[jhenrikj]

North is dealer. South opens 1♥. West pauses a few seconds thinking of an overcall, not realizing that south bid out of rotation. Now north opens 1♠ not noticing south already opened. West calls the declarer.

Now what? The bids are not simultaneous so law 33 does not apply. 28B does also not apply since it only applies when opponents made a call out of rotation, not if partner did.

Is north's 1♠ a call out of rotation? Yes I think so, because after south has made a call west has to be considered as the player next in turn. Therefore, we give east the opportunity to accept the 1♠, if he doesn't west gets the possibility to accept the 1♥ from south. If he does, we apply 31A on the 1♠. If west does not accept 1♥ the bidding reverts to north who is forced to pass. East passes. South should be free to bid but he is under heavy restrictions from 16D2 from the withdrawn 1♠ so there are few other LA accepted other then opening 1♥. Law 26 applies for any withdrawn bid.

Any other idéas?

[Vampyr]

jhenrikj, on 2011-April-12, 03:55, said:

Now what? The bids are not simultaneous so law 33 does not apply.

Can two bids really be simultaneous? Can two events of any kind really be simultaneous? I think I would apply L33.

[pran]

jhenrikj, on 2011-April-12, 03:55, said:

North is dealer. South opens 1♥. West pauses a few seconds thinking of an overcall, not realizing that south bid out of rotation. Now north opens 1♠ not noticing south already opened. West calls the declarer.

Now what? The bids are not simultaneous so law 33 does not apply. 28B does also not apply since it only applies when opponents made a call out of rotation, not if partner did.

Is north's 1♠ a call out of rotation? Yes I think so, because after south has made a call west has to be considered as the player next in turn. Therefore, we give east the opportunity to accept the 1♠, if he doesn't west gets the possibility to accept the 1♥ from south. If he does, we apply 31A on the 1♠. If west does not accept 1♥ the bidding reverts to north who is forced to pass. East passes. South should be free to bid but he is under heavy restrictions from 16D2 from the withdrawn 1♠ so there are few other LA accepted other then opening 1♥. Law 26 applies for any withdrawn bid.

Any other idéas?

If North, when he made his opening bid, genuinly was unaware that South had already opened (out of turn) and West has not yet made any call then Law 33 does indeed apply. There is no specific time limit for two calls to be considered being simultaneous.

[campboy]

I think it is possible for two calls to be simultaneous in the ordinary meaning of the word: since a call takes some nonzero time to make, two calls can be in the process of being made at the same time. These calls, on the other hand, weren't made simultaneously by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't know what the right answer is, but the OP's suggestion looks plausible to me.

[RMB1]

Two bridge events are effectively simultaneous if no one observed one to happen before the other. Two events can be treated as simultaneous if there was not time for either to have happened as a reaction to the other.

It has been observed that the laws do not deal well with multiple infractions (by the same side): it is best to try and unwind the various infractions until we get back to something that is covered by the law and using Law 16C for other withdrawn actions. In such circumstances, I was advised some time ago to find a law that can be made to fit and apply it clearly and confidently: an appeals committee (and higher bodies) will not object.

In this case, I would give East the option of accepting both bids out of rotation and the have the auction continue from East. Otherwise North's bid is cancelled and West can accept South's call out of rotation, and apply Law 31A to North. Otherwise, if neither bid out of rotation is accepted, we apply Law 31B to South's bid out of rotation: North is silenced and South can make any call at his turn, but South has unauthorised information from North's withdrawn call.

[axman]

RMB1, on 2011-April-12, 06:20, said:

Two bridge events are effectively simultaneous if no one observed one to happen before the other. Two events can be treated as simultaneous if there was not time for either to have happened as a reaction to the other.

It is propriety that is relied upon to settle such matters, which is to say, do all who were there say as to what happened; rather than what they perceive to be their best interest irrespective as to actuality. Unfortunately, it is the latter that frequently prevails.

I suggest that the best approach is for an unbiased adjudicator [TD] if unable to [after investigation] distinguish who acted first will then judge that the player whose turn would have arrived first to have acted first. However, this is highly argumentative under TFLB2008 given the lack of specification of when a turn begins and when it ends.

[iviehoff]

Like RMB, I think there is no basis to treat them as simultaneous.

It is also a common approach to multiple infractions to deal with them in the order they occurred, if that is possible. I think this is more usual than working back from the most recent infraction. In the present case, we get a sensible outcome, and also it avoids RMB's first rather novel approach not really supported by the laws of offering both bids to East.

So I would first ask West in relation to South's call out of rotation. If West refuses it, then North's call is now in rotation, but is an inadmissible call because it is not the pass he is required to make. So it is replaced with a pass, and warnings about UI made to South, and possible lead restrictions later if EW declare. If West accepts South's call, now North's call is out of rotation, and can be dealt with in the standard fashion. These consequences should be explained to West.

