[lamford]

---

Dealer South, Love All

The above board caused a kerfuffle at a nearby club. North opened a 15-17 NT out of turn, and South bellowed, "Pay attention, partner, I'm dealer". The director was called and he initially ruled that if South and West passed, the auction would continue. West was not happy with that and made the TD get the Law Book. Finally the TD ruled that, if East did not accept the bid - which he did not, South had to pass throughout. North took a shot at 3NT, and was pleased to see that 4S would have failed. East, our friend who looks like the SB, was not happy. He said that North had UI from his partner's protestation, as South would not have been as annoyed if he had held a balanced 4-count, and the 3NT bid used this UI. He was aware that the fact 4S failed was rub of the green, but he argued that Pass was an LA on the North hand. North quoted 10C4:

4. Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50).

He pointed out that this made no mention of Law 73, although it did mention three other laws, so he argued that any bid was permitted by North. He also pointed out that Law 16D2 only made information from withdrawn calls and plays UI, and the remark was neither. East argued that even though there was a specific law which covered the rectification, Law 73 always applied. How do you rule? And, yes this incident is broadly true, believe it or not.

[billw55]

Results stands. South's remark does not imply anything in particular. East would say the same thing no matter what south held.

[mink]

Does "Pay attention, partner, I'm dealer" carry any other information than the wish to draw attention to the irregularity and the discontent with the fact that the partner did not pay attention? I would say, it doesn't. Therefore, North is not restricted and did chose a lucky call.

Karl

[Vampyr]

mink, on 2013-March-29, 12:23, said:

Does "Pay attention, partner, I'm dealer" carry any other information than the wish to draw attention to the irregularity and the discontent with the fact that the partner did not pay attention? I would say, it doesn't.

I strongly disagree. It would be interesting to know whether the player normally contents himself with "director please" when there is an irregularity at the table. I suspect he does; don't most people?

[ggwhiz]

East should be shot. He rightfully painted them into a corner by not accepting the 1nt bid forcing them to guess and then waits for the final result to protest that they guessed right. Is this not a triple shot?

I once had the nearly identical auction but I opened 2nt in 3rd chair. After my lho barred my pard it went p - p - and I bid 3nt into his balan ced 19 count.

[Vampyr]

ggwhiz, on 2013-March-29, 17:13, said:

East should be shot. He rightfully painted them into a corner by not accepting the 1nt bid forcing them to guess and then waits for the final result to protest that they guessed right. Is this not a triple shot?

Should East accept a bid out of turn when he judges it is not in his best interest? Why, because he is a nice guy? Of course he would prefer for them to guess. And it's not the fact that they guessed right that upset him, but the fact that his opponents exchanged extraneous information.

Quote

After my lho barred my pard it went p - p -

This is very irregular; only the director can bar a player.

Quote

and I bid 3nt into his balanced 19 count.

LOL! (Well it's funny now, but I'll bet it was painful at the time!)

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-29, 14:24, said:

I strongly disagree. It would be interesting to know whether the player normally contents himself with "director please" when there is an irregularity at the table. I suspect he does; don't most people?

No, most people don't. Not around here anyway. Besides, either way, the comment, while extraneous, conveys no UI; it conveys no I at all, except that the player is annoyed with his partner. Also, a one way transmission is hardly an 'exchange'.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-29, 21:39, said:

No, most people don't. Not around here anyway. Besides, either way, the comment, while extraneous, conveys no UI; it conveys no I at all, except that the player is annoyed with his partner. Also, a one way transmission is hardly an 'exchange'.

I really think that a person would make an outburst like that only if he had an opening bid himself.

Also, since the OP is in EBUland, we can work with the assumption that "director please" is normally about the extent of the comments made before the director arrives.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-29, 22:03, said:

Also, since the OP is in EBUland, we can work with the assumption that "director please" is normally about the extent of the comments made before the director arrives.

Oh, players in EBUland are never annoyed when their partner bids out of turn? In EBUland players always only say "director please", and never point out to the table what the irregularity is? In EBUland players never try to prevent partner from committing an irregularity or, if they do so, they are always fast enough?

