[gnasher]

pran, on 2013-January-22, 03:03, said:

Proper training to be a TD includes understanding the logic in the laws.

I have no problem with Law 30.

Are you saying that if I believe that a particular law lacks logic, that makes me unfit to be a TD?

[pran]

gnasher, on 2013-January-22, 03:49, said:

Are you saying that if I believe that a particular law lacks logic, that makes me unfit to be a TD?

I would expect you being able to show why (in your opinion) the law lacks logic rather than just asserting it without any reasoning.

[VixTD]

pran, on 2013-January-21, 16:04, said:

The important question here, which I believe nobody has noticed is whether we are in

Quote

Law 30A: 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.

or in

Quote

Law 30B2(a): When, after any player has bid, the offender passes out of rotation at his partner’s turn to call, the offender must pass whenever it is his turn to call, and Law 23 may apply.

Sure North has bid before East's pass out of rotation, but does the cancellation of North's bid result in Law 30A being applicable?

This was why I thought it was interesting. I enforced a one-round pass on East, but I did say the laws weren't entirely clear.

I also wasn't sure we shouldn't go back to law 29A and say that East's pass has accepted North's bid out of rotation, even though it clearly wasn't intended as such and she had already stated that she wasn't accepting it.

[PeterAlan]

Surely at the point that E places the Pass card on the table it is still S's turn to call: this is recognised by Law 28A which explicitly covers the position if (here) W calls without waiting for S's enforced Pass. Either W's reach for the bidding box has been sufficient to have established that W has made a call, or, as I assume from the wording of the OP applies here, it has not, in which case it's still S's turn to place the Pass on the table. Law 30B2(a) is therefore not in point (in either scenario).

It seems to me (until someone persuades me otherwise) that the only sensible interpretation is that

• it's still S's turn to make the enforced call of Pass
  
• E has Passed out of turn when it's LHO's turn to call
  
• S may accept E's Pass by making the enforced Pass; otherwise
  
• no player has yet bid (in the words of the Laws, N's call has been "cancelled")
  
• Law 30A rather than 30B therefore applies, and
  
• E's Pass is withdrawn, S Passes, the auction proceeds, but E must Pass when it is next his/her turn to call.

As it's S's not W's turn to call, to regard N's cancelled bid as leaving us in "After Any Player Has Bid" territory would mean Law 30B3 rather than 30B2(a) applying, and it would be nonsensical to regard E's Pass as a "change of call" when there haven't yet been any calls, by E or anybody else, left on the table: this clearly isn't the situation that 30B3 is intended to cover.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-21, 18:28, said:

If both East and South must pass throughout, whatever contract is reached may or may not bear any relation to the contract that would have been reached had there been no irregularity. I think that's what Vampyr is getting at.

Rather. I think that a) we have by now strayed far from the territory of "normal play" and b) the director allowed this to happen by standing around while South didn't bother to pass and confusion among the other players was evident.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2013-January-21, 16:04, said:

Sure North has bid before East's pass out of rotation, but does the cancellation of North's bid result in Law 30A being applicable?

I see no real reason why it should, the information that can be derived from North's bid is there even after the bid itself has been cancelled, and it is the existence of this information that first silenced South and now leads to Law 30B rather than Law 30A.

I do follow your logic, but I think you overlooked a more important principle that leads the other way.

That principle is that when one side commits an irregular action, and that action is then immediately cancelled, the other side should be "untouched" by that occurrence - they should be able to proceed as if the irregularity never happened. But your ruling does not leave them untouched. You are going to apply a more severe penalty to EW for their own irregularity than if NS had not first committed their illegal action now cancelled. Surely we cannot apply a more severe, or indeed a different, penalty to EW because of that history of an irregularity then cancelled, unless there is some overriding reason why the usual penalty is no longer applicable. You argue that EW have some information from the withdrawn bid, but that information arose from an irregularity, not a proper action, and is therefore extraneous information that they use at their own risk.