[WellSpyder]

It feels like you can make a case for either first offering West the chance to accept South's bid (iviehoff's approach) or first offering East the chance to accept North's bid (RMB's approach). The reason I prefer the latter is because it makes it simple to deal with a bid from East over North's bid - this just means East has accepted North's BOOT and that is an end to it all. With the alternative approach this becomes yet another BOOT!

[jhenrikj]

iviehoff, on 2011-April-12, 09:12, said:

Like RMB, I think there is no basis to treat them as simultaneous.

It is also a common approach to multiple infractions to deal with them in the order they occurred, if that is possible. I think this is more usual than working back from the most recent infraction. In the present case, we get a sensible outcome, and also it avoids RMB's first rather novel approach not really supported by the laws of offering both bids to East.

So I would first ask West in relation to South's call out of rotation. If West refuses it, then North's call is now in rotation, but is an inadmissible call because it is not the pass he is required to make. So it is replaced with a pass, and warnings about UI made to South, and possible lead restrictions later if EW declare. If West accepts South's call, now North's call is out of rotation, and can be dealt with in the standard fashion. These consequences should be explained to West.

If you use that approach, both north and south is forced to pass the entire auction if west decides not to accept 1♥ (37B1, 37B2).

And we do not offer east the possibility to accept both bids, we only give him the opportunity to accept the 1♠. That is supported by the law.

[iviehoff]

jhenrikj, on 2011-April-12, 09:46, said:

If you use that approach, both north and south is forced to pass the entire auction if west decides not to accept 1♥ (37B1, 37B2).

So be it. That isn't an unfortunate collision of two rulings, it is precisely what 37B2 anticipates if a player calls when required to pass because of his partner's call out of turn.

jhenrikj, on 2011-April-12, 09:46, said:

And we do not offer east the possibility to accept both bids, we only give him the opportunity to accept the 1♠. That is supported by the law.

Not really. North's call is only out of rotation if South's call is part of the legal auction, which can only happen if West has chosen the option of accepting South's call. Look at 28B (call by correct player cancelling out call out of rotation), where the call of the correct player following a call out of rotation is treated as in rotation.

The provisions of 28B, allowing the call out of rotation to be cancelled, can't really be extended to partners as opposed to opponents. Given that 28B exists, it is perhaps odd that the laws don't explicitly tell us what to do in the present situation.

Edited for clarity

[iviehoff]

WellSpyder, on 2011-April-12, 09:24, said:

The reason I prefer the latter is because it makes it simple to deal with a bid from East over North's bid - this just means East has accepted North's BOOT and that is an end to it all.

What are you doing about South's call? Are you ruling that it is part of the legal auction or not? On what basis?

[jhenrikj]

Lets look at 28B again. 28B applies only when we have a BOOT followed by a bid from the player who should have been in turn but now in fact bids out of rotation. Then law 28 says that in some cases the latter bid even though it is out of rotation can be treated as in rotation if some criteria are met. In this case those criteria is not met so we can't treat north 1♠ as in rotation. If it's not in rotation, it must be out of rotation, there is no third state in between being in or out of rotation.

So regardless of what south has bid legal or not north 1♠ is BOOT and we apply law 29.

I'll give you another example: North opens 1♠, east overcalls 1♣(intended call), west passes out of turn. Now iviehoff says that we should deal with the irregularities in the order they appear, that is we have to deal with the unsufficient bid before we deal with the pass out of rotation. This must surely be wrong. The two irregularities combined has given north the possibility to accept the pass out of rotation and bid over the sufficient bid 1♣ and be able to bid 1♥ or perhaps showing strong cards with 2♥. We can't deprive north of that possibility. North has the option to accept the pass out of rotation thereby forfeiting his right to any other rectification of irregularities happened before the call out of rotation. That's exactly the same option we give east in the OP. If he accepts 1♠ he forfeits his right to any rectification and therefore 1♥ becomes part of the legal auction.

[iviehoff]

jhenrikj, on 2011-April-13, 02:19, said:

Lets look at 28B again. 28B applies only when we have a BOOT followed by a bid from the player who should have been in turn but now in fact bids out of rotation. Then law 28 says that in some cases the latter bid even though it is out of rotation can be treated as in rotation if some criteria are met. In this case those criteria is not met so we can't treat north 1♠ as in rotation.

I realise that the criteria of 28B aren't met, that is why the out of rotation call by S cannot be cancelled without penalty. Nevertheless it is evident that 28B treats a call by the correct player as in rotation. That is the analogy I wished to present. But it doesn't matter. The key point is that you cannot say that N's call is out of rotation unless you say that S's call is part of the legal auction, which it isn't until S's call is accepted by W. It is inconsistent to temporarily say that S's call is part of the legal auction, deal with N's call as if it is out of rotation, and then attempt to discover whether S's call is part of the legal auction or not.

jhenrikj, on 2011-April-13, 02:19, said:

I'll give you another example: North opens 1♠, east overcalls 1♣(intended call), west passes out of turn. Now iviehoff says that we should deal with the irregularities in the order they appear, that is we have to deal with the unsufficient bid before we deal with the pass out of rotation. This must surely be wrong. The two irregularities combined has given north the possibility to accept the pass out of rotation and bid over the sufficient bid 1♣ and be able to bid 1♥ or perhaps showing strong cards with 2♥. We can't deprive north of that possibility. North has the option to accept the pass out of rotation thereby forfeiting his right to any other rectification of irregularities happened before the call out of rotation. That's exactly the same option we give east in the OP. If he accepts 1♠ he forfeits his right to any rectification and therefore 1♥ becomes part of the legal auction.

