Bid out of turn

[Bad_Wolf]

I am the dealer. My RHO opens 2NT strong out of turn. I don't accept. What, if any, are my legal obligations at this point?

 

I ask because I was the director when this occurred and, as I discovered later, the dealer opened an average 8 count. I had no problem with this but a director I respect thought it was "dodgy". Opinions?

[pran]

I am the dealer. My RHO opens 2NT strong out of turn. I don't accept. What, if any, are my legal obligations at this point?

 

I ask because I was the director when this occurred and, as I discovered later, the dealer opened an average 8 count. I had no problem with this but a director I respect thought it was "dodgy". Opinions?

Unless A applies, a call out of rotation is cancelled and the auction reverts to the player whose

turn it was to call. The offending side is subject to the provisions of Law 30, 31 or 32.

so a 'normal' auction is started with your call. (Be aware of Law 16C2 from now on!)

 

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.

(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.

The important question here is whether the first call eventually made by the offender at his first legal turn to call is 'comparable', i.e. shows a balanced hand with at least 20 HCP.

If it is then there is no further rectification (but be aware that offender's partner may not use his understanding that partner has psyched when selecting his calls and/or plays).

 

Most likely the first call (in turn) from the offender will not be considered 'comparable' to the bid out of turn, and then.

(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.

Complicated? Well, I think that in the end most important is

If the Director determines that an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity

that it could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue

(if not completed). At the conclusion of play the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers

the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

[sanst]

Your obligation? Call the TD. But you probably know that :lol:.

Pran has given chapter and verse about the possibilities for the offenders, but also pointed to Law 72C. From your this description I get the very strong impression that your RHO was trying to put you on the wrong footing. If so, I wouldn’t hesitate to give that side a serious PP, not just a warning. It’s not as bad as cheating, but it certainly destroys the pleasure of the other players and makes serious bridge impossible. Sometimes such jokers fall in their own sword, but to often they can get away with it.

[pran]

Your obligation? Call the TD. But you probably know that :lol:.

Call himself? - He wrote that he was the Director.

 

I see no real reason for PP here (unless the offender already has a reputation for deliberately attempting to destroy events).

 

But if offender's partner for instance turns out to holding a decent opening hand the score on the board could well be adjusted to say 7NTXX with an appropriate number of undertricks.

[sfi]

I think you're both misreading the post due to the loose use of pronouns. Bad_wolf was the director, not the dealer. Dealer opened with an average eight-count after not accepting the bid out of turn.

 

Bad_wolf is asking about dealer's legal obligations after the bid out of turn.

 

IMO, dealer can do what they like - they have no obligation to follow system or make their normal call. The information that RHO has half the high cards is authorised and they have no restrictions on their choice of action.

[jillybean]

It's dodgy!

[pran]

I think you're both misreading the post due to the loose use of pronouns. Bad_wolf was the director, not the dealer. Dealer opened with an average eight-count after not accepting the bid out of turn.

 

Bad_wolf is asking about dealer's legal obligations after the bid out of turn.

 

IMO, dealer can do what they like - they have no obligation to follow system or make their normal call. The information that RHO has half the high cards is authorised and they have no restrictions on their choice of action.

Thanks for the correction, yes - I understood OP that he was both the dealer and the director.

 

And yes, non-offending side is free to call and play as they want, using any and all information legally available to them.

(The offending side may not use any information arising from their own irregularity.)

[Cyberyeti]

This reminds me of a case years ago (when the rules were different) where I was looking at a yarborough wondering what to psyche seeing LHO's eyes popping out of her head when she opened 2♣ out of turn. She was then told (as the rules then were) that she could make any bid but not double.

 

I always wondered about the ethics of psyching after a bid out of turn, but in this case my conscience was clear in that I'd already decided I was psyching something, I didn't find the winning option (which was 4N, 10 tricks were the limit for them declaring, two for me declaring) at love all 4N-8 would have been a top.

 

My other question is what if the 2N was a psyche ? If using the AI of the bid out of turn by the NOS damages them while the psycher has protected himself by silencing his pard most of the time, do they have any recourse.

[pran]

........

