Assessment of Rectification

Law 10 C 2 states:
‘If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner’.

What if partner pipes up with a suggested selection without being asked? He may do it unintentionally, in ignorance of the law.

How should the TD rule?

Comments

  • The first that comes to mind is the opening lead out of turn. The player piping up might have a hand full of tenaces and very much like to receive the lead. Maybe having the lead come from that side is the only way in which the contract makes.

    Another plausible one is a bid out of turn which a player very much wants his partner to reject, so that he can make his own descriptive response or opening bid.

    As far as I can see, the only avenue of redress is Law 72C. Of course, a warning or sterner penalty is appropriate since Law 10C2 is a "must" law, "a serious matter indeed".

  • It may work to treat partner's suggestion as unauthorised information. The player makes his choice but if he chooses the action suggested by partner, and it there are alternatives, and the suggestion is the more successful choice, then we could adjust.

  • But 16B1 only applies to a call or play
  • The problem with adjusting is what do you adjust to? It is not a UI or MI situation where you can go back to the last legal call or assign a result. A procedural penalty seems to be the only practical answer, if it is permissible. Is it?

  • edited June 5

    I assume you mean law 73C

    C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner
    1. When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from
    a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or
    hesitation, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any
    advantage from that unauthorized information [see Law 16B1(a)].
    2. A penalty may be assessed against a player who violates C1, but if the opponents have been
    damaged, see also Law 16B3.

    In my experience on forums this law (which is much wider ranging than 16B) is often neglected. To save a further posting, the word 'such' makes clear that this list is not exhaustive.

    Thus if a player has to make a decision and the UI (from partner's suggestion) could suggest one course of action then he must carefully avoid going down that route.

  • TagTag
    edited June 6

    No, I meant 72C. Law 10C2 indicates that it is an irregularity to consult with partner. If this leads to an advantage then 72C allows the TD to restore equity. Since 10C2 is a "must" law, a penalty is also appropriate, even if it doesn't lead to an advantage.

    Of course, you're right that UI issues also come into consideration.

Sign In or Register to comment.