[jhenrikj]

bluejak, on 2011-April-16, 16:19, said:

Well, if two calls are not simultaneous, I can imagine no possible reason to say that they are. According to the OP's description, they were not simultaneous.

When we have UI and MI problems i believe we just look at the effects, then discard the ones that are less favourable to the non-offending side as "no damage". I think that is what Frances is referring to.

But with these book ruling types, a lot of people have suggested over the years taking them in order they happened. It may be best, but we have no authority that I know of to tell us.

As a practical matter, suppose you consider taking them in order then taking them in reverse order. If one makes no sense at all, try doing the other and assume no-one will challenge you!

The problem when taking them in the order is that first you give west the possibility to accept south BOOT. If he does, he is still not allowed to bid, because now we have top apply 29 on north BOOT. Now east knows that west wanted to accept the first BOOT. Is that information AI? Normally East has to make his decision without consulting west, but now he has information from west....

If west actually bids after accepting 1♥ he makes another BOOT since he was not allowed to bid. Say he bids 2♦, what about law 29 now? We still have to give east the opportunity to accept 1♠. But can he do that? And if he does, he will be forced to pass what about the 2♦ bid what is the status of that? Taking the BOOT's in the order they happened will lead to absurd situations every time west wants to accept 1♥. Taking them in reverse order ends up with only perfectly normal situations so that must be preferred.

[pran]

jhenrikj, on 2011-April-17, 01:27, said:

The problem when taking them in the order is that first you give west the possibility to accept south BOOT. If he does, he is still not allowed to bid, because now we have top apply 29 on north BOOT. Now east knows that west wanted to accept the first BOOT. Is that information AI? Normally East has to make his decision without consulting west, but now he has information from west....

If west actually bids after accepting 1♥ he makes another BOOT since he was not allowed to bid. Say he bids 2♦, what about law 29 now? We still have to give east the opportunity to accept 1♠. But can he do that? And if he does, he will be forced to pass what about the 2♦ bid what is the status of that? Taking the BOOT's in the order they happened will lead to absurd situations every time west wants to accept 1♥. Taking them in reverse order ends up with only perfectly normal situations so that must be preferred.

Just one situation needs to be clarified if we first handle North's opening bid as a bid out of turn: How do we proceed if East respectively accepts or does not accept this bid?

Note that if we do consider North's opening bid as being in turn (for instance according to Law 33) then we shall have no problem; South has then made a call (bid) out of turn. With this I have no intention of entering into another discussion on what is meant by "simultaneous" in Law 33; it just appears to me that this seems to be the best solution so long as North apparently has made his "opening bid" in turn, not noticing that another player has already called out of turn. (Had East been the first offender then Law 28B would clearly have been applicable, and North would not have infracted any law at all.)

[campboy]

pran, on 2011-April-17, 01:46, said:

Note that if we do consider North's opening bid as being in turn (for instance according to Law 33) then we shall have no problem; South has then made a call (bid) out of turn. With this I have no intention of entering into another discussion on what is meant by "simultaneous" in Law 33; it just appears to me that this seems to be the best solution so long as North apparently has made his "opening bid" in turn, not noticing that another player has already called out of turn. (Had East been the first offender then Law 28B would clearly have been applicable, and North would not have infracted any law at all.)

On the contrary, this seems to be the worst solution to me; it would enable an unscrupulous player to gain an advantage by pretending not to have seen his partner's BOOT.

[pran]

campboy, on 2011-April-17, 07:20, said:

pran said:

Note that if we do consider North's opening bid as being in turn (for instance according to Law 33) then we shall have no problem; South has then made a call (bid) out of turn. With this I have no intention of entering into another discussion on what is meant by "simultaneous" in Law 33; it just appears to me that this seems to be the best solution so long as North apparently has made his "opening bid" in turn, not noticing that another player has already called out of turn. (Had East been the first offender then Law 28B would clearly have been applicable, and North would not have infracted any law at all.)

On the contrary, this seems to be the worst solution to me; it would enable an unscrupulous player to gain an advantage by pretending not to have seen his partner's BOOT.

I assume players are honest until I have real reson for the opposite assumption. (And God help the player who pretends not having seen his partner's BOOT. With my experience I expect never to be fooled by that.)

[jhenrikj]

pran, on 2011-April-17, 01:46, said:

Just one situation needs to be clarified if we first handle North's opening bid as a bid out of turn: How do we proceed if East respectively accepts or does not accept this bid?

If East accepts the bidding just continues without any rectification. If he does not accept, the bidding goes back to west who can accept the Boot from south. If west accepts we are free to apply law 31 on north since we've already applied 29. If west does not accept south Boot the bidding goes back to north who is forced to pass. There will be no problems at all.