My other question is what if the 2N was a psyche ? If using the AI of the bid out of turn by the NOS damages them while the psycher has protected himself by silencing his pard most of the time, do they have any recourse.

Whether or not the 2N was a psyche is completely irrelevant for the auction and play as such, but it will certainly be relevant (and should be taken into consideration) when the Director eventually shall consider Law 72C.

 

(If the 2N indeed was a psyche and the offender's partner appears to have taken it as such then he is in great danger of being ruled to have fielded a psyche which is considered a serious violation of law 73C)

[sfi]

My other question is what if the 2N was a psyche ? If using the AI of the bid out of turn by the NOS damages them while the psycher has protected himself by silencing his pard most of the time, do they have any recourse.

There's a famous case from the US at least 3 decades ago (name and location removed since I'm not sure enough of the veracity or details). The expert in 4th seat saw both opponents counting their points and their eyes growing wide, so he opened 1NT out of turn. Dealer didn't accept because she knew RHO would simply gamble 3NT after their partner was barred, so she anticipated a big penalty and passed in first seat with a 20-count. Second seat passed perforce. Her partner, also holding a 20-count, passed in third seat expecting to double 3NT next round. The expert then simply passed out the hand.

 

This ploy earned him a one year ban from competing in the state.

[blackshoe]

I can't find "dodgy" in my law book. My dictionary says "dishonest or unreliable". Psyches are, in a sense, dishonest, but they're also, generally speaking, perfectly legal. That's the case here.

[axman]

There's a famous case from the US at least 3 decades ago (name and location removed since I'm not sure enough of the veracity or details). The expert in 4th seat saw both opponents counting their points and their eyes growing wide, so he opened 1NT out of turn. Dealer didn't accept because she knew RHO would simply gamble 3NT after their partner was barred, so she anticipated a big penalty and passed in first seat with a 20-count. Second seat passed perforce. Her partner, also holding a 20-count, passed in third seat expecting to double 3NT next round.

 

The expert then simply passed out the hand.

 

 

Hmmmmmm. When it comes to acting out of turn I would rather think of it as fortune telling. The law says that you get one action for your turn. 4th hand COOT and the remedy is to cancel the call. And when the auction gets around to offender to make his first call he instead makes his second call (does something different the second time around). In my book offender is getting twice as many turns as non offenders. Justice (eg. putting the turns into balance) would require offender 'repeat' his canceled call.

[pran]

Hmmmmmm. When it comes to acting out of turn I would rather think of it as fortune telling. The law says that you get one action for your turn. 4th hand COOT and the remedy is to cancel the call. And when the auction gets around to offender to make his first call he instead makes his second call (does something different the second time around). In my book offender is getting twice as many turns as non offenders. Justice (eg. putting the turns into balance) would require offender 'repeat' his canceled call.

No, the laws require him to present a 'comparable' call at his first legal turn to call, with severe consequences if none is presented (or simply is not available).-

[mycroft]

This ranks right up there with "how dare they overcall my 2♣ opening with T876432 84 2 643?" with a side of "Just because I did something wrong, doesn't mean I shouldn't get to bid my big hands." It's not your Work-given right to a free auction when you have a 20-count.

 

You open out of turn, your partner has to bid under UI, and you either get to find a Comparable Call if possible or guess right. Note that, unlike an insufficient bid, you are allowed to double knowing partner will pass (and there isn't even a "if without the infraction, things would be different" caveat). 1♥-p-p-X; p-p-p -800 even after the lead penalty is a potential.

 

There's no difference (except for the potential extra 300) between this and opening 2♥ with an obvious weak 2.

 

"Your opponents did something wrong, you get a good score" isn't in the Law Book. "I get to freely bid my big hands" isn't either, with or without an infraction.

 

Is it something I would do against random flight C pair in my local club game? No. Is it something I would do in the NAP District finals, even in 0-2500? Sure. You're there, you're experienced enough to *read the board and know who dealer is*. If they get a bad score as a result, it's the same as if they forgot they were playing Lebensohl and got to an impossible game.

