[RMB1]

I think that North's actions (his statement and his double) were failures to comply with the instructions of the tournament director and not only should the decision to accept 1♦ not be allowed to be influenced by North's actions but there should be a procedural penalty.

[pran]

Back to the old fundamental principle: A specific law takes preference over a (more) general law when both seem applicable.

Law 9B2 is a general law (applicable whenever attention has been called to an irregularity) stating "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification".

Law 28B is a specific law stating "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.".

(Assessment of rectifications is handled in Law 10, and it should be clear that a rectification has been assessed (only) when the Director (and he alone) has eventually made his ruling on an irregularity.

So in this case North's double (or whatever call he makes while the Director processes the call out of turn by East) results in this call out of turn being void, and the auction continues with no other rectification than the call out of turn being subject to Law 16D2 (Unauthorized information).

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-02, 21:03, said:

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

I disagree with this. The fact that a law tells us how to deal with a specific action by North does not imply that North is permitted to take such an action. Law 28B does not contain the magic word "may".

I do not think North's call is permitted (for the reason Robin gives) but that does not affect whether law 28B applies; the only criterion is whether he acted before rectification had been assessed. Of course, it would be quite reasonable to take the view that it has been assessed since the TD has explained the options.

I find it hard to see how North could have known that forfeiting rectification was to his advantage, but there is always law 23 if he could. I think there is much more likely to be a problem if we allow South the option of letting West be silenced.

[pran]

campboy, on 2012-April-03, 04:16, said:

I disagree with this. The fact that a law tells us how to deal with a specific action by North does not imply that North is permitted to take such an action. Law 28B does not contain the magic word "may".

I do not think North's call is permitted (for the reason Robin gives) but that does not affect whether law 28B applies; the only criterion is whether he acted before rectification had been assessed. Of course, it would be quite reasonable to take the view that it has been assessed since the TD has explained the options.

I find it hard to see how North could have known that forfeiting rectification was to his advantage, but there is always law 23 if he could. I think there is much more likely to be a problem if we allow South the option of letting West be silenced.

Law 28B doesn't need to contain the word "may", it simply tells ut what happens if North calls. And what happens is that the call made by North stands, considered to be in turn, and that East's call out of turn is treated as not having been made (except that the information from this "never made" call is UI to West).

Whether or not forfeiting rectification for the call out of turn by East can be advantageous to North/South is not a relevant issue in this case. The "late" call by North is treated as a call in turn and therefore is no irregularity.

[mjj29]

pran, on 2012-April-03, 05:07, said:

Law 28B doesn't need to contain the word "may", it simply tells ut what happens if North calls. And what happens is that the call made by North stands, considered to be in turn, and that East's call out of turn is treated as not having been made (except that the information from this "never made" call is UI to West).

Whether or not forfeiting rectification for the call out of turn by East can be advantageous to North/South is not a relevant issue in this case. The "late" call by North is treated as a call in turn and therefore is no irregularity.

Indeed, but that doesn't contradict it also being a breach of L9 - continuing to bid in turn after attention has been drawn to an irregularity of some other sort and the director summoned is still a call made in turn and yet also a breach of L9. Here, I think we can apply both. L28B applies and that ends the rectification of the BOOT, however, we can still now assess any penalties for North bidding in turn, but before the director has finished - which might lead to a PP (although there's no other specific rectification), or adjust the score under L23 if appropriate.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2012-April-03, 02:01, said:

Assessment of rectifications is handled in Law 10, and it should be clear that a rectification has been assessed (only) when the Director (and he alone) has eventually made his ruling on an irregularity.

Well now. In the normal course of events, an option is offered, and then after the option is exercised, the final assessment as to penalty or otherwise is applied. So does assessment not include the stage after the option is decided?

[pran]

bluejak, on 2012-April-03, 08:14, said:

Well now. In the normal course of events, an option is offered, and then after the option is exercised, the final assessment as to penalty or otherwise is applied. So does assessment not include the stage after the option is decided?

Sure it does, have I said anything else?

The point is that North, whose turn it was to call, made his call before rectification had been assessed for the call out of rotation by East. This is the required (and sufficient) condition for Law 28B to apply.

[blackshoe]

So anyone, with no penalty, can interrupt the TD's ruling in order to do what he wants, so long as a law exists that can certainly be read as permitting him to do whatever it is before the TD is called and does not specifically prohibit him from doing so in the middle of a ruling?

I think I shall tear up my director's card.

[c_corgi]

If 9B were to be applied to 25B situations I think 25B would mention it, just as it mentions that 16D2 applies. Therefore there is no overlap, merely confusion over where the border is: when the procedure described in 10 commences or when it finishes. Since 25B refers to the the procedure of 10 in the past tense, so it seems reasonable to assume that 25B expires only when South makes his choice. In that case, surely the director should offer 25B to North before offering rectification to South. This does not seem to be part of directorial procedure though, so it may be that precedent is set in favour of the border being at the beginning of the L10 process.

[mycroft]

I would like to rule, but I can see where legally I'm on shaky ground, that North doubled at South's turn to call, and apply that Law first. Should be exciting.

I, too, would wonder at when a rectification has been assessed (I would suggest that it was when the Law was explained, not when a choice was taken - that is when the assessed rectification is exercised. But I'm Just one, and not a formal one at that).

If I am forced to rule that the double stands, then it's East's call, and there is no rectification for the bid out of turn. But N-S is on a 3-IMP handicap. Actually, N-S is on a 3-IMP handicap whether or not I rule that the double stands, if I am not 100% convinced that "South, the first option is yours. Without consultation from partner" was intelligible to North. Either he's not bothering to listen to the TD (which should be discouraged, and is a violation of Propriety), or he doesn't care about the ruling, and just wants to do things his way (which should be discouraged, and is a violation of Propriety), or he's trying to remove the decision from his partner for some reason (likely that he thinks he knows better what to do than his partner. Which isn't a violation of Propriety, but should still be discouraged, and the act itself is a violation of 9B2).

