[vigfus]

Pairs MP


West started the bidding with PASS. Out of turn. North did not accept it, so the pass was withdrawn according to Law 30A.
East had a problem, knowing his partner had to pass the next time it was his turn, so East bid 3NT.
The opening lead was ♥10. 11 tricks. 85% score. 4♠, making 5 gave 45% score.
L30A says that TD can use L23 to adjust score when Pass out of turn happens. Is this one of the cases to do so ?
Let us first look at East's situation. He has no good choice, and makes a gambling 3NT bid and gets very lucky when the opening lead is not ♣.
Well of course N/S were unlucky not finding the right opening lead.
I ruled that score stands. It is allowed to make crazy bids and get lucky.
But when should law 23 be used when 30A happens ?

Greetings from Iceland

Vigfus Palsson

---

This post has been edited by vigfus: 2012-January-18, 15:25

[vigfus]

here is the board

[bixby]

Law 23 applies only when the offender "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side." I find it hard to imagine a case where, looking at your cards before anyone has bid, you can tell that your side would benefit if you open out of turn and later are forced to pass and your partner is forced to make a guess knowing that you must pass at your first turn. Here, the offending side got lucky that the abnormal 3NT contract outscored the (apparently) more normal 4S contract. Score stands.

[mycroft]

It should be rare. One of the classics (that now is a specific Law) was (1♠)-1♥ replaced by double, and wow, we've got a penalty double of spades! Another one is <auction...>-4♥; 4♦ replaced by 4NT, forcing partner to pass.

Like the rest, I can't imagine a situation where an OPOOT, forcing partner to guess, could possibly be Law 23-worthy.

[Cyberyeti]

I believe psyching out of turn and changing it to a pass may well have a dim view taken by the directing staff when the NOS misbid or misplay taking the original bid at face value, but no problem in this case.

[campboy]

Situations where a player could have known that silencing himself would be advantageous are much rarer than those where he could have known that silencing his partner would be advantageous (and the OP case certainly isn't one).

One example where an adjusment under law 23 could be appropriate is if a player's pass out of turn (not accepted) prevents his partner from making an unsuccessful penalty double.

[ICEmachine]

I think there was a mistake to which law NS wanted an adjustment. NS wanted an adjustment based on 12.B.1

Stating that they got a worse score than they would have gotten if the infraction hadnt occured. Moreover because East gambled to bid 3n, South was in the dark when he had to decide what to lead (because of no EW bidding) and decided to lead ♥T instead of a ♣.

What is your view on this claim by NS?

[gordontd]

ICEmachine, on 2012-January-23, 14:01, said:

I think there was a mistake to which law NS wanted an adjustment. NS wanted an adjustment based on 12.B.1

Stating that they got a worse score than they would have gotten if the infraction hadnt occured. Moreover because East gambled to bid 3n, South was in the dark when he had to decide what to lead (because of no EW bidding) and decided to lead ♥T instead of a ♣.

What is your view on this claim by NS?

I think they should be directed to L12B2.

[ICEmachine]

gordontd, on 2012-January-23, 15:27, said:

I think they should be directed to L12B2.

You mean that the score was not a consequense to the infraction?

[FrancesHinden]

ICEmachine, on 2012-January-23, 15:48, said:

You mean that the score was not a consequense to the infraction?

No. "The Director may not aware an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side."
NS could have achieved the 'normal' result on the board by accepting the OPOOT. They chose instead to take the rectification from the laws, make East guess, and gamble that East's guess would lead to a good result for NS. That gamble worked out badly for them, but that's just bad luck.

[ICEmachine]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-January-23, 16:17, said:

No. "The Director may not aware an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side."
NS could have achieved the 'normal' result on the board by accepting the OPOOT. They chose instead to take the rectification from the laws, make East guess, and gamble that East's guess would lead to a good result for NS. That gamble worked out badly for them, but that's just bad luck.

Yes, I agree to this.

but is the pass out of turn authorised information for East? In all cases?

What is East allowed to do for his own benefit if he knows that his partner has to pass the next time he has to bid?

When would you change the score if East benefits greatly in his choice of openings knowing his partner has to pass.

And at last... isnt this law a bit stupid and is forcing EW to gamble if its their board?
Isnt it more fair and natural to change this law to TD let the board be bid and played normally and if he thinks that EW could have benefited from the pass out of turn then he should award an adjusted score?