[pran]

This ranks right up there with "how dare they overcall my 2♣ opening with T876432 84 2 643?" with a side of "Just because I did something wrong, doesn't mean I shouldn't get to bid my big hands." It's not your Work-given right to a free auction when you have a 20-count.

 

You open out of turn, your partner has to bid under UI, and you either get to find a Comparable Call if possible or guess right. Note that, unlike an insufficient bid, you are allowed to double knowing partner will pass (and there isn't even a "if without the infraction, things would be different" caveat). 1♥-p-p-X; p-p-p -800 even after the lead penalty is a potential.

 

There's no difference (except for the potential extra 300) between this and opening 2♥ with an obvious weak 2.

 

"Your opponents did something wrong, you get a good score" isn't in the Law Book. "I get to freely bid my big hands" isn't either, with or without an infraction.

 

Is it something I would do against random flight C pair in my local club game? No. Is it something I would do in the NAP District finals, even in 0-2500? Sure. You're there, you're experienced enough to *read the board and know who dealer is*. If they get a bad score as a result, it's the same as if they forgot they were playing Lebensohl and got to an impossible game.

Frankly I do not understand your point, except that you are quite correct in writing:

"Your opponents did something wrong, you get a good score" isn't in the Law Book.

"I get to freely bid my big hands" isn't either, with or without an infraction.

 

but

If the Director determines that an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity

that it could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue

(if not completed). At the conclusion of play the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers

the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

Strong causes for the Director to apply this law include for instance situations where:

- The infraction might seem deliberate rather than accidental, or

- The offender's partner seems to back up the irregularity with his own actions in some way.

[mycroft]

My point is, there's nothing illegal, imProper or unethical about dealer's action. It's not the most friendly of moves, but anyone who complains about it, having actually committed an infraction, needs to grow up (and have the Law explained to them, if necessary).

 

It may feel "dodgy", but I'm totally on the side of the player who *didn't* commit an infraction. It only feels dodgy to the people who feel aggrieved against the very aggressive preempters and the 2♣ overcallers, because "I get a good hand and they won't let me have all of my Allowed Fun with it".

[pran]

My point is, there's nothing illegal, imProper or unethical about dealer's action. It's not the most friendly of moves, but anyone who complains about it, having actually committed an infraction, needs to grow up (and have the Law explained to them, if necessary).

 

It may feel "dodgy", but I'm totally on the side of the player who *didn't* commit an infraction. It only feels dodgy to the people who feel aggrieved against the very aggressive preempters and the 2♣ overcallers, because "I get a good hand and they won't let me have all of my Allowed Fun with it".

Have I (within my comments) indicated any irregularity (of any kind) by this dealer ?

[pescetom]

My point is, there's nothing illegal, imProper or unethical about dealer's action. It's not the most friendly of moves, but anyone who complains about it, having actually committed an infraction, needs to grow up (and have the Law explained to them, if necessary).

 

It may feel "dodgy", but I'm totally on the side of the player who *didn't* commit an infraction. It only feels dodgy to the people who feel aggrieved against the very aggressive preempters and the 2♣ overcallers, because "I get a good hand and they won't let me have all of my Allowed Fun with it".

 

Agree with this of course, but IMO the interesting point of contention is the assertion by sfi that the opener is no longer bound by system.

Do we all agree, and if so how does this translate in terms of alerting and explanation in the various scenarios?

Our regulations assume that opener *is* bound by system.

[Cyberyeti]

Agree with this of course, but IMO the interesting point of contention is the assertion by sfi that the opener is no longer bound by system.

Do we all agree, and if so how does this translate in terms of alerting and explanation in the various scenarios?

Our regulations assume that opener *is* bound by system.

 

Opener is permitted to psyche, the question is whether his partner is allowed to field it given the AI from the bid. There is also a further issue if the auction goes 1x-P-P-2N many people play this strong and balanced so it's possible there may be no further penalty and/or silencing.

[barmar]

I always wondered about the ethics of psyching after a bid out of turn

I don't see anything wrong with it. The opponent made a mistake, you're allowed to take advantage of it and make things harder for them.

 

Is it really any different from taking advantage of a penalty card to prevent an opponent from leading the killing suit?