This Must Be Shown To Be Unacceptable.

[dburn]

A question you need to consider is this: when the Director arrives at the table, whose turn is it to call?

Since South is the only player who may legally call at this point, a plausible answer is "South's". But South is not actually compelled to call at this point, so an equally plausible answer is "no one's, until South makes up his mind".

It is not particularly surprising that the rest of the Laws do not appear to cover this position completely; after all, they assume that at any stage during the auction it must be someone's turn to call. But that ain't necessarily so...

[pran]

dburn, on 2012-April-03, 15:05, said:

A question you need to consider is this: when the Director arrives at the table, whose turn is it to call?

Since South is the only player who may legally call at this point, a plausible answer is "South's". But South is not actually compelled to call at this point, so an equally plausible answer is "no one's, until South makes up his mind".

It is not particularly surprising that the rest of the Laws do not appear to cover this position completely; after all, they assume that at any stage during the auction it must be someone's turn to call. But that ain't necessarily so...

The relevant question when the Director is called to a table because of a call out of turn is not "whose turn is it to call?" but "whose turn was it to call?"

(The next question is of course "who made a call out of turn?")

[jallerton]

pran, on 2012-April-03, 02:01, said:

Back to the old fundamental principle: A specific law takes preference over a (more) general law when both seem applicable.

Law 9B2 is a general law (applicable whenever attention has been called to an irregularity) stating "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification".

Law 28B is a specific law stating "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.".

(Assessment of rectifications is handled in Law 10, and it should be clear that a rectification has been assessed (only) when the Director (and he alone) has eventually made his ruling on an irregularity.

So in this case North's double (or whatever call he makes while the Director processes the call out of turn by East) results in this call out of turn being void, and the auction continues with no other rectification than the call out of turn being subject to Law 16D2 (Unauthorized information).

Law 16D2 refers to "an offending side" and "the non-offending side". Which is the non-offending side here? Or is the withdrawn 1♦ bid unauthorised to both sides?

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2012-April-03, 02:01, said:

Back to the old fundamental principle: A specific law takes preference over a (more) general law when both seem applicable.

Whilst you have repeatedly drawn attention to this principle, repeating it doesn't make it true. People repeatedly disagree with it. Which takes precedence seems to depend upon what they actually say, and even then it often remains unclear.

[pran]

jallerton, on 2012-April-03, 16:10, said:

Law 16D2 refers to "an offending side" and "the non-offending side". Which is the non-offending side here? Or is the withdrawn 1♦ bid unauthorised to both sides?

The offense is still the call out of turn by East. East-West is the offending side related to the cancellation of this call.

The (late) call by North (who was in turn to call) is still considered to be a call in turn and as such is no offense.

It is all very clear from Law 28B. You only have to read and understand that law.

[mycroft]

Once the TD is called, it sure damn is an offence - of 9B2 (actually, technically, it isn't - North waited "until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification." He just didn't wait until the rectification had been resolved and implemented. Hmm, another one for the Grattan Files, yes?) Whether we follow L28B in *resolving the issue*, that doesn't stop it from being an infraction. Doing it after the TD has told North that his partner has to make a decision "without consultation", this game is *also* violations of several Laws, not least L72A, L72B1, L73B1, and L90B8. The last of those in itself deserves the "standard procedural penalty" without even blinking.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-03, 08:54, said:

So anyone, with no penalty, can interrupt the TD's ruling in order to do what he wants, so long as a law exists that can certainly be read as permitting him to do whatever it is before the TD is called and does not specifically prohibit him from doing so in the middle of a ruling?

I think I shall tear up my director's card.

Luckily, there aren't many laws that can be interpreted as allowing this.

But I'm with you in believing that the intent was that they only applied when a player has taken action before the TD arrives.

[barmar]

pran, on 2012-April-03, 02:01, said:

Back to the old fundamental principle: A specific law takes preference over a (more) general law when both seem applicable.

I don't think this principle can always be applied. It works when you can determine that one situation is a subset of another, but when there's just overlap it's hard to say that one is really more specific than the other.

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-April-04, 11:16, said:

I don't think this principle can always be applied. It works when you can determine that one situation is a subset of another, but when there's just overlap it's hard to say that one is really more specific than the other.

But L28B is a subset of L9B or it would have said "before attention is called to a call out of rotation by an opponent" rather than "before rectification has been assessed for a call out of rotation by an opponent".

A sidepoint is that L28B only applies when the offender is an opponent of the player whose turn it was to call, never when he is his partner. So I cannot see any way the player whose turn it was to call may benefit from having Law 28B applied instead of Laws 29-32?

[barmar]

pran, on 2012-April-04, 11:48, said:

A sidepoint is that L28B only applies when the offender is an opponent of the player whose turn it was to call, never when he is his partner. So I cannot see any way the player whose turn it was to call may benefit from having Law 28B applied instead of Laws 29-32?

In that case, why disallow consultation? How can it be right that North isn't allowed to influence South's decision about whether to accept the BOOT, but then allow North to preempt the decision entirely?

Actually, it seems like North can force South NOT to accept the BOOT, but he can't force him TO accept it. But they can use this loophole to effectively transfer the decision to their partner: if a player wants his partner to refuse the BOOT, he makes a call while the TD is explaining the options; if he wants his partner to accept the BOOT, he keeps silent.