I can only talk about myself, but:

• I do get annoyed* when partner bids out of turn, irrespective of my hand. I don't get annoyed because this might cost us points, but because it disrupts the normal way the game is played.
  
• I usually will point out what the irregularity is (particularly in technical cases) before I call the TD.
  
• If I see that my partner is going to bid out of turn, I will say something to try and stop him and I will be too late some of the time.

Rik

* However, it is very rare that I will show my annoyance.

[gordontd]

If one were to accept that the comment provided UI demonstrably suggesting bidding 3NT (which I do not), I think a poll of players who were asked what they would call if they knew that their partner was barred, but not for what reason, would find that pass is not a logical alternative.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-29, 18:32, said:

Of course he would prefer for them to guess.

There are those who would prefer that their opponents do not have to guess, to have a normal bridge auction, so as to avoid the risk of outcomes such as this.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2013-March-30, 03:05, said:

There are those who would prefer that their opponents do not have to guess, to have a normal bridge auction, so as to avoid the risk of outcomes such as this.

OK, but that ship has sailed. A normal bridge auction is no longer possible.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-29, 18:32, said:

This is very irregular; only the director can bar a player.

If you know that not accepting the BOOT will require the TD to bar LHO, then you are barring him by not accepting. It's indirect, but just as causative.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-March-30, 10:13, said:

If you know that not accepting the BOOT will require the TD to bar LHO, then you are barring him by not accepting. It's indirect, but just as causative.

Well, yes. The other poster wrote that the opponent barred the player as if he were attaching blame for some kind of wrong behaviour.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-30, 10:20, said:

Well, yes. The other poster wrote that the opponent barred the player as if he were attaching blame for some kind of wrong behaviour.

That's not how I interpreted it. I thought he was just giving an example of the opposite result of what happened in the OP. When you bar an opponent, you should know that the other opponent is forced to make a guess. Sometimes he'll guess wrong, and you'll win; but if he guesses right, that's rub of the green.

Hence, result stands, unless the TD believes that the offending player could have known that he'd get a better result with his partner barred, or that the UI in a situation like this one helped him guess correctly.

To me, an exclamation like "Pay attention, partner!" sounds more like exasperation from a series of mistakes in the session, not suggestive of his holding on this hand.

[lalldonn]

No UI, pointing out an irregularity doesn't suggest anything about your hand. Many/most people would point it out without even thinking about what they hold. I'm surprised to see anyone feels differently.

Btw it's also been my experience that when holding a strong notrump or better and partner is barred, the player always opens 3NT anyway. I don't recall ever seeing anyone do otherwise.

[Vampyr]

lalldonn, on 2013-March-30, 11:15, said:

Btw it's also been my experience that when holding a strong notrump or better and partner is barred, the player always opens 3NT anyway. I don't recall ever seeing anyone do otherwise.

This is true (well I have seen one exception), and it is one of the reasons I am uncomfortable about this whole thing regardless of any UI, because I feel that getting to 3NT instead of the doomed 4♠ is related to the infraction.

[lalldonn]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-30, 13:24, said:

This is true (well I have seen one exception), and it is one of the reasons I am uncomfortable about this whole thing regardless of any UI, because I feel that getting to 3NT instead of the doomed 4♠ is related to the infraction.

I don't understand what you are saying with that comment. Are you suggesting he opened out of turn in hopes his partner would be barred so he could guess to open 3NT? Or are you making a legal point that you shouldn't be able to gain from an infraction?

[aguahombre]

Anyone remember the Ron Andersen story? He was known for reading opponents' tells. In 4th chair, he opened 2NT when it was lefty's deal. The bidding reverted to Lefty, who passed his 19-count as dealer, and after two more passes, Ron folded up his garbage hand (less than 6 pts).

Anyway, it has been told so many times it might be true.

[Vampyr]

lalldonn, on 2013-March-30, 14:14, said:

I don't understand what you are saying with that comment. Are you suggesting he opened out of turn in hopes his partner would be barred so he could guess to open 3NT? Or are you making a legal point that you shouldn't be able to gain from an infraction?

The latter, though I am aware that legally one can gain here, unlike if the infraction had been an insufficient bid. Perhaps it is fair enough, since you were already penalised by having to guess.