[sanst]

Agree with this of course, but IMO the interesting point of contention is the assertion by sfi that the opener is no longer bound by system.

Do we all agree, and if so how does this translate in terms of alerting and explanation in the various scenarios?

Our regulations assume that opener *is* bound by system.

So do ours and I don’t read anything in the Laws that permits you to do as you like after a bid out of turn. If you make a habit of it or have an agreement to do so, you should inform the opponents of this. An infraction doesn’t mean that the offenders loose their rights.

Somehow I get the feeling that many are looking for loopholes in the Laws when that’s not illegal. I don’t like it. Bridge is a game of fairness, not a playground for legal niceties. I expect players to take the laws 72, 73 and 74 as the main guideline for their behavior and attitude at the table - or computer nowadays.

[pran]

So do ours and I don’t read anything in the Laws that permits you to do as you like after a bid out of turn. If you make a habit of it or have an agreement to do so, you should inform the opponents of this. An infraction doesn’t mean that the offenders loose their rights.

Somehow I get the feeling that many are looking for loopholes in the Laws when that’s not illegal. I don’t like it. Bridge is a game of fairness, not a playground for legal niceties. I expect players to take the laws 72, 73 and 74 as the main guideline for their behavior and attitude at the table - or computer nowadays.

 

The short form is that any player may make any call he likes, but he may not deviate from his published agreements unless his deviation will be at least as surprising to his partner as it is to his opponents.

 

(And he may of course not call attention, not to his partner nor to his opponents, to the fact that he has committed such deviation)

[sfi]

So do ours and I don’t read anything in the Laws that permits you to do as you like after a bid out of turn. If you make a habit of it or have an agreement to do so, you should inform the opponents of this. An infraction doesn’t mean that the offenders loose their rights.

Law 40A3 allows dealer to make any call so long as it is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding. You are right that if the side has explicitly discussed what to do, they will be constrained. But nobody discusses agreements here and it's rare enough that the partnership will not have implicit understandings (as one data point, I play quite a lot of bridge and have not encountered this situation in a tournament for at least two decades).

 

Somehow I get the feeling that many are looking for loopholes in the Laws when that’s not illegal. I don’t like it. Bridge is a game of fairness, not a playground for legal niceties. I expect players to take the laws 72, 73 and 74 as the main guideline for their behavior and attitude at the table - or computer nowadays.

 

Bridge is still a game one plays to win, and law 10C3 says "When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select the most advantageous action." This law is referring to the choice of whether or not to accept the bid out of turn, but then you have law 73E. It explicitly allows dealer to "attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play [with caveats outlined by Pran]". I don't find anything in laws 72-74 that suggests choosing a non-systemic call as dealer in this situation is problematic.

 

The short answer is that you get to do what you think is right to get a good score on the hand as long as you follow the laws, don't use UI and don't have hidden agreements.

[mycroft]

Ah, apologies. I frequently respond without quoting, because it's obvious to whom I'm speaking. My first comment in this thread was all in response to the OP, not to any of the other responses.

 

I thought it was obvious; this time it wasn't. My fault.

 

I don't know about the "ethics of psyching"; but if partner has a 10 count with 4 hearts, I assume he's not giving me a limit raise here. I mean, I think it's arguable that partner will assume I'm "in third seat", knowing that partner can't have a good hand - as he is entitled to, because the call out of turn is AI to her, too.

 

Also, if we play Precision and open all 9s that look like 10s, this is a minor deviation based on the state of the match, no? What if I open all 11s (which I do)? People keep saying "a king of the opening isn't a psych, it's just Good Judgement". But only when they do it against me, not the other way around, it seems.

[nige1]

I am the dealer. My RHO opens 2NT strong out of turn. I don't accept. What, if any, are my legal obligations at this point? I ask because I was the director when this occurred and, as I discovered later, the dealer opened an average 8 count. I had no problem with this but a director I respect thought it was "dodgy". Opinions?

You are director when RHO opens 2NT, out of turn. You don't accept the call. Now, please clarify:

1. Had RHO opened 2NT on an average 8 count? or
2. After RHO now passed, did you, dealer, open on an average 8 count?