[mamos]

My second ruling from this event which I want to share with you came on Day 2, again in the first match of the day. It was April 1st when traditionally pranks and hoaxes are played on unsuspecting victims. Although this was not a hoax, it felt a bit like one of those trick rulings you do on TD training courses, it all starts out deceptively easily and then turns out to have a nasty twist in the tail for the unsuspecting victim ie in this case me.

Again no hands yet. It was Board 4

I've just discovered BBO hand diagrams don't let you bid out of turn North in fact did not pass. He was still sorting his hand and considering his options when East bid

---

So to be clear, West opened 1♣ and East responded 1♦ out of turn.

So this is a Book ruling I can give quite routinely. I make sure that 1♣ and 1♦ are natural bids and I speak to South. "The first rights belong to you. You must not consult your partner about your choice. You can simply accept this 1♦ bid, make your call and the auction continues with no rectification whatsoever. If you don't want to do this you can refuse to accept it, then it is cancelled. (At this stage, I pick up the 1♦ card and turn it face down temporarily) The bidding goes back to your partner, North. If he Passes, then East must bid 1♦ again and that's the end of the matter. If however North makes any other call or bid, then East can make any call that he likes, but if he bids some number of Diamonds, his partner will have to Pass for one round, the first time it is his turn to call. If he makes any other call, his partner will have to Pass for the remainder of the auction. In the latter case if East never bids Diamonds in the auction and becomes a defender, there will be a lead penalty the first time that West has the lead, in that declarer may demand or forbid Diamond leads.

As so often happen in these circumstances (I'm obviously a poor director) South looks a bit blank and says "Sorry can you say that again? As I gird myself to repeat, North says (sic) "This is my bid," and takes the double card out of the table and places it on the table in front of him.

What do you say now? (Apart from uttering a horrified shriek and "You are not supposed to do that") (Actually I then said "Have you played Board 5 yet?" "No? Well in that case I think you'd better play that one while I decide what to about Board 4)

What do you decide?

[blackshoe]

Cancel the board, zero matchpoints to both sides, North to be drawn and quartered.

Actually, I'm not sure. I'll have to think about it.

[campboy]

My view is that rectification has not been assessed until South decides whether to accept the IB, so 28B applies. The 1♦ call is cancelled and East can replace it with any legal call without further rectification. Tell West off for ignoring the TD.

[pran]

campboy, on 2012-April-02, 02:02, said:

My view is that rectification has not been assessed until South decides whether to accept the IB, so 28B applies. The 1♦ call is cancelled and East can replace it with any legal call without further rectification. Tell West off for ignoring the TD.

I agree on this - except why take any action on West? He hasn't done anything to blame?

[campboy]

pran, on 2012-April-02, 03:06, said:

I agree on this - except why take any action on West? He hasn't done anything to blame?

Sorry, meant North

[pran]

campboy, on 2012-April-02, 03:14, said:

Sorry, meant North

Fair enough

[RMB1]

campboy, on 2012-April-02, 02:02, said:

My view is that rectification has not been assessed until South decides whether to accept the IB, so 28B applies.

I do not think this is right. Once attention has been drawn and South has been given the option to accept, it can not be right for North to have the option to call and take away South's options: at the very least this seems to be "consulting" North, as prohibited by Law 10C2.

[gnasher]

RMB1, on 2012-April-02, 03:43, said:

I do not think this is right. Once attention has been drawn and South has been given the option to accept, it can not be right for North to have the option to call and take away South's options: at the very least this seems to be "consulting" North, as prohibited by Law 10C2.

It's not "consulting" North about which option South should take: it's allowing North to replace South's two options with a third one, which is that the auction reverts to North and no further rectification occurs (except with respect to the UI).

It certainly appears that 29B's "Unless A applies, a call out of rotation is cancelled" is inconsistent with 28B. There are two possible interpretations:
- 28B applies if North happens to invoke it before South makes his choice.
- 28B applies only before the director offers South his options.

I don't see any reason to choose one interpretation over the other. I also don't think there is much point in trying to divine what the lawmakers actually meant - I suspect that it's just a mistake.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-April-02, 06:15

[pran]

gnasher, on 2012-April-02, 06:10, said:

It's not "consulting" North about which option South should take: it's allowing North to replace South's two options with a third one, which is that the auction reverts to North and no further rectification occurs (except with respect to the UI).

It certainly appears that 29B's "Unless A applies, a call out of rotation is cancelled" is inconsistent with 28B. There are two possible interpretations:
- 28B applies if North happens to invoke it before South makes his choice.
- 28B applies only before the director offers South his options.

I don't see any reason to choose one interpretation over the other. I also don't think there is much point in trying to divine what the lawmakers actually meant - I suspect that it's just a mistake.

Applying Law 28B effectively lets the offending side off the hook and restores normal conditions as much as possible.

I cannot possibly see why this should be an unreasonable reaction to the irregularity that North eventually made his call "in turn" before TD has completed his ruling on the bid out of turn by East. (Nothing in Law 28B says anything about "before TD has been called" or any specific stage of TD's processing the call out of turn)

On the contrary I think Law 28B perfectly matches the conditions in this case:

Law 28B said:

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.

[RMB1]

gnasher, on 2012-April-02, 06:10, said:

It certainly appears that 29B's "Unless A applies, a call out of rotation is cancelled" is inconsistent with 28B. There are two possible interpretations:
- 28B applies if North happens to invoke it before South makes his choice.
- 28B applies only before the director offers South his options.

Let me offer a third.