I think VixTD was quite right to apply 30A.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2013-January-22, 09:22, said:

I do follow your logic, but I think you overlooked a more important principle that leads the other way.

That principle is that when one side commits an irregular action, and that action is then immediately cancelled, the other side should be "untouched" by that occurrence - they should be able to proceed as if the irregularity never happened. But your ruling does not leave them untouched. You are going to apply a more severe penalty to EW for their own irregularity than if NS had not first committed their illegal action now cancelled. Surely we cannot apply a more severe, or indeed a different, penalty to EW because of that history of an irregularity then cancelled, unless there is some overriding reason why the usual penalty is no longer applicable. You argue that EW have some information from the withdrawn bid, but that information arose from an irregularity, not a proper action, and is therefore extraneous information that they use at their own risk.

I think VixTD was quite right to apply 30A.

So this more important principle is that once one side has committed an irregularity the other side has "carte blanche" to commit their (subsequent) irregularities on the same board with less consequence(s) than what is prescribed in the laws?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-22, 09:11, said:

Rather. I think that a) we have by now strayed far from the territory of "normal play" and b) the director allowed this to happen by standing around while South didn't bother to pass and confusion among the other players was evident.

I wasn't there, so I don't know that the director was "standing around". Maybe it all happened too fast for him to intervene.

iviehoff, on 2013-January-22, 09:22, said:

I do follow your logic, but I think you overlooked a more important principle that leads the other way.

That principle is that when one side commits an irregular action, and that action is then immediately cancelled, the other side should be "untouched" by that occurrence - they should be able to proceed as if the irregularity never happened. But your ruling does not leave them untouched. You are going to apply a more severe penalty to EW for their own irregularity than if NS had not first committed their illegal action now cancelled. Surely we cannot apply a more severe, or indeed a different, penalty to EW because of that history of an irregularity then cancelled, unless there is some overriding reason why the usual penalty is no longer applicable. You argue that EW have some information from the withdrawn bid, but that information arose from an irregularity, not a proper action, and is therefore extraneous information that they use at their own risk.

I think VixTD was quite right to apply 30A.

Whence comes this principle? I've never heard of it.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2013-January-22, 09:42, said:

So this more important principle is that once one side has committed an irregularity the other side has "carte blanche" to commit their (subsequent) irregularities on the same board with less consequence(s) than what is prescribed in the laws?

Not at all. I was saying that they should get precisely the same penalty as if the prior irregularity by the other side had not occurred. Ie, they "shall get what {they} deserve, no less, and certainly no more." (Mr Crocker Harris, in Rattigan's The Browning Version. He was referring to the number of strokes of the cane the boy Taplow should receive.)

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-22, 09:55, said:

Whence comes this principle? I've never heard of it.

It is called Equity. It is nothing other than the principle that a player should not be disadvantaged by the other side's transgressions. Do you really not know that one?

Pran's interpretation disadvantages a player because of the other side's transgression, and therefore offends basic equity. A player has committed his own transgression, but that does not leave him without rights. Pran is now saying that the scale of penalties for this transgression is now higher than it otherwise would have been, only because of the other side's prior transgression. Now that would be unexpected if this second transgression had been a unilateral act before rectification of the prior transgression; but it is not: the prior transgression has been rectified.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2013-January-22, 11:08, said:

It is called Equity. It is nothing other than the principle that a player should not be disadvantaged by the other side's transgressions. Do you really not know that one?

Pran's interpretation disadvantages a player because of the other side's transgression, and therefore offends basic equity. A player has committed his own transgression, but that does not leave him without rights. Pran is now saying that the scale of penalties for this transgression is now higher than it otherwise would have been, only because of the other side's prior transgression. Now that would be unexpected if this second transgression had been a unilateral act before rectification of the prior transgression; but it is not: the prior transgression has been rectified.

I don't see how ruling an irregularity separately on its own merits makes the rectification more unfavourable for the offender when there has been a previous independent irregularity by opponents than when there has been no such previous irregularity?

