[JohnLW]

RHO opens 1C. Whilst considering whether to overcall 1S my LHO bids 1S I bring things to n immediate halt by drawing attention. The Director asks my partner whether he wants to accept the bid - he doesn't and the auction reverts to me.

Considering the 'bid' on my left I pass and LHO repeats the 1S which is now alerted and partner finds out that it shows 5 - 8 points!!

I now wished I had bid. Should I have asked? (can I ask about a non-existant bid?) should it have been alerted when made the first time?

Opinions please.

[mgoetze]

As alerts are a matter of regulation, not law, you'll have to tell us what jurisdiction this was in. That said, I'm sure some jurisdictions have failed to cover this case.

[pran]

JohnLW, on 2011-July-03, 16:29, said:

RHO opens 1C. Whilst considering whether to overcall 1S my LHO bids 1S I bring things to n immediate halt by drawing attention. The Director asks my partner whether he wants to accept the bid - he doesn't and the auction reverts to me.

Considering the 'bid' on my left I pass and LHO repeats the 1S which is now alerted and partner finds out that it shows 5 - 8 points!!

I now wished I had bid. Should I have asked? (can I ask about a non-existant bid?) should it have been alerted when made the first time?

Opinions please.

The relevant Law is:

Law 31 A said:

When the offender has called at his RHO’s turn to call, then:

1. If that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call out of rotation, and when that call is legal there is no rectification.

2. If that opponent makes a legal* bid, double or redouble, offender may make any legal call; when this call

(a) repeats the denomination of his bid out of rotation, offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23).

(b) does not repeat the denomination of his bid out of rotation, or if the call out of rotation was an artificial pass or a pass of partner’s artificial call, the lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23).

So once partner refused to accept the bid out of rotation TD should next have informed you about the choices you have and the consequences from selecting among them. Specifically you should then know that if you pass LHO must repeat his bid (regardless of what meaning it conveyed) and there would be no further rectification of any kind, while if you selected any call other than pass then the consequences could be rather severe for your opponents.

Whether you are entitled to be told the explanation of the 1♠ bid out of rotation can be questioned, personally I think you are. Technically the 1♠ bid (although now cancelled) has been made, and an explanation may therefore be requested.

But in any case I think that there is a severe TD error here if you have not been told your choices and the consequences of your selection. If you were duly informed by TD in your situation and then selected to pass I don't see how you could claim damage.

[JohnLW]

mgoetze, on 2011-July-03, 16:50, said:

As alerts are a matter of regulation, not law, you'll have to tell us what jurisdiction this was in. That said, I'm sure some jurisdictions have failed to cover this case.

Sorry - English Bridge Union

The other post makes the point of the TD supplying options. As both myself and my partner direct we were aware of our rights in this matter, however finding 'too late' that the bid was conventional was aggravating.

I possibly thought that it was a 'rub of the green' situation as I was not disadvantaged by not knowing the meaning of the bid but just unable to take advantage of what I thought was AI but in fact was unintentional A-misI; but I'm still wondering.

[wank]

i think you could ask about the 1♠ bid and the response should be something such as 'we do not have agreements pertaining to illegal bids'.

you could then rephrase the question to be 'had i passed over 1♣, what would 1♠ mean?' this is after all the most likely reason for LHO's 1♠ bid out of rotation. of course you don't know what he was really doing - maybe he thought he was opening the bidding so you might want to ask a rather long list of hypothetical questions to cover all the bases.

[mrdct]

I don't think there would be any bridge jurisdiction where a 1♠ response to a 1♣ opening showing 5-8hcp was not alertable so it is most definately an infraction by the 1♣ opener to have not alerted the 1♠ bid. Accordingly this is a Law 21B1(a) situation:

Quote

B. Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent

1. (a) Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent (see Law 17E). Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation.

As your partner hasn't called yet, I would allow you to replace your pass with a 1♠ bid and have the auction continue from there. The plot thickens though as Law 29C now comes into play as the call out of rotation was artificial. Perhaps a shortcoming in the Laws, but where the call out of rotation was artificial the basis on which partner will be barred for one round or the entire auction is whether or not your LHO repeated the denomination "specified" rather than "named". This becomes quite awkward if 1♠ only showed points not any suit. As any bid by LHO is going to be in a denomination other than the one (i.e. none) specified by the out of rotation 1♠ bid, I'm inclined to force RHO to pass for the rest of the auction.

