[monkeman]

Bid out of rotation was placed face up and then immediately withdrawn. Nobody saw the denomination of the bid although any player could have seen it. Did this constitute a bid out of rotation? I was dealer and was the RHO of the 'offender', if indeed there was an offense. My location is the West coast of the USA.

[sanst]

From the ACBL Bidding Box Regulations: "A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made." The call was made and to retract it is an infraction. The TD should decide whether it was unintended or not. After that the TD deals with the out of rotation part.

[monkeman]

Thank you, just the information I need to better understand what happened, it is in the ACBL Bidding Box Regulations! Didn't see the definition in the Laws of Duplicate anywhere. So the bid was intended in this case, there was no question about that. And the TD did not fully recognize the irregularity, (but allowed the auction to continue normally after the offender repeated her bid.) The bid out of rotation was negated, and at my true turn to bid as dealer, I opened 1 C, LHO repeated her denomination (of bid out of rotation) of 1D, and the TD ruled that no further rectification was required. Offenders partner was allowed to bid 1S at his first turn to call, after my partner made a negative double sitting North. The hand was board 3 and can be seen here: http://www.santacruz...ts/R170705A.HTM ...we played the hand in 4 H, down one in the last round of the match for an average- result on the hand. It was crystal clear to all concerned that the bid out of rotation was an intended bid.
Question: Was the TD ruling erroneous? how could this alleged inequity/irregularity be remedied at this stage, and/or what is an equitable remedy?

[barmar]

Read Law 29 and Law 31A for the precise details of how this should have been handled by the TD (it sounds like he made several mistakes).

First, he should have given your partner the opportunity to accept the bid. Then everything proceeds as if there had been no irregularity. If the TD didn't offer your partner that option, that was his first mistake.

If your partner doesn't accept the BOOT, the bid is cancelled and it becomes your turn to bid. Then, it depends on whether the offender repeats the denomination of the BOOT or not. if they repeat the denomination, their partner is barred for 1 round (31A2a); if they don't repeat the denomination, their partner is barred for the remainder of the auction and lead restrictions may apply if they become defenders (31A2b). So the TD really screwed up here by saying no further rectification was required and allowing the 1♠ bid.

There's absolutely no excuse for these mistakes, the Laws are very clear on the procedure.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-July-06, 14:32, said:

Read Law 29 and Law 31A for the precise details of how this should have been handled by the TD (it sounds like he made several mistakes).

First, he should have given your partner the opportunity to accept the bid. Then everything proceeds as if there had been no irregularity. If the TD didn't offer your partner that option, that was his first mistake.

If your partner doesn't accept the BOOT, the bid is cancelled and it becomes your turn to bid. Then, it depends on whether the offender repeats the denomination of the BOOT or not. if they repeat the denomination, their partner is barred for 1 round (31A2a); if they don't repeat the denomination, their partner is barred for the remainder of the auction and lead restrictions may apply if they become defenders (31A2b). So the TD really screwed up here by saying no further rectification was required and allowing the 1♠ bid.

There's absolutely no excuse for these mistakes, the Laws are very clear on the procedure.

But be aware that the 2017 laws are significantly changed on irregularities like (or similar to) this so what you learn here will be obsolete within 3 months!

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-06, 15:24, said:

But be aware that the 2018 laws are significantly changed on irregularities like (or similar to) this so what you learn here will be obsolete within 3 months!

2018?

[Vampyr]

sanst, on 2017-July-06, 02:38, said:

From the ACBL Bidding Box Regulations: "A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made." The call was made and to retract it is an infraction. The TD should decide whether it was unintended or not. After that the TD deals with the out of rotation part.

I normally don't believe that a bid is unintentional when it is taken from the other part of the bidding box. It stretches credulity that a bid taken out of any part of the bidding box as opposed to doing nothing could be a mechanical error.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2017-July-06, 15:53, said:

2018?

Sorry, typo - I corrected my post

[sanst]

Vampyr, on 2017-July-06, 20:59, said:

I normally don't believe that a bid is unintentional when it is taken from the other part of the bidding box. It stretches credulity that a bid taken out of any part of the bidding box as opposed to doing nothing could be a mechanical error.

Neither do I, but since the laws mention the possibility, you should consider this. Besides, it's possible, though improbable in this case, that the offender had taken say 1♥ from the box which should have been 1♠ (I haven't looked at the actual hand).

[blackshoe]

As director, the first thing I would do is hear dealer's reason for calling me. Then I would summarize the facts presented and ask the table if they agree with those facts, or have anything to add. Then I would instruct second seat to put the bid back on the table. On the question of whether Law 25A (Unintended Call) applies, I agree with Vampyr. If the player wants to advance an argument that the bid was unintended, I'll listen, but I'm very unlikely to buy it. Then I would rule on the BOOT. I agree with Barmar on how that should go — and that there's no excuse for the director's errors at the table.

AFAICS, in this case, given the offender repeated his call, there is no significant difference between the current law and the upcoming law wrt this case.