[campboy]

ICEmachine, on 2012-January-23, 16:31, said:

Yes, I agree to this.

but is the pass out of turn authorised information for East? In all cases?

What is East allowed to do for his own benefit if he knows that his partner has to pass the next time he has to bid?

When would you change the score if East benefits greatly in his choice of openings knowing his partner has to pass.

The (withdrawn) pass out of turn is UI to East, but the fact that West is required to pass is AI to East. Since he knows his partner has to pass, he will need to punt a contract. He cannot base his choice of contract on the fact that partner does not have an opening hand. In this case he clearly has not: the UI makes it less likely that 3NT is the right spot. Had he stayed low with 3NT not making I think it would be right to adjust the score to 3NT going off.

[icearif]

Lets say east had bid 1NT pass pass pass 180 and a clear bottom when everyone in 3NT or 4S on 27 hcp - Is that fair?
Or if west had 3 hcp and 3NT - 3 ...another example of a clear bottom.
Why are the laws still like this? All because west made pass out of turn - what a crime that deserves a zero? :-)

[schulken]

Let's not forget that N had the opportunity to accept the pass out of turn, but chose not to. Hearing the uncontested auction, which I expect would have been on the order of 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3NT - 4♠ could have provided the defenders with useful information to assist in their defense. Although the rules of bridge are focused on protecting the NOS, we still must make choices. E made one and it turned out well. N made one and it turned out not so well. Next board.

[axman]

schulken, on 2012-January-24, 08:50, said:

Let's not forget that N had the opportunity to accept the pass out of turn, but chose not to. Hearing the uncontested auction, which I expect would have been on the order of 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3NT - 4♠ could have provided the defenders with useful information to assist in their defense. Although the rules of bridge are focused on protecting the NOS, we still must make choices. E made one and it turned out well. N made one and it turned out not so well.


Next board.

I concur with the last sentence as it is what the law provides.

However, it is notable that the law is designed so as to damage/disadvantage the NOS in this case.

[bluejak]

axman, on 2012-January-24, 09:34, said:

However, it is notable that the law is designed so as to damage/disadvantage the NOS in this case.

Not true. It is designed to give a the offending side a disadvantage in general since they have to guess: they will not get a bad board every time. But since that is true of every penalty, that's life. Saying it is designed to give them an advantage is demonstrably wrong.

[axman]

bluejak, on 2012-January-24, 11:38, said:

Not true. It is designed to give a the offending side a disadvantage in general since they have to guess: they will not get a bad board every time. But since that is true of every penalty, that's life. Saying it is designed to give them an advantage is demonstrably wrong.

Rubbish. All of it.

The purpose of an enforced pass is to avoid placing (immediately) a player with UI in the position of possibly be called a cheat, or, thinking he must do something idiotic to avoid being called a cheat**.

** cheat= someone with UI that appears to have made use of it

Additionally, an enforced pass affords the other side maximum elbow room [prevents being preempted] to get their bidding should they choose to.

Now. In this case the player [W] without UI is assessed an enforced pass while E, the player with UI is told to use as he wishes the of UI that partner must pass. Notice that the NOS is not given the advantage of using UI as they please.

Further, the OS has a severe unbalance of turns having taken three turns [POOT, knowledge of the enforced pass, and E’s call before the NOS taken a single turn.

[joostb1]

I don't think you should use terms like rubbish if someone explains what the reasoning is behind this law. David certainly doesn't deserve to be addressed so.
Why don't you give an outline for a change of this law which doesn't have such disadvantages as the current one has in your view?

[barmar]

The way I see it, this law is a compromise. Ideally, East shouldn't have any knowledge of his partner's offense and penalty. But if West is forced to pass, and East doesn't know it, he has practically no opportunity to overcome the disadvantage. Suppose, in particular, he has a hand matching their strong, artificial opening -- if he doesn't know that partner is required to pass, he's obliged to make this bid and play in a ridiculous contract. This is no fun for anyone, and is considered overly severe for the offense.

The compromise is that we force him to guess. His partner could have anything from a Yarborough to almost opening strength, and his distribution is totally unknown. If he guesses right, it's rub of the green and he gets to keep his good result. More likely, he'll guess wrong and get a poor score, but at least it will be a bridge result.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2012-January-24, 13:30, said:

Rubbish. All of it.

The purpose of an enforced pass is to avoid placing (immediately) a player with UI in the position of possibly be called a cheat, or, thinking he must do something idiotic to avoid being called a cheat**.

Well. You know this how?