Of course East (as the offender here) can claim that he was confused from the previous irregularity, but is that really a valid excuse?

[PeterAlan]

pran, on 2013-January-22, 16:19, said:

I don't see how ruling an irregularity separately on its own merits makes the rectification more unfavourable for the offender when there has been a previous independent irregularity by opponents than when there has been no such previous irregularity?

Of course East (as the offender here) can claim that he was confused from the previous irregularity, but is that really a valid excuse?

Pran, this is an interesting sideline deriving from your post #15, but the analysis I proposed in #24 differs from yours and would mean that this discussion is not applicable to the OP's case. I'd be interested to know whether you disagree with what I put forward there.

[iviehoff]

pran said:

I don't see how ruling an irregularity separately on its own merits makes the rectification more unfavourable for the offender when there has been a previous independent irregularity by opponents than when there has been no such previous irregularity?

You say that because you have fallen in love with your own pretty "logic", and fail to see that what results does not do equity.

Remember, you decided to rule under law 30B rather than under Law 30A, because you decided that a bid out of turn now cancelled, was nevertheless a bid which had been made, and thus law 30B applies. If the bid out of turn had never happened, you would have clearly rule under Law 30A. Therefore you have changed the ruling, (which happens to make the ruling more severe), only because of a prior irregular action by the other side now cancelled. A player should not be disadvantaged by the other side's irregularity, absent his own unilateral action, and you have disadvantaged that player only because of that prior irregularity, now cancelled.

Thus 30B is not a ruling on its own merits, it is a ruling infected by a prior irregularity by the other side, now cancelled.

[pran]

PeterAlan, on 2013-January-22, 18:16, said:

Pran, this is an interesting sideline deriving from your post #15, but the analysis I proposed in #24 differs from yours and would mean that this discussion is not applicable to the OP's case. I'd be interested to know whether you disagree with what I put forward there.

Your post #24 called attention to an interesting consequence from the fact that Law 30 lacks considerations for the possibility of multiple errors with both sides involved such as we have in the case under discussion.

I consider Law 30A to be a "lenient" exception from the standard reaction to POOT, applicable only before any player has indicated values justifying a bid. Once any bid has been made this information exists even when the bid made has been cancelled. Consequently the reason for the more lenient ruling on the pass out of turn no longer exists.

Law 30B3 is obviously not applicable, and as South is forced to pass at his turn to call during the remainder of the auction the "best" solution appears to be using Law 30B2 because effectively it is West's turn to call.

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2013-January-22, 03:03, said:

Proper training to be a TD includes understanding the logic in the laws.

Kudos to your training program. Sometimes, it must seem as if tilting at windmills.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2013-January-23, 03:40, said:

Law 30B3 is obviously not applicable, and as South is forced to pass at his turn to call during the remainder of the auction the "best" solution appears to be using Law 30B2 because effectively it is West's turn to call.

I hadn't considered this level of detail of your proposed ruling. It gets more flaky by the minute. You really had to stretch to get to this ruling. In general a call out of turn at LHO's turn to call is considered a change of one's call, unless it is an opening call out of turn. Unsurprisingly, the law does not make provision for opening calls out of turn in the situation when another player has already bid.

It is clearly South's turn to call. Although Law 28A provides for no rectification when a player calls at his RHO's turn when RHO must pass, the wording of that law makes it clear that it is nevertheless South's turn to call, not West's. We cannot tell West he must not wait for South to make his required pass. If I was forced to accept that it is Law 30B that applies, I would choose 30B1 - that at least is a law applying to calling when it is an opponent's turn to call, which is a more natural stretch than saying it is partner's turn to call. It has the additional merit of being the same ruling as Law 30A.

You may be right as to why 30A says what it says. And you are certainly right that that "why" doesn't apply in this more complicated situation, whether or not it was the real "why". However the stretch required to justify using a different law solely because that "why" logic has fallen apart in this rare situation is too much of a stretch, as well as being inequitable. The "why's" often don't apply do specific situations arising, even if we are sure what they are, and that is not a reason to rule differently.

