[Fluffy]

pass-1NT-pass

now responder leads ♥9, his partner takes the ♥9 puts it back and instructs him that its his turn, he says ok, and leads ♥9 again. His partner again puts the ♥9 into his hand and explains that its his turn to use the bidding box, he finally understands and bis 2♥, passed and 1NT bidder bids 2♠. At that point opponents call director.

Is the 1NT opener barred from bidding 2♠ or is he barred for the next round?, or maybe director should pick everything up till 1NT-pass and tell responder that whatever he bids it will be the last call for his side most likelly.

[RMB1]

Fluffy, on 2012-July-07, 16:09, said:

pass-1NT-pass

now responder leads ♥9, his partner takes the ♥9 puts it back and instructs him that its his turn, he says ok, and leads ♥9 again. His partner again puts the ♥9 into his hand and explains that its his turn to use the bidding box, he finally understands and bis 2♥, passed and 1NT bidder bids 2♠. At that point opponents call director.

Obviously there has been an infraction, and there is an applicable law, but should the opponents be allowed to wait for the offenders to commit further infractions (in ignorance of the law) before calling the TD?

[barmar]

Law 24 covers this. Since the card was led, Law 24B applies, and opener is barred for one round. So he shouldn't be allowed to bid 2♠.

However, Law 11A also applies. When the next player passed over the 2♥ bid, they may have forfeited their right to rectification. But the law says that this forfeiture happens when the NOS gains through this delay because the OS was ignorant of the law. It seems unlikely that this would happen in this case.

[Bbradley62]

You and both opponents get raps on the knuckles for not calling the director when ♥9 appeared the first time.

[axman]

Fluffy, on 2012-July-07, 16:09, said:

pass-1NT-pass

now responder leads ♥9, his partner takes the ♥9 puts it back and instructs him that its his turn, he says ok, and leads ♥9 again. His partner again puts the ♥9 into his hand and explains that its his turn to use the bidding box, he finally understands and bis 2♥, passed and 1NT bidder bids 2♠. At that point opponents call director.

Is the 1NT opener barred from bidding 2♠ or is he barred for the next round?, or maybe director should pick everything up till 1NT-pass and tell responder that whatever he bids it will be the last call for his side most likelly.

I'll suggest that this H9 business- whatever else it is, it is not a lead.

[fito]

I can't find any Law that allow the TD to cancel any bid. Like Barmar says, at foist glance, Law 24 covers this infraction, but now I have no other way than apply Law 11:The infraction was (in the past) to put the ♥9 on the table twice, and NOS accept to return it to the hand twice, and the bidding of 2♥, their own pass and, when the bidding is close to finish and there is no other infraction (!!!!!!) they ask for a rectification. Too, too, too late, sorry. NOS have forfeited the right to the rectification passing over 2♥; TD can't forbid the 2♠ bid, and the bidding continues.
It possible than TD may apply a procedural penally at the end of the hand, but I think it's better to go with responder to the doctor, of course at an international event, the penalty is right.

[gordontd]

axman, on 2012-July-07, 16:57, said:

I'll suggest that this H9 business- whatever else it is, it is not a lead.

You may be right, but I'm not sure we can be certain from what we've been told. I've seen players do something like this on a few occasions; sometimes they have been trying to lead, sometimes not.

I've seen a player who overheard "three diamonds" at the next table attempt to lead the ♦3 during the auction. He was making a lead by his own admission. I've also seen someone with dementia place the ♥4 on the table. He was trying to bid hearts, not make a lead.

Since the card was not an honour card, I think we need to ask the player a bit more about what he thought he was doing when he placed it on the table. If he was putting it there as an attempt to contribute it to a trick, since it would be the first card in that trick I think it would have been a lead. If (as may well be the case) he was trying to make a bid but using the wrong card to do it, then I think it would not be a lead, and we are in L24A territory.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2012-July-07, 16:23, said:

Law 24 covers this. Since the card was led, Law 24B applies, and opener is barred for one round. So he shouldn't be allowed to bid 2♠.

However, Law 11A also applies. When the next player passed over the 2♥ bid, they may have forfeited their right to rectification. But the law says that this forfeiture happens when the NOS gains through this delay because the OS was ignorant of the law. It seems unlikely that this would happen in this case.

The 2♥ bidder ought to know before bidding whether or not his partner is going to be barred from bidding. If so, it is likely that he would choose to bid spades (or NT, or pass) instead of bidding 2♥.

[barmar]

fito, on 2012-July-08, 09:52, said:

Too, too, too late, sorry. NOS have forfeited the right to the rectification passing over 2♥; TD can't forbid the 2♠ bid, and the bidding continues.

I'm not so sure. 11A says:

Quote

The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law.