The only interpretation of Law 28B I was previously aware of was that it only applied if North was not aware of the call out of rotation and attention had not been drawn to the call out of rotation. If North was aware of the call out of rotation he should draw attention to it, and if attention was drawn the other rectifications would be applied.

[barmar]

I consider "rectification has been assessed" in 28B to start when the TD instructs South as to his options. It just doesn't make sense to allow this law to apply if North takes action while South is listening to the TD, asking questions, or considering his decision. If South can't consult with North, how can it be right for North to take unilateral action that takes away South's decision?

So I believe 28B only applies if North takes action before the TD arrives and starts instructing the players about the rectification.

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-April-02, 08:48, said:

I consider "rectification has been assessed" in 28B to start when the TD instructs South as to his options. It just doesn't make sense to allow this law to apply if North takes action while South is listening to the TD, asking questions, or considering his decision. If South can't consult with North, how can it be right for North to take unilateral action that takes away South's decision?

So I believe 28B only applies if North takes action before the TD arrives and starts instructing the players about the rectification.

The critical clause in Law 28B is before rectification has been assessed which means that until the rectification has (finally) been assessed the player whose turn it was to call may still just make his call and end the processing of the irregularity. It doesn't matter if TD has been called, has arrived at the table or is in the middle of explaining the options to the offender's LHO.

TD can of course stop the player who was in turn to call from violating Law 9B2 if he manages to do so in time, but once that player has made his call then Law 28B kicks in.

[ahydra]

I like the look of 28B here. It also seems to make sense from a "fairness" point of view, in that now North has jumped the gun on South's decision whether to accept the BOOT or not, NS don't deserve any rectification.

I'd agree that rectification has not been "assessed" until South picks an option. Perhaps this Law needs a bit of clarification.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

It might be nice if the law dotted every i and crossed every t. OTOH, I don't particularly want to lug around a hand truck carrying my law book.

It is not North's turn to call until and unless the TD says it is (which will depend on whether South rejects or accepts East's call out of turn). So his double is, at best, out of turn. Unless he is a complete noob, I'd give him a PP. You don't interrupt the TD's ruling with your own. Ever. If he is a complete noob, I'd give him one warning.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-02, 12:17, said:

It might be nice if the law dotted every i and crossed every t. OTOH, I don't particularly want to lug around a hand truck carrying my law book.

It is not North's turn to call until and unless the TD says it is (which will depend on whether South rejects or accepts East's call out of turn). So his double is, at best, out of turn. Unless he is a complete noob, I'd give him a PP. You don't interrupt the TD's ruling with your own. Ever. If he is a complete noob, I'd give him one warning.

Law 28B uses the words "whose turn it was to call", not the words "whose turn it is to call"!

[barmar]

The dictionary definition of "assess" is:

Quote

evaluate or estimate the nature, ability, or quality of : the committee must assess the relative importance of the issues | [with clause ] it is difficult to assess whether this is a new trend.
• (usu. be assessed) calculate or estimate the price or value of : the damage was assessed at $5 billion.
• (often be assessed) set the value of a tax, fine, etc., for (a person or property) at a specified level : all empty properties will be assessed at 50 percent.

The clause that seems most analogous is the one that mentions a fine -- it's assessed when we determine the amount of the fine, NOT when the fine is paid. And that's what the TD does when he explains South's options.

[c_corgi]

It would seem strange if the laws intended "rectification has been assessed" to mean "the director has explained the options" unless it was intended to put North/South at a disadvantage for not knowing the options before the director explained them. Surely 28B should be an option to North until South decides what to do (and be included in the TD statement), or the option should expire when attention is drawn to the BOOT.

[campboy]

I don't think it is right to think of 28B as an "option". It explains what happens if North does call without saying that he may do so.

For example, if the sequence of events had been
1) bid out of turn
2) someone calls the TD
3) North doubles
4) TD arrives
then quite clearly 28B would apply but equally clearly North's action would be illegal (9B2).

[c_corgi]

campboy, on 2012-April-02, 17:01, said:

I don't think it is right to think of 28B as an "option". It explains what happens if North does call without saying that he may do so.

For example, if the sequence of events had been
1) bid out of turn
2) someone calls the TD
3) North doubles
4) TD arrives
then quite clearly 28B would apply but equally clearly North's action would be illegal (9B2).

"Option" was a poor choice of word for the second of my proposed alternatives, I should have said "opportunity" instead. The second alternative basically assumes 9B2 takes precedence over 28B and the first option assumes 28B to be an exception to 9B2. So in your example if 28B applies I don't think North's action can simultaneously be illegal under 9B2.

[blackshoe]

Okay, 28B it is. But the corgi is right - if 28B applies, then 9B2 does not, and vice-versa.

In Campboy's example, If the "correct player" had made his call before the director was called, I'd say 28B applies. However, once the director has been called, Law 9B2 should IMO apply - and "no player shall" is a pretty strong prohibition. However, in the case at hand, no player did take any action until the director was in the middle of making his ruling. So the question is whether we revert back to 28B on the grounds that the TD has stated what the next player may do in rectification — in essence he has "assessed" the rectification, even though it hasn't been "paid". Shall North now have the legal right to override whatever choice his partner might make? It does not make sense to me that he should. So I would say, and I would say it as a general rule, that Law 9B2 applies from the moment the director is called until he is done with his ruling.

What would you directors do if, when North laid down his double, he'd said something like "we don't have time for this"? Would you not consider that disrespectful to the TD and to the ruling process?