[lamford]

---

Table Result: All Pass; Datum EW+610 12 IMPs to NS

Charlie the Chimp's behaviour on this Butler IMPs hand last night at a North London Club was somewhat suspicious and SB, West, was more annoyed than usual. North, the Chimp, opened 1♠ out of turn and the TD, Stuart the Stoat from the Walthamstow Club, standing in for OO who was on holiday, arrived at the table. MM, East, declined to accept it, and South, RR, was told that the 1♠ bid was UI to him. "Can I raise to 2♠?" he asked. SS patiently explained that the 1♠ bid had been cancelled, and RR would be opening the bidding, and that his remark was now UI to North and AI to EW. RR then passed, and SB, who had been burnt before by a 1♠ bid being replaced by a double of 1NT when he had a very similar hand, decided it was too dangerous to open the bidding and also passed. "Now, ChCh," said SS, "you can make any call you want, but if it is not a comparable call your partner will be silenced". "Can I open 2♣?" asked ChCh. "That question is UI to RR and AI to EW," continued SS calmly, "but if you do, it will silence your partner for one round, and there is a risk that I will award an adjusted score if South's forced pass gains". "I thought that only applies to IBs not BOOTs?" asked ChCh. "Not so," replied SS, "that is just a mistake in the laws, and I am empowered to award an adjusted score if the infraction gains." "Ah, well, I had better pass," replied ChCh, having spun his trap. MM, East, counted her Pearson points as 14 and threw the hand in. When SB saw that all pairs had reached either 3NT or 4♥ he was apologetic. "Sorry, bad luck for us that I guessed to pass, pard". I thought North had a (potentially very strong) 1♠ bid and South a raise to 2♠, which must have made 1NT too risky." He continued: "North could have had the 21-count he had last week". He asked to see the North hand and almost exploded. "You deliberately psyched 1♠ out of turn" he accused ChCh, "and could have been aware it would work to your advantage"

The TD, SS, responded. "I am not sure that the psyche out of turn and the good result are related", he opined. "Let me go away and consult". How do you rule?

[barmar]

Why didn't SB open 1♦? While he might have trouble showing his actual point count, this still seems better than passing.

As for the psych out of turn, it had a similar effect as an in-turn psych might have had. I'm not sure he could have known that doing it out of turn would be the big winner. In particular, could anyone really anticipate that their partner would make a remark that would exacerbate the psych? If the BOOT had been accepted, South would undoubtedly raise to 2♠, and EW would probably still miss their game.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-February-27, 10:51, said:

Why didn't SB open 1♦? While he might have trouble showing his actual point count, this still seems better than passing.

As for the psych out of turn, it had a similar effect as an in-turn psych might have had. I'm not sure he could have known that doing it out of turn would be the big winner. In particular, could anyone really anticipate that their partner would make a remark that would exacerbate the psych? If the BOOT had been accepted, South would undoubtedly raise to 2♠, and EW would probably still miss their game.

SB did not want to open 1D because his rebid would show 11-13 or 17-19. Yes, it might have been better than passing. I think that a psyche out of turn given that the whole club were aware of how SB had been stung a week earlier, was quite likely to induce a pass, and this time, as North had a 7 count, West had a much higher chance of being in his no-trump range. The other question is "could RR have known that his (illegal) question could also cause SB to pass, feeding him the illusion that NS might have the majority of the points"?

But the main question again is "did the infraction gain?" and should we automatically rule against NS for that reason? And MM never accepts a BOOT, as ChCh knew.

[sanst]

It stinks like an open sewer. A psych OOT should be a red flag to any TD, because there's no risk in it for the pair, but it's certainly misleading to the opps. I don't know about England, but this is a 'protected' psych, one you can make with no or hardly any risk to your own side. In Holland these are forbidden. To make matters worse, there's a plethora of UI.
I think I would take recourse to Law 73E2: "If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a question, remark, manner, tempo or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have been aware, at the time of the action, that it could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score."

[blackshoe]

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2018-February-27, 16:36, said:

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."

Thank whoever or whatever you believe in or not for Google Translate and Wikipedia.

[sanst]

Walkng the dogs in a wee bit of snow I came to the conclusion that N made use of the UI from the "Can I raise to 2♠?" That made clear that it would be unwise, to say the least, to make a comparable call and he should therefore silence RR.
There is also a case to be made using Law 72C. N could certainly have been aware that this psychic BOOT could damage the opposition. Having set a trap? I'll change that in a hole he dug for himself.

[sanst]

barmar, on 2018-February-27, 10:51, said:

Why didn't SB open 1♦? While he might have trouble showing his actual point count, this still seems better than passing.

Why blame the NOS? You're only allowed to do that as a TD in case of a very, very, VERY serious error. Or is this a case of "If it's SB, then by definition he's wrong"?