[Rossoneri]

Some of you might have seen the poll I did: What would you open?

This occurred in a pairs tournament I was directing last week. West was dealer, and East opened 1♠ out of turn. However, West did not see and tried to open in turn, although he retracted his bid when he realised what had happened. I was called and arrived at the table (from an angle behind West) just as West was retracting his bid of 1NT. However, no one else at the table saw what West was trying to bid. West had a balanced 15 count.

I asked, "What's going on?" and West said, "Nothing, nothing." North then explained that East had bid out of turn at his partner's turn to bid.

Having explained all the options, South rejected the bid out of turn and the bidding reverted back to West with an enforced pass. Now North passed, and East pulled out 4♠. This was cold for 11 tricks, but NS allowed him to make 12.

I was called back to table. After further consultation with a colleague, we both decided to adjust to score to 2♠+4 instead as 4♠ was demonstrably suggested by the UI.

Comments?

Edit: Argh, I've placed this in the wrong forum by mistake, could a moderator help me move it please? Sorry for the trouble!

This post has been edited by Rossoneri: 2011-August-11, 22:14

[campboy]

There is some controversy over what happens in the case where a player bids at his partner's turn to call and his partner subsequently bids before rectification is assessed. The laws do not provide a clear answer; see this topic for a discussion. Note the use of the word "subsequently" above; if the two bids happened simultaneously then we rule as though the one in turn happened first.

If the 1NT is withdrawn and West silenced (this seems right to me if oppo reject the BOOT) then the TD needs to make sure that East knows that 1NT is UI. I agree with your adjustment; 4♠ is suggested and 2♠ is an LA.

[Flameous]

I think this mostly comes around whether he might have really seen wests 1NT bid. If east just saw that west was going to bid something, I don't think that suggests one way or the other, for all he knows W could have reached for 2H or something.
Based on the poll in the other thread, 4S seems to be the most popular choice even absent any extra information. I think it's a bit aggressive at MPs but totally reasonable.
I don't quite see where you get this "demonstrably suggested by the UI"

[Mbodell]

 Flameous, on 2011-August-12, 01:45, said:

I don't quite see where you get this "demonstrably suggested by the UI"

If E saw only that W tried to make some call (including pass as a possibility) then there is nothing suggested.

If E saw only that W tried to make some bid (not a pass) then a more agressive action is suggested, and based on the poll all of 1♠, 2♠, and 4♠ are LA. So I think you can enforce the weaker option.

If E saw W tried to bid a strong nt then 4♠ is demonstrably clear, so again the weaker 1 or 2 ♠ seems like it would be the LA not demonstrably suggested by the UI.

[campboy]

 Flameous, on 2011-August-12, 01:45, said:

If east just saw that west was going to bid something, I don't think that suggests one way or the other, for all he knows W could have reached for 2H or something.

Surely it will be clear that West was trying to bid at the one level since he didn't use the stop card.

[whereagles]

Rossoneri, just copy-paste your post into the laws forum.

As to the case, check the laws to see whether the UI that West was about to bid at the 1 level is non-authorized (can't remember by heart). If so, seems like adjusting to 2S +whatever is normal. If not, 4S should stand.