[aguahombre]

North deals. East PASSes out of turn. We all know (I think) that if it is caught right there, the pass is retracted and dealer proceeds, etc, etc,.

We also know that if South has acted before the POOT is ratted upon, a different set of things happens.

The question: Even though it is anticipated and provided for in the Law, was South's action considered an "infraction"?

I don't have a real case, or even a Lamford to reference. But, it might matter if we conclude South might have had intent when he accidentally on purpose kept partner from being first to act.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-20, 14:22, said:

But, it might matter if we conclude South might have had intent when he accidentally on purpose kept partner from being first to act.

One problem with approaching the matter in this way is that South might have been dozy and, seeing a PASS card on his right, concluded that it was his turn to bid. Also I think that it is much better to leave the NOS alone rather than look for ways to penalise them.

[jeffford76]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-20, 14:22, said:

North deals. East PASSes out of turn. We all know (I think) that if it is caught right there, the pass is retracted and dealer proceeds, etc, etc,.

I think you're confused about what happens when East passes out of turn. Before the auction is reverted to North, South is first given the option to accept the pass (Law 29A). So of course it is not an infraction to do so.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-20, 14:22, said:

The question: Even though it is anticipated and provided for in the Law, was South's action considered an "infraction"?

jeffford76, on 2013-September-20, 14:37, said:

I think you're confused about what happens when East passes out of turn. Before the auction is reverted to North, South is first given the option to accept the pass (Law 29A). So of course it is not an infraction to do so.

No. Nor is it necessarily an infraction to do something before being given the option (which presumably requires the TD present). The only time this would be an infraction is if someone drew attention to the POOT and the director has been called. In that case, South will have infracted Law 9B2.

[mycroft]

Law 29A makes it not an infraction to call in rotation to a call out of rotation whether or not the TD is involved (interesting, that, I hadn't realized it was phrased that way - I always thought it was an infraction-with-no-possible-consequence). That doesn't invalidate Ed's comment about Law 9B2.