As an aside, I think the TD has really failed badly here. It is not good enough to simply ask your partner if he wants to accept the call out of rotation - the TD must explain to the table the full implications of accepting and not accepting the bid, including the potential restrictions on the 1♣ opener that may apply. To properly explain these implications, the TD should have enquired himself as to whether or not 1♠ was conventional; particularly in this day and age where many expert partnership play a 1♠ response to a 1♣ opening as artificial (typically denying a major unless GF).

[blackshoe]

I agree with mrdct. TD's failure to get all the pertinent facts, and to explain all the options and their ramifications, is TD error. Law 82C would now apply, if the TD were called in time (i.e., before the end of the correction period in Law 79C or in regulation).

[mrdct]

Sadly, it is all too common with leads out of turn and bids out of turn for TDs (particularly amateur TDs) for the TD's opening gambit to be simply to ask the offender's LHO, "do you want to accept it in which case everything will proceed normally" and not go into all of the implications and ramifications of non-acceptance, several of which would require consulting the Laws for all but the most well-read TDs. I'm very much an amateur TD myself and don't know the Laws off by heart, so what I usually add is "if you don't accept it there will be implications for the offending side which could include bidding and/or lead restrictions particularly if <bid X> is artificial but I'd need to look that up"

[Mbodell]

You definitely can ask at your turn to bid. Asking might well create UI for your partner, however. I don't think it can be a failure to alert situation since dealer might well have not seen the out of rotation call until after attention has been drawn to the bid, and once attention is drawn to the out of rotation call I'd expect that all players should call for the TD and wait until the TD arrives to do anything else.

[blackshoe]

mrdct, on 2011-July-04, 20:27, said:

Sadly, it is all too common with leads out of turn and bids out of turn for TDs (particularly amateur TDs) for the TD's opening gambit to be simply to ask the offender's LHO, "do you want to accept it in which case everything will proceed normally" and not go into all of the implications and ramifications of non-acceptance, several of which would require consulting the Laws for all but the most well-read TDs. I'm very much an amateur TD myself and don't know the Laws off by heart, so what I usually add is "if you don't accept it there will be implications for the offending side which could include bidding and/or lead restrictions particularly if <bid X> is artificial but I'd need to look that up"

This is why we try to teach new TDs (and the older ones, if they'll listen) to always bring the law book to the table. You might well need it.

[blackshoe]

mrdct, on 2011-July-04, 20:27, said:

Sadly, it is all too common with leads out of turn and bids out of turn for TDs (particularly amateur TDs) for the TD's opening gambit to be simply to ask the offender's LHO, "do you want to accept it in which case everything will proceed normally" and not go into all of the implications and ramifications of non-acceptance, several of which would require consulting the Laws for all but the most well-read TDs. I'm very much an amateur TD myself and don't know the Laws off by heart, so what I usually add is "if you don't accept it there will be implications for the offending side which could include bidding and/or lead restrictions particularly if <bid X> is artificial but I'd need to look that up"

This is why we try to teach new TDs (and the older ones, if they'll listen) to always bring the law book to the table. You might well need it. Even when you think you don't, it's a good idea to "read it from the book".

[barmar]

I guess this is veering into "Changing Laws" territory, but it seems like the BOOT law needs something analogous to the IB law regarding the replacement being equivalent or more specific than the original. If the BOOT showed 5-8 HCP, and the offending side uses some other call to show this after interference, offender should be able to make this call without barring partner.

[mycroft]

I must admit that years in, bids out of turn I always pull out the book and work it out before I start explaining - because I do explain all the options, so the next in line knows what he's choosing between.

I will also admit that I have been known to forget to mention until too late under what circumstances there will be lead penalties if the offending side end up declaring. I'm trying to get better - and also trying to get the ruling under the 15 minutes for the round :-).

[bluejak]

I did not assume from the OP that the TD did not explain before offering: of course he should.

The problem with alerting is that the player whose turn it was to call probably jumped in before RHO could alert saying "Oi: it's my turn" or something. Few opponents would now think of alerting.

Now Law 31A2A requires a different approach dependent on whether a replacement call repeats the denomination of the call out of rotation, and Law 29C makes it clear it is the denomination specified rather than named, so the TD does need to know what suit is shown by the 1♠ bid. I suppose he should ask, though I admit I would probably say "Was it alerted?".

Certainly the player who is making the choice can enquire about methods before making his choice. However, I have sympathy if he does not in the absence of an alert.

If the TD did not find out whether 1♠ showed spades I think we rule under Director error.

[JohnLW]

Thanks to bluejak for finally 'hitting the nail on the head' with the point of the problem. Summarising - if the TD had acted correctly the meaning of the 1S would have been determined in his questioning.
Thanks again