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-July-06, 15:24, said:

But be aware that the 2017 laws are significantly changed on irregularities like (or similar to) this so what you learn here will be obsolete within 3 months!

I looked at the new versions of Laws 29 and 31, and there are no major changes to them, just different wording. The new law refers to "comparable call" instead of saying that the replacement has to be the same denomination. But the old law said that when the original call is artificial, the denomination that it shows is what's meant to be used; so I think it's just saying the same thing in different ways.

[BudH]

blackshoe, on 2017-July-07, 08:11, said:

As director, the first thing I would do is hear dealer's reason for calling me. Then I would summarize the facts presented and ask the table if they agree with those facts, or have anything to add. Then I would instruct second seat to put the bid back on the table. On the question of whether Law 25A (Unintended Call) applies, I agree with Vampyr. If the player wants to advance an argument that the bid was unintended, I'll listen, but I'm very unlikely to buy it. Then I would rule on the BOOT. I agree with Barmar on how that should go — and that there's no excuse for the director's errors at the table.

AFAICS, in this case, given the offender repeated his call, there is no significant difference between the current law and the upcoming law wrt this case.

Do you consider a 1D overcall to be a comparable call to a 1D opening bid? Suit length is a subset, but strength of hand would have a lower minimum on the overcall.

[blackshoe]

BudH, on 2017-July-10, 16:13, said:

Do you consider a 1D overcall to be a comparable call to a 1D opening bid? Suit length is a subset, but strength of hand would have a lower minimum on the overcall.

A lower minimum would not make it not a comparable call. Remember, "similar meaning". An overcall is similar to an opening bid, even though it might be a bit weaker.

[BudH]

Then I hope we get plenty of examples of what is and is not comparable.

I can see a Standard American 2/1 response of at least 10 HCP being close enough to an opening bid out of turn to be comparable, being generally within a queen in strength.

But a minimum for a 1D overcall and 1D opening bid have at least an ace difference for most players. That's starting to be a telling difference.

[pran]

BudH, on 2017-July-10, 19:52, said:

Then I hope we get plenty of examples of what is and is not comparable.

I can see a Standard American 2/1 response of at least 10 HCP being close enough to an opening bid out of turn to be comparable, being generally within a queen or in strength.

But a minimum for a 1D overcall and 1D opening bid have at least an ace difference for most players. That's starting to be a telling difference.

There will most certainly have to be several clarifying examples as experience is gained with the new law 23.

In the meantime I think Directors must pay full attention to Law 23C which is a "catch all" law for unintended consequences of the new law 23.

Also Law 27B1{a} remains unchanged from previous laws and applies (for instance) in the 1D case raised above.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2017-July-10, 19:32, said:

A lower minimum would not make it not a comparable call. Remember, "similar meaning". An overcall is similar to an opening bid, even though it might be a bit weaker.

It might vary depending on the style of the player in question, but for most players I see I would not consider a one-level overcall to be similar enough to be comparable. For many more I would consider a two-level (non-jump) overcall to be similar enough.

[blackshoe]

I would not be averse to that interpretation, Gordon.

[dokoko]

BudH, on 2017-July-10, 19:52, said:

Then I hope we get plenty of examples of what is and is not comparable.

I can see a Standard American 2/1 response of at least 10 HCP being close enough to an opening bid out of turn to be comparable, being generally within a queen in strength.

But a minimum for a 1D overcall and 1D opening bid have at least an ace difference for most players. That's starting to be a telling difference.

There might be another problem if the 1D out of turn was made on a 4-bagger. To avoid a penalty (if a 1D overcall is judged comparable) 2nd hand might overcall 1D arguing they wrote on their CC that they sometimes overcall on 4 card suits.

So IMO if a canceled call is replaced by a "comparable" call (representing a subset of the meanings of the original call) the replacement should be disallowed if the hand is not a genuine part of the subset in question.

[barmar]

dokoko, on 2017-August-06, 02:42, said:

There might be another problem if the 1D out of turn was made on a 4-bagger. To avoid a penalty (if a 1D overcall is judged comparable) 2nd hand might overcall 1D arguing they wrote on their CC that they sometimes overcall on 4 card suits.

So IMO if a canceled call is replaced by a "comparable" call (representing a subset of the meanings of the original call) the replacement should be disallowed if the hand is not a genuine part of the subset in question.

Players are allowed to deviate from their agreements. All that matters when making a replacement call is whether the agreement about it is comparable, not whether their actual hand is consistent with that meaning. Their partner will be just as surprised as the opponents when he shows up with only 4 diamonds, and it's possible they'll end up in a poor contract as a result.

[weejonnie]

BudH, on 2017-July-10, 16:13, said:

Do you consider a 1D overcall to be a comparable call to a 1D opening bid? Suit length is a subset, but strength of hand would have a lower minimum on the overcall.

Well

a) - it could have a similar meaning: so far this hasn't been defined.
b) - I believe the WBF memo about Directors should take a fairly liberal stance on what is or is not an acceptable replacement call still applies.
c) - if the NOS are damaged by the effect of a call that the TD regards as being acceptable then they still can seek equity.