South has the right to accept or reject the insufficient bid, not North.

Taking action in advance of rectification (thus forfeiting the right to rectification) is not a right, it is itself an irregularity. Bidding over an insufficient/inadmissible bid or call out of rotation thus accepting it is fine when the TD gives you that option in accordance with the options explicitly available to you at law, it is an irregularity if you just do it yourself, although the laws tell us what to do in the case of such an irregularity.

I assert it is correct to deal with them in the order in which they occurred so long as it is practical to do so. The rectification of the insufficient bid may place restrictions on W, and we need to know that before we can deal properly with his pass out of rotation. Works fine.

I'm sure Bluejak will be along soon to corroborate the idea that it is usually best to deal with them in the order in which they occur, so long as it is practical to do so. Anyway, I'm off on holiday shortly to a place with no comms, so no more comments from me for a while, you'll be pleased to hear no doubt.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2011-April-12, 05:40, said:

There is no specific time limit for two calls to be considered being simultaneous.

Apart from the meaning of the word.

[WellSpyder]

iviehoff, on 2011-April-13, 04:37, said:

I'm sure Bluejak will be along soon to corroborate the idea that it is usually best to deal with them in the order in which they occur, so long as it is practical to do so.

Bluejak will speak for himself, of course, as he always does, but I'm sure we have had a discussion before about dealing with multiple infractions, and I thought I remembered a consensus that dealing with them in reverse order as far as possible was often the most practical approach.

[blackshoe]

In an old thread in, I think, "General Bridge Discussion", I said that we should take multiple infractions in chronological order. France Hinden replied

Quote

The English approach is slightly different when there have been multiple infractions by one side. We look at all of them, and 'stop the clock' at the point when the offending side are worst off.

We seem to have then come to a consensus in that particular case to use Frances' approach. David, however, did not post in that thread, so I don't know if he'd agree. In other threads where the question of multiple infractions came up, there was no consensus, and David suggested at least once that there is no guidance and the TD is just going to have to do the best he can.

[gordontd]

As has often been noted, the laws don't deal well with multiple infractions.

I'd start at the beginning: South has bid out of turn, and West may elect to call (L29A). If West does so, North has bid out of turn (it's now West's turn to call) and is subject to L31A.

Quote

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).

If West does not elect to call, South is subject to L31B, which bars North from bidding.

Quote

When the offender has bid at his partner’s turn to call, or at his LHO’s turn
to call, if the offender has not previously called, offender’s partner must
pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the
non-offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply.

North's 1♠ bid would therefore be an inadmissible call and be subject to L37, which may lead us to L23 & L26.

Quote

A. Offender’s LHO Calls before Rectification
If the inadmissible call was a bid or a double or redouble by a player required
by law to pass (but not an action contrary to Law 19A1 or Law 19B1) and
offender’s LHO calls before the Director has ruled on rectification, that call
and all subsequent calls stand. If the offender was required to pass for the
remainder of the auction he must still pass at subsequent turns. The lead
restrictions in Law 26 do not apply.
B. Offender’s LHO does not Call before Rectification
When A does not apply:
1. any bid, double or redouble, by a player required by law to pass is
cancelled.
2. a pass is substituted, the auction continues and each member of the
offending side must pass whenever it is his turn to call. Law 23 may
apply. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply.

I seem to remember a similar problem, either here or on its predecessor on Bridgetalk, where I suggested something like this but was accused of "temporal re-ordering". However, I can't find the thread so I could be mistaken about the similarity.

[blackshoe]

I don't think this thread belongs in "Simple Rulings", so I'm going to move it.

[jh51]

gordontd, on 2011-April-13, 07:36, said:

I seem to remember a similar problem, either here or on its predecessor on Bridgetalk, where I suggested something like this but was accused of "temporal re-ordering".

Sounds like a problem for Doctor who and the TARDIS.

I aplogize in advance for having made an off-topic remark, but I felt compelled to do so.

[bluejak]

Well, if two calls are not simultaneous, I can imagine no possible reason to say that they are. According to the OP's description, they were not simultaneous.

When we have UI and MI problems i believe we just look at the effects, then discard the ones that are less favourable to the non-offending side as "no damage". I think that is what Frances is referring to.

But with these book ruling types, a lot of people have suggested over the years taking them in order they happened. It may be best, but we have no authority that I know of to tell us.

As a practical matter, suppose you consider taking them in order then taking them in reverse order. If one makes no sense at all, try doing the other and assume no-one will challenge you!