time pulls a card from his bid box then the two calls are legally made simultaneously regardless of which of them effectively first becomes visible to the table.

 

so If we consider STOP as part of an upcoming call (which I don't) then we have a clear Law 33 case, otherwise we just have a legal remark informing LHO (and the table) that the player is about to make a call that will require LHO to hold his own upcoming call for about ten seconds.

[blackshoe]

If East pulls a card from the bid box and South at the same time pulls a card from his bid box then the two calls are legally made simultaneously regardless of which of them effectively first becomes visible to the table.

Not in the ACBL, where a call is not made until the bidding card(s) is/are "touching or nearly touching the table, or placed in a position as to indicate a call has been made".

 

That said, I agree with your interpretation of "stop out of turn".

[barmar]

This situation can't occur in ACBL, since we got rid of the Stop card. So ACBL's bidding box regulations are not really relevant.

[pescetom]

This situation can't occur in ACBL, since we got rid of the Stop card. So ACBL's bidding box regulations are not really relevant.

 

But they are relevant in application to my test case of East placing the Pass card on the table while North (at his turn to play and intending to make a non-jump call) has selected but not faced the bidding cards. I would not apply Law 33 in this case, as North has not yet disclosed his call. I see the situation where North has only shown the Stop card as analogous.

[axman]

I don't think Pran is saying it was a Law 33 case - he says that would be an alternative to how he sees - and he doesn't seem to accept that the Stop is part of the call.

 

I agree with you that the Stop is effectively part of the call, but I don't agree with your conclusion that this becomes a Law 33 case. Law 33 talks about a call "made simultaneously" - I take that as meaning that it is difficult or impossible to establish which call appeared first. That is not the case if East places pass on the table when North has only shown the Stop card, or even for that matter when North has extracted cards from the bidding box but not yet shown his call.

I would think that if anything, a skip bid warning has an effect similar to the effect of summoning the TD: take no action until...

 

and...a consequence of taking action prior to until...

[pescetom]

If East pulls a card from the bid box and South at the same time pulls a card from his bid box then the two calls are legally made simultaneously regardless of which of them effectively first becomes visible to the table.

 

Our RA regulations 18.1 state that when Bidding Boxes are in use then a call is considered made when the card is placed on the table, or when the player has announced verbally his intended call.

[pran]

Not in the ACBL, where a call is not made until the bidding card(s) is/are "touching or nearly touching the table, or placed in a position as to indicate a call has been made".

 

That said, I agree with your interpretation of "stop out of turn".

Please - how will you rule in the following cases (no "STOP" involved). And these are not hypothetical cases, they have actually happened:

 

A slow player takes a card from the bid box and uses a few seconds (with no hesitation as such) to place that card face up on the table.

 

During this process a second player takes a card from his bid box and places that card face up on the table.

 

(It is clear that the second player made and completed his action entirely during the interval within which the slow player carried out his action.)

 

There are three alternatives:

1: The player in turn to call was the slow player.

2: The player in turn to call was the second player.

3: The player in turn to call was neither of them.

[blackshoe]

Please - how will you rule in the following cases (no "STOP" involved). And these are not hypothetical cases, they have actually happened:

 

A slow player takes a card from the bid box and uses a few seconds (with no hesitation as such) to place that card face up on the table.

 

During this process a second player takes a card from his bid box and places that card face up on the table.

 

(It is clear that the second player made and completed his action entirely during the interval within which the slow player carried out his action.)

 

There are three alternatives:

1: The player in turn to call was the slow player.

2: The player in turn to call was the second player.

3: The player in turn to call was neither of them.

Assuming that your parenthetical means that the second player called before the "slow" one:

 

1. Call out of turn by the second player. I suppose possibly "simultaneous call". The latter is kinder to the second player, and for that reason many would so rule, even if technically that ruling is wrong.

2. Depends. Was the slow player the "second" player's LHO or his RHO? Or his partner?

3. If they have both called, they have both called out of turn. Second player's call might be "simultaneous".

[sanst]

Our RA regulations 18.1 state that when Bidding Boxes are in use then a call is considered made when the card is placed on the table, or when the player has announced verbally his intended call.

The Dutch regulation says: “A call is considered to have been made when the bidding card(s) are taken out of the bidding box with the apparent intent to make a call herewith.” Note the plural between brackets. The only time you make a (legal) call with two cards is when you put the stop card on the table. This is one of the reason that Inthink that the stop card is part of the call.

[Vampyr]

The Dutch regulation says: “A call is considered to have been made when the bidding card(s) are taken out of the bidding box with the apparent intent to make a call herewith.” Note the plural between brackets. The only time you make a (legal) call with two cards is when you put the stop card on the table. This is one of the reason that Inthink that the stop card is part of the call.

 

This is not correct. When any bid other than 1♣ is bid, multiple cards are taken out of the bidding box. And the Stop card is taken out before the bidding cards.

