Home EBU TDs

OLOOT - misled by bidding cards

The other current thread on OLOOT made me wonder about this.

If a defender is mislead into making an opening lead out of turn by (presumed) declarer having removed their bidding cards prematurely (contrary to BB3ZC1), is it still subject to rectification, or (like Law 47E1) can it be withdrawn without penalty, and not accepted by LHO?

On a more general point, how are BB regulations dealt with when transgression requires rectification rather than just (say) a procedural penalty?

Comments

  • edited January 2019

    I think the player should still follow the auction enough to know who is on lead, or else ask. Having only part of an auction displayed does not of itself (mis)inform as to who is on lead.

    I'm not sure what you are asking in your second final paragraph. Can you give an example?

    [edited to clarify]

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    I think the player should still follow the auction enough to know who is on lead, or else ask. Having only part of an auction displayed does not of itself (mis)inform as to who is on lead.

    If I have not been following the auction and a member of the declaring side picks up his cards prematurely, I usually ask them to put them back.

  • If you haven't been following the auction then Law 74 applies

    B. Etiquette
    As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:
    1. paying insufficient attention to the game.

    .
    Although whether this falls under BB@B or comes under an irregularity I am not sure.

  • @weejonnie said:
    If you haven't been following the auction then Law 74 applies

    B. Etiquette
    As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:
    1. paying insufficient attention to the game.

    Point taken, but if (for example) the opponents are having a lengthy uncontested auction and I know I am going to want to ask questions at the end, I don't tend to waste mental energy by trying to work out what is going on while it is going on. If they then put their bidding cards away before I can look at the complete auction and ask what I want to know, I know who I think has been guilty of discourtesy!

  • What is sufficient depends on context :)

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    I'm not sure what you are asking in your final paragraph. Can you give an example?

    I was wondering about situation where the penalty is a procedural penalty but the opponents have been harmed.

    Let's take playing an illegal agreement. Offenders may get penalised, but (assuming the offence has given offenders an advantage), where is the restitution for the opposition? Is it under Law12A: Power to award an adjusted score?

    Taking it one step further, if N opens, S alerts and E asks. E determines from the explanation that this is an illegal agreement. Can the director force the opening bid to be withdrawn?

  • @JeremyChild said:

    @gordonrainsford said:
    I'm not sure what you are asking in your final paragraph. Can you give an example?

    I was wondering about situation where the penalty is a procedural penalty but the opponents have been harmed.

    Let's take playing an illegal agreement. Offenders may get penalised, but (assuming the offence has given offenders an advantage), where is the restitution for the opposition? Is it under Law12A: Power to award an adjusted score?

    Taking it one step further, if N opens, S alerts and E asks. E determines from the explanation that this is an illegal agreement. Can the director force the opening bid to be withdrawn?

    The adjustment for an illegal agreement is to cancel the board and award an artificial score of Av+/Av-, unless the non-offending side already got a better result than that at the table. So the answer to your final question is that we allow the board to be completed, standing ready to award an artificial adjusted score if necessary.

Sign In or Register to comment.