[chrism]

From a recent ACBL sectional tournament (reported to me second-hand, so I can provide no further clarifications):

South is dealer.
Before he has called, West passes and East bids 1NT; the two calls are simultaneous to the degree that nobody at the table can say that either came first, even by an instant. After diligently establishing these facts, how should the director proceed?

[pran]

chrism, on 2016-May-16, 05:13, said:

From a recent ACBL sectional tournament (reported to me second-hand, so I can provide no further clarifications):

South is dealer.
Before he has called, West passes and East bids 1NT; the two calls are simultaneous to the degree that nobody at the table can say that either came first, even by an instant. After diligently establishing these facts, how should the director proceed?

West has passed out of rotation before any player has called:

Law 30A said:

When a player has passed out of rotation before any player has bid the offender must pass when next it is his turn to call and Law 23 may apply.

East has opened out of rotation before any player has called:

Law 31B said:

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.

so both calls out of rotation are cancelled, South makes his first call and thereafter West must pass whenever it is his turn to call while East is free to call at his turn to call during the remainder of the auction. Law 26 applies (on West) if either North or South becomes declarer.

(I consider Law 29 void here since there are two similar and simultaneous infractions, one from each player on the same offending side. If anybody should be allowed to accept a call out of rotation under Law 29A it should be South who is in turn to call first.)

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2016-May-16, 05:32, said:

so both calls out of rotation are cancelled, South makes his first call and thereafter West must pass whenever it is his turn to call while East is free to call at his turn to call during the remainder of the auction. Law 26 applies (on West) if either North or South becomes declarer.

What about the UI considerations (16D via 25B3) on East's choice of call pran? Many players with a strong NT will guess at 3NT opposite a silenced partner. That becomes much less attractive after West's pass.

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-16, 05:54, said:

What about the UI considerations (16D via 25B3) on East's choice of call pran? Many players with a strong NT will guess at 3NT opposite a silenced partner. That becomes much less attractive after West's pass.

East's first legal call will not be a change of his cancelled illegal call so Law 25 does not in any way apply.

UI considerations can of course apply and must in case be tried after play of the board has ended. (And don't forget Law 23 on the forced passes.)

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2016-May-16, 06:03, said:

East's first legal call will not be a change of his cancelled illegal call so Law 25 does not in any way apply.

UI considerations can of course apply and must in case be tried after play of the board has ended. (And don't forget Law 23 on the forced passes.)

Say it began with 3 passes. Would you penalise an East that now chose to bid 1NT (assuming 7 or fewer tricks were available)?

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-16, 08:39, said:

Say it began with 3 passes. Would you penalise an East that now chose to bid 1NT (assuming 7 or fewer tricks were available)?

Are you serious?

I would of course not penalize East whatever legal call (including PASS) he selected to make in the passout seat, he has not committed any violation of law that justifies a penalty.

And now you question if I would penalize him for repeating the opening bid he originally made out of rotation? I cannot even imagine any situation calling for awarding an adjusted score on such reason.

[barmar]

Barring his partner basically forces him to guess the final contract. This is generally considered a sufficient penalty. Are we really going to impose a particular guess on him because of the UI from the POOT?

[nige1]

When, in a recent ACBL sectional, before the dealer (South) could call, West passed and East simultaneously bid 1N, under current law, IMO, the director should rule the board unplayable and impose a procedural penalty on East-West.

The problem is that after an illegal call, current law -- quite unnecessarily -- gives both sides options. Here, under present law, not only does the double infraction provide more UI to offenders but it also deprives non-offenders of options.

Simpler and fairer would be laws that give players (especially offenders) no options after infractions. For example, just cancel an illegal call and silence the offending side for the remainder of the auction, applying law 23, if necessary. A valuable bonus would be that more players and directors would be able to understand such rules.

[pran]

barmar, on 2016-May-16, 09:03, said:

Barring his partner basically forces him to guess the final contract. This is generally considered a sufficient penalty. Are we really going to impose a particular guess on him because of the UI from the POOT?

In this case it leaves East with the UI that West intended PASS as an opening bid. I hardly find this UI of much value to a hand that would open 1NT (assuming a natural system).

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2016-May-16, 09:12, said:

In this case it leaves East with the UI that West intended PASS as an opening bid. I hardly find this UI of much value to a hand that would open 1NT (assuming a natural system).

And I say that you are wrong in this pran. The vast majority of Easts would guess 3NT with a strong NT in this situation and I find it inconceivable that that would not be regarded as a LA. Pass from West suggests bidding less and it was a condition of the scenario that bidding less was successful, so there was damage resulting from choosing a LA suggested by UI. How is this ok?

It is worse than this too. If I am West and see that my partner is making the 1NT COOT but am too late to stop them, I can if very quick grab the pass card with a very weak hand for a "simultaneous" POOT. Now partner is much better placed than had I done nothing and there is apparently no penalty under your interpretation. And to be honest, it strikes me that this scenario is at least as likely as both East and West simultaneously misreading the dealer on the board. Whether West knowingly breached a law or not though, I do not think it is correct that such a breach should confer an advantage.

[chrism]

It is certainly convenient to ignore Law 29A but I'm not persuaded about either the legal or the equitable basis for choosing that path rather than finding a way, possibly arbitrary, to give at least one of the NOS an opportunity to accept.

Clearly(?) this situation is not addressed explicitly in the Laws, but it seems questionable to deprive both non-offenders of a right granted in the Laws because both opponents have committed an irregularity.

