[nige1]

Unable to find the answer to this Chicago (4-deal bridge) problem on the net
Please provide an answer or a link.
You are playing the version where, normally, the dealing side is vulnerable on hands 2 and 3.
Opponents dealt and your side scored a non-vul game on the 2nd deal

The 3rd deal is complete, we all look at our cards and the dealer passes.
You pick up a power-house but discover that RHO dealt when it should have been your deal..

• Should the deal stand? IMO yes
• What should the vulnerability be? IMO, to restore equity it would seem that our side should be vulnerable, giving each side 2 out of 4 deals as vulnerable.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2015-September-23, 08:54, said:

Unable to find the answer to this Chicago (4-deal bridge) problem on the net
Please provide an answer or a link.
You are playing the version where, normally, the dealing side is vulnerable in hands 2 and 3.
Opponents dealt and your side scored a non-vul game on the 2nd deal

The 3rd deal is complete, we all look at our cards and the dealer passes.
You pick up a powe-house but discover that RHO dealt when it should have been your deal..

• Should the deal stand, IMO yes
• What should the vulnerability be? IMO, to restore equity it would seem our side should be vulnerable, giving each side 2 out of 4 deals as vulnerable.

It is not uncommon to deal for another player. So it should be decided that this is what happened here. The person who actually dealt the cards has passed out of turn, and the vulnerability is whatever it would have been in the normal sequence.

[gordontd]

Appendix 4 of the Rubber Bridge Laws covers Chicago, and there you will find:

Quote

G. Deal out of Turn
When a player deals out of turn, and there is no right to a redeal, the player who should have dealt retains his right to call first, but such right is lost if it is not claimed before the actual dealer calls. If the actual dealer calls before attention is drawn to the deal out of turn, each player thereafter calls in rotation. Vulnerability and scoring values are determined by the position of the player who should have dealt, regardless of which players actually dealt or called first. Neither the rotation of the deal nor the scoring is affected by a deal out of turn. The next dealer is the player who would have dealt next if the deal had been in turn.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2015-September-23, 09:34, said:

Appendix 4 of the Rubber Bridge Laws covers Chicago...

Thank you Gordon. The player who asked me to post this question also says that your answer is good.