That realisation makes be realise why in broader generality I don't like your concept of deferring overly to the "logic" of the law in complex situations. Clearly laws are devised for particular reasons, whether those reasons are good or bad. But from time to time those reasons do not apply to the particular instance of an irregularity that arises. This is not a good reason to depart from a law as written. Nor, when some interpretation is required, or to stretch to a more difficult interpretation stretch when a simpler and more natural piece of interpretation is available. In this case "an irregular bid cancelled shall be deemed not to have been 'made'" seems the simpler and more natural piece of interpretation to make the situation fit the laws.

[PeterAlan]

pran, on 2013-January-23, 03:40, said:

Your post #24 called attention to an interesting consequence from the fact that Law 30 lacks considerations for the possibility of multiple errors with both sides involved such as we have in the case under discussion.

I consider Law 30A to be a "lenient" exception from the standard reaction to POOT, applicable only before any player has indicated values justifying a bid. Once any bid has been made this information exists even when the bid made has been cancelled. Consequently the reason for the more lenient ruling on the pass out of turn no longer exists.

Law 30B3 is obviously not applicable, and as South is forced to pass at his turn to call during the remainder of the auction the "best" solution appears to be using Law 30B2 because effectively it is West's turn to call.

I was really more interested in whether you have re-considered whose turn it is to call. I think it's still S's - if not, what's Law 28A for? - but all your answers seem to depend on it being W, and I haven't yet seen a good reason for that view.

[blackshoe]

The more I read of Sven's reasoning, the less I'm inclined to agree with him.

[c_corgi]

PeterAlan, on 2013-January-23, 05:47, said:

I was really more interested in whether you have re-considered whose turn it is to call. I think it's still S's - if not, what's Law 28A for? - but all your answers seem to depend on it being W, and I haven't yet seen a good reason for that view.

I think it is West's turn to call. This is because South considers that his enforced pass has been effectively made, West appears to have accepted this and considers it his own turn, and the director has not contradicted them. IMO Law 28 is to clarify that West can call before the enforced pass without penalty, not to determine whose turn it technically is. The contrary implication is probably because this situation was not considered when writing it.

I don't consider the director to be responsible for East's error and I am certainly not going to go out of my way to award both sides Ave+ when they are both offending.

Iviehoff's reasoning regarding L30A/B seems very sensible.

[PeterAlan]

c_corgi, on 2013-January-23, 07:56, said:

I think it is West's turn to call. This is because South considers that his enforced pass has been effectively made, West appears to have accepted this and considers it his own turn, and the director has not contradicted them. IMO Law 28 is to clarify that West can call before the enforced pass without penalty, not to determine whose turn it technically is. The contrary implication is probably because this situation was not considered when writing it.

I don't consider the director to be responsible for East's error and I am certainly not going to go out of my way to award both sides Ave+ when they are both offending.

Iviehoff's reasoning regarding L30A/B seems very sensible.

Law 28A reads:

Law 28A said:

LAW 28: CALLS CONSIDERED TO BE IN ROTATION
A. RHO Required to Pass
A call is considered to be in rotation when it is made by a player at his RHO’s turn to call if that opponent is required by law to pass.

Without a basis for asserting that S has actually Passed, I can't see how one can conclude that it has become W's turn to call - for example, at what point do you suppose that the turn to call has passed from S to W? After S has sat back in the chair for 5 seconds? 10 seconds? It's no different from the situation where a player hasn't realised that they're the dealer, and everyone's still waiting for them. If S hasn't realised that he needs to Pass, then he needs to be woken up. If W then calls before this happens, Law 28A kicks in, W's call is considered to be in rotation, and there's no problem (until something fresh happens). Here, I'm presuming that W's actions haven't constituted calling, and I consider that the turn to call is still with S - I can't see any purpose or advantage to ruling otherwise when E's Pass out of turn hits the table, so why try to bend the Laws to do so?