The NOS probably haven't gained from this.

However, that is also just an example of when they should forfeit, not the only case. But I interpret this as describing the spirit of this law, and other cases should be similar. Do you think this situation is similar enough that they should forfeit rectification?

As you say, there's no law allowing us to roll the auction back and bar opener retroactively, so we have to allow the auction to continue. But the director can then adjust the score to what would have been achieved if proper procedure had taken place, i.e. the result of playing in 2♥.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2012-July-08, 13:31, said:

But the director can then adjust the score to what would have been achieved if proper procedure had taken place, i.e. the result of playing in 2♥.

This is not true. If proper procedure had taken place then Responder would know that their partner would be banned before bidding 2♥. It seems unlikely that they would choose to make a transfer bid under such circumstances.

[axman]

Zelandakh, on 2012-July-09, 02:21, said:

This is not true.


If proper procedure had taken place then Responder would know that their partner would be banned before bidding 2♥. It seems unlikely that they would choose to make a transfer bid under such circumstances.

Please quote chapter and verse, I am unable to locate such a passage.

[Zelandakh]

Law 24B as barmar already pointed out.

[blackshoe]

24B says "offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call".

[axman]

Zelandakh, on 2012-July-09, 06:17, said:

Law 24B as barmar already pointed out.

24B. Single Card of Honour Rank or Card Prematurely Led

If it is a single card of honour rank or is any card prematurely led offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when a pass damages the non-offending side).


The law specifies 'any card prematurely led' as a necessary condition for imposing the enforced pass. the H9 had not been led- it had been exposed under conditions that preclude calling it a lead.

[Zelandakh]

That would be for the Director to discover surely? Would you care to tell me under which law you want to rule that Responder be forced to keep their 2♥ call but Opener be banned from bidding 2♠? Or for the contract to be rolled back to 2♥? I was replying to a suggested ruling based on 24B which imho is incorrect. To rule under 24B you must also concede that Responder knows at the time of the call that their partner would be barred. Of course you might not rule under 24B at all; but that would be a completely different line wouldn't it and I see no provision in Law for the contract then to be ruled back to 2♥.

[iviehoff]

fito, on 2012-July-08, 09:52, said:

I can't find any Law that allow the TD to cancel any bid.

Law 37 - action violating obligation to pass, which says "any bid, double or redouble, by a player required by law to pass is
cancelled" (provided that LHO did not call over it).

But that only applies when an obligation to pass is in place. One might argue that although the rectification has not been read by the director, he was neverthelss under an obligation to pass beacuse of Law 24B. But against that there is Law 11A, which conveniently comes to the next point.

axman, on 2012-July-09, 05:27, said:

Please quote chapter and verse, I am unable to locate such a passage.

This is really Law 11A, which says "The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law."

Note in particular the second sentence. The implication is that a player has a right to be informed of any sanction his side lies under as a result of their irregularity, and can choose their actions accordingly. To apply that sanction following action taken in ignorance of it may be more than the offending side deserve to suffer, but it is the TD's discretion to decide that. In this situation, for a player to call in ignorance of the fact that his partner must pass is clearly not what the law intends. It is fully established that you are relieved from playing transfers, or take-out doubles, or whatever when your partner is obliged to pass.

[gordontd]

axman, on 2012-July-09, 07:43, said:

the H9 had not been led- it had been exposed under conditions that preclude calling it a lead.

This may or may not be true.

[iviehoff]

gordontd, on 2012-July-09, 08:40, said:

This may or may not be true.

Quite so. We don't know if it was led unless we ask the player why he exposed it.

[axman]

gordontd, on 2012-July-09, 08:40, said:

This may or may not be true.

As the "the H9 can not be a lead under the conditions specified" the assertion is false.

To be a lead there must first be a bid followed by 3 consecutive passes [which hasd not yet happened]:

41A. Face-down Opening Lead

After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in rotation, the defender on presumed declarer’s left makes the opening lead face down

The law goes to some effort to define lead:

Lead — the first card played to a trick.

and then trick:

Trick — the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead.

FUrther the law seems to say that once the lead is made then there can be no more bidding:

41C. Opening Lead Faced

Following this Clarification Period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably....


As such, if the H9 is a lead then the contract is 1N.

It thus would follow that if one were to argue that the contract is [or might become] other than 1N as by further bidding one must first assert that the H9 was not a lead.

[barmar]

You seem to be arguing that this can't be a lead because it happened at a time when it's not legal to make a lead, since we haven't completed the auction. But Law 24 specifically addresses such premature leads. It says that the auction continues with the premature card left on the table, but with the offender's partner barred for a round (or the rest of the auction if there are two premature cards).