 

The Stop card is not part of a call in the EBU, and I should consult my local regulations carefully instead of relying on spurious logic.

[Vampyr]

This situation can't occur in ACBL, since we got rid of the Stop card. So ACBL's bidding box regulations are not really relevant.

 

But i assume that the ACBL have reverted to a verbal warning, so there is some relevance.

[blackshoe]

You assume incorrectly. There is no skip bid warning, verbal or otherwise.

[pran]

Please - how will you rule in the following cases (no "STOP" involved). And these are not hypothetical cases, they have actually happened:

 

A slow player takes a card from the bid box and uses a few seconds (with no hesitation as such) to place that card face up on the table.

 

During this process a second player takes a card from his bid box and places that card face up on the table.

 

(It is clear that the second player made and completed his action entirely during the interval within which the slow player carried out his action.)

 

There are three alternatives:

1: The player in turn to call was the slow player.

2: The player in turn to call was the second player.

3: The player in turn to call was neither of them.

 

 

Assuming that your parenthetical means that the second player called before the "slow" one:

 

1. Call out of turn by the second player. I suppose possibly "simultaneous call". The latter is kinder to the second player, and for that reason many would so rule, even if technically that ruling is wrong.

2. Depends. Was the slow player the "second" player's LHO or his RHO? Or his partner?

3. If they have both called, they have both called out of turn. Second player's call might be "simultaneous".

 

To make it completely clear - the sequence of events are (in all three alternatives):

1: The slow player takes a card from his bid box

2: The second player takes a card from his bid box

3: The second player faces his bid card

4: The slow player faces his bid card.

 

There is no hesitation by the slow player, he just is slower than the second player.

 

Since your ruling depends on three possibilities in case 2 I should like to know the answers in all three alternatives.

[sanst]

This is not correct. When any bid other than 1♣ is bid, multiple cards are taken out of the bidding box. And the Stop card is taken out before the bidding cards.

 

The Stop card is not part of a call in the EBU, and I should consult my local regulations carefully instead of relying on spurious logic.

You’re right. It was a bit late. I don’t think your comment was necessary and rather pedantic.

[Vampyr]

To make it completely clear - the sequence of events are (in all three alternatives):

1: The slow player takes a card from his bid box

2: The second player takes a card from his bid box

3: The second player faces his bid card

4: The slow player faces his bid card.

 

There is no hesitation by the slow player, he just is slower than the second player.

 

Since your ruling depends on three possibilities in case 2 I should like to know the answers in all three alternatives.

 

In the actual case, the incident was in the EBU where a bid is made once the bid clears the bidding box. This may make the sequence of bids a bit clearer.

 

You’re right. It was a bit late. I don’t think your comment was necessary and rather pedantic.

 

I believe that when someone is trying to interpret a law, and is wrong, the error needs to be corrected so that other readers do not think it is true.

[pran]

In the actual case, the incident was in the EBU where a bid is made once the bid clears the bidding box. This may make the sequence of bids a bit clearer.

I know, but I was interested in ACBL ruling.

 

I believe that when someone is trying to interpret a law, and is wrong, the error needs to be corrected so that other readers do not think it is true.

The important question here is the understanding of the word "simultaneous".

 

I have in my library: Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 issued by EBL in 1992 in which we find

33.2

Obviously no two calls can ever be truly simultaneous in the strict sense of the word. When, however, two calls are made at approximately the same instant, and are clearly independent of each other, the Director should treat them as simultaneous. This Law is not to be used to excuse non-simultaneous actions, even though they may be clearly independent. In close situations the matter of independence and/or possible influence should be considered.

I see no reason why this comment should not be fully relevant today. (Under ACBL as well as under other jurisdictions within WBF)

[blackshoe]

To make it completely clear - the sequence of events are (in all three alternatives):

1: The slow player takes a card from his bid box

2: The second player takes a card from his bid box

3: The second player faces his bid card

4: The slow player faces his bid card.

 

There is no hesitation by the slow player, he just is slower than the second player.

 

Since your ruling depends on three possibilities in case 2 I should like to know the answers in all three alternatives.

In this sequence, following the ACBL's regulation on when a call is made, second player's call was made before the slow player's call. So I don't think I would apply Law 33. I can see the argument for it, though. Still, I would rule the second player has called out of turn in all cases.

[weejonnie]

The ACBL rules mentioned above do cause a minor problem.

 

A 'slow' player takes out a pass card: the 'fast' player sees it coming and makes a call. The 'slow' player sees this call and puts back the pass card, replacing it with a bid. Does this mean that the call made by the 'fast' player is made at the same time i.e. subsequent to the call by the slow player or before?

 

Anyway - IMHO in the EBU the use of the STOP card is part of the regulations of the RA and so is AI - it is nothing to do with making a call. Indeed the RA is clear that pulling the STOP card out of turn is not per se causing a COOT (although in that case UI is available).