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-16, 09:32, said:

And I say that you are wrong in this pran. The vast majority of Easts would guess 3NT with a strong NT in this situation and I find it inconceivable that that would not be regarded as a LA. Pass from West suggests bidding less and it was a condition of the scenario that bidding less was successful, so there was damage resulting from choosing a LA suggested by UI. How is this ok?

It is worse than this too. If I am West and see that my partner is making the 1NT COOT but am too late to stop them, I can if very quick grab the pass card with a very weak hand for a "simultaneous" POOT. Now partner is much better placed than had I done nothing and there is apparently no penalty under your interpretation. And to be honest, it strikes me that this scenario is at least as likely as both East and West simultaneously misreading the dealer on the board. Whether West knowingly breached a law or not though, I do not think it is correct that such a breach should confer an advantage.

I am amazed of the ingenuity demonstrated on inventing "legal" methods for cheating.
As West you observe your partner making an opening 1NT BOOT and then manage to decide and make your own COOT so fast that nobody can determine which call was first?

I know that there are elaborate means for cheating around but I cannot see this really working?

[nige1]

pran, on 2016-May-16, 11:05, said:

I am amazed of the ingenuity demonstrated on inventing "legal" methods for cheating.As West you observe your partner making an opening 1NT BOOT and then manage to decide and make your own COOT so fast that nobody can determine which call was first?I know that there are elaborate means for cheating around but I cannot see this really working?

John Probst postulates a hypothetical "Probst Cheat", a useful construct for a director keen on arriving at just rulings. Without casting aspersions on the actual offender, who is considered to be as pure as the driven snow, the director speculates whether, for a less upright player, such behaviour is likely to be the result of unethical motives. If so, he rules in such way as to discourage the resulting infraction. Unfortunately, such an approach seems incompatible with so-called "Equity" philosophy,

[axman]

chrism, on 2016-May-16, 05:13, said:

From a recent ACBL sectional tournament (reported to me second-hand, so I can provide no further clarifications):

South is dealer.
Before he has called, West passes and East bids 1NT; the two calls are simultaneous to the degree that nobody at the table can say that either came first, even by an instant. After diligently establishing these facts, how should the director proceed?

I can think of a couple of things.

First, the law doesn't provide for untangling simultaneous COOTs if at least one of the simultaneous calls wasn't in turn.

Then it occurred to me that when someone acts OOT it ought to be handled as a case of fortune telling**- if not condoned as legal, then when it becomes his turn he must repeat it subject to any remedies for illegality that may come his way. While some may be displeased by such a tortuous path- sufficient players may tend to exercise enough caution that they will avoid traveling it.

** as in, the player took his turn early so he keeps it later; who are we to give him more turns that some one that obeys the rules?

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2016-May-16, 09:11, said:

When, in a recent ACBL sectional, before the dealer (South) could call, West passed and East simultaneously bid 1N, under current law, IMO, the director should rule the board unplayable and impose a procedural penalty on East-West.

The problem is that after an illegal call, current law -- quite unnecessarily -- gives both sides options. Here, under present law, not only does the double infraction provide more UI to offenders but it also deprives non-offenders of options.

Simpler and fairer would be laws that give players (especially offenders) no options after infractions. For example, just cancel an illegal call and silence the offending side for the remainder of the auction, applying law 23, if necessary. A valuable bonus would be that more players and directors would be able to understand such rules.

You start by saying how you think the director should rule, but you don't say which laws you're applying. Then you say the laws should be changed. Maybe so, but this is not the place for that discussion. Here, we want to know how to rule under the current laws. So tells us under which law(s) you're ruling, please.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2016-May-16, 12:33, said:

John Probst postulates a hypothetical "Probst Cheat", a useful construct for a director keen on arriving at just rulings. Without casting aspersions on the actual offender, who is considered to be as pure as the driven snow, the director speculates whether, for a less upright player, such behaviour is likely to be the result of unethical motives. If so, he rules in such way as to discourage the resulting infraction. Unfortunately, such an approach seems incompatible with so-called "Equity" philosophy,

"You have done what a cheat would do" does not sound like speculation to me.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2016-May-16, 17:26, said:

You start by saying how you think the director should rule, but you don't say which laws you're applying. Then you say the laws should be changed. Maybe so, but this is not the place for that discussion. Here, we want to know how to rule under the current laws. So tells us under which law(s) you're ruling, please.

TFLB L84D said:

The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12).

TFLB L12A2 said:

The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below)

TFLB L12C1d said:

If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score.

TFLB L12C2a said:

When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

[blackshoe]

It is not clear to me that no result can be obtained, so I don't think C2 applies. Nor do I see any justification for stopping the progress of the hand at this point.

[RMB1]

axman, on 2016-May-16, 14:29, said:

First, the law doesn't provide for untangling simultaneous COOTs if at least one of the simultaneous calls wasn't in turn.

The law doesn't provide for untangling multiple COOTS by one side if they are out of turn and non-simultaneous: if one call is accepted what happens to the other call(s).

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2016-May-16, 22:07, said:

It is not clear to me that no result can be obtained, so I don't think C2 applies. Nor do I see any justification for stopping the progress of the hand at this point.

it's unclear to me how the director can ride through this quagmire. without creating new law, on the hoof. For example, who's next to bid? or may non-offenders condone either illegal call by bidding over it? What if you judge that the double infraction is less of a handicap to offenders than a single infraction would have been?