[pholly]

The bidding went as follows:
East opened 1C, south bid 1S, west passed and I bid 2C (unassuming cuebid) The director immediately banned my partner from further bidding. How did this happen?

The bidding was not quite as it seemed. I opened the bidding out of turn with a pass as north (I was having a bad day!) but east accepted and bid 1C. After partner bid 1S, I was told by the director I could not make a bid unless it was less than an opening bid. So far so good. We play the unassuming cue bid as 10hcp and some support for partner so with 10hcp in my hand and it not being an opening bid, I looked at my options and decided to make an unassuming cue bid to see the strength of partner's overcall. The director said it was not unequivocally not an opening bid as it was actually unlimited and so barred my partner from bidding. I was thus left to play 2C which was the opposition's suit (which by the way did not fare well). This penalty seems absurdly harsh to my way of thinking and I wonder whether I just have to treat this as a learning experience or is there discretion to modify the penalty. I would be interested in the forum's views.

[axman]

pholly, on 2021-January-18, 07:08, said:

The bidding went as follows:
East opened 1C, south bid 1S, west passed and I bid 2C (unassuming cuebid) The director immediately banned my partner from further bidding. How did this happen?

The bidding was not quite as it seemed. I opened the bidding out of turn with a pass as north (I was having a bad day!) but east accepted and bid 1C. After partner bid 1S, I was told by the director I could not make a bid unless it was less than an opening bid. So far so good. We play the unassuming cue bid as 10hcp and some support for partner so with 10hcp in my hand and it not being an opening bid, I looked at my options and decided to make an unassuming cue bid to see the strength of partner's overcall. The director said it was not unequivocally not an opening bid as it was actually unlimited and so barred my partner from bidding. I was thus left to play 2C which was the opposition's suit (which by the way did not fare well). This penalty seems absurdly harsh to my way of thinking and I wonder whether I just have to treat this as a learning experience or is there discretion to modify the penalty. I would be interested in the forum's views.

When dealing with rulings, format is important. Dealer and vulnerability should be given; and for calls and plays the direction must be given to avoid giving false information as fact or creating inscrutable information. It is bad form to insert opinions as fact.

For instance if the conditions of the deal are no vul, dealer E

The auction proceeded:

W N E S
- P*- 1C- 1S**
P- 2C

* north's P was OOT and accepted as legal L29A
** told by the director I could not make a bid unless it was less than an opening bid

You inserted the opinion ** So far so good. This misinforms the reader. There is no basis in law for such a ruling: given that the POOT was accepted as legal there is no penalty that arises from it.

Your learning experience is the importance that the TD recite the law so that the player can know if the TD is making a correct ruling, or, more to the point, is making an incorrect ruling (like here)

[sfi]

The director is kind of right and kind of wrong.

The (first) wrong part is that they did not apply Law 28B (if East's 1C occurred before they were called) or Law 29A (if East accepted after calling the director and hearing the options. In either case, once East accepts your pass you are free to make any legal call you choose without penalty for the remainder of the auction. So they were wrong there. This means that (unless the facts are not as you describe) the ruling as a whole was incorrect.

They were right in the application of Law 30, which states that if East does not accept your pass, the auction reverts to dealer and the auction proceeds as normal up to your call. Now if you make a "comparable call", the auction will proceed as normal. If you do not make a comparable call, your partner will be required to pass for one round.

So, what is a comparable call? That's defined in Law 23, but essentially your call needs to meet one of three possible criteria. It needs to either:

• Have the same or similar meaning as your original pass.
  
• Have a subset of the initial meaning.
  
• Have the same purpose, such as an asking bid.

A cuebid does not have the same meaning, since your initial pass shows 0-11 (give or take) and the cuebid shows 10+. That's clearly not the same. It's also not a subset - in fact there is very little overlap. Nor does it have the same purpose. So the director was right to bar your partner - for one round only though.

The other wrong part on the part of the director is that they should have had a discussion with you about the interpretation of "comparable call", so you would have known that a cuebid was not comparable before you bid it. As a director, I am happy to advise them how I will rule when they tell me the meaning of specific calls, but it's not my role to suggest any calls to them. The converstation can tread a fine line, but the result is that the person will not be surprised when they make their call.

So what could you have done that would be comparable? Options probably included:

• 2S, which is a subset of the pass (6-9 with three spades is more precise than 0-11 with 0+ spades)
  
• 1NT, also a subset
  
• Pass, which has substantially the same meaning. You might argue that there are some opening hands that would pass, but they would be rare cases and IMO would not stop it from being a comparable call.
  
• Other weak calls, which may include 3S and 4S. Before allowing 4S I would like to hear some details about the sort of hands that would jump to game after an overcall.

It is worth noting that sometimes you have many comparable calls and sometimes you have none. There will not always be a good option after an irregularity.

[pran]

pholly, on 2021-January-18, 07:08, said:

The bidding went as follows:
East opened 1C, south bid 1S, west passed and I bid 2C (unassuming cuebid) The director immediately banned my partner from further bidding. How did this happen?

The bidding was not quite as it seemed. I opened the bidding out of turn with a pass as north (I was having a bad day!) but east accepted and bid 1C. After partner bid 1S, I was told by the director I could not make a bid unless it was less than an opening bid. So far so good. We play the unassuming cue bid as 10hcp and some support for partner so with 10hcp in my hand and it not being an opening bid, I looked at my options and decided to make an unassuming cue bid to see the strength of partner's overcall. The director said it was not unequivocally not an opening bid as it was actually unlimited and so barred my partner from bidding. I was thus left to play 2C which was the opposition's suit (which by the way did not fare well). This penalty seems absurdly harsh to my way of thinking and I wonder whether I just have to treat this as a learning experience or is there discretion to modify the penalty. I would be interested in the forum's views.

As OP wrote: "but east accepted and bid 1C" the ruling was incorrect:

Law 28 B said:

A call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn it was to call before rectification has been assessed for a call out of rotation by an opponent. Making such a call forfeits the right to rectification for the call out of rotation. The auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn. Law 26 does not apply, but see Law 16C2.

applies if the Director was not called to the table before east made his call
and

Law 29 A said:

Following a call out of rotation offender’s LHO may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification.

applies if the Director indeed was at the table.

[blackshoe]

As others have said, this was director error. IMO he should adjust the score, considering both sides as non-offending.

[pholly]

Thank you indeed for all your replies. It has been an education

[pescetom]

pholly, on 2021-January-18, 14:53, said:

Thank you indeed for all your replies. It has been an education

Pran has it right.
I would however suggest that your learning experience should be to avoid opening out of turn, not how to lawyer the rules when you make a mistake

[blackshoe]

Not a question of "lawyering the rules" imo, rather of being able to be sure that any ruling you get is legit.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2021-January-18, 16:55, said:

Not a question of "lawyering the rules" imo, rather of being able to be sure that any ruling you get is legit.

I encourage anyone to learn the rules and to insist on their right to a legitimate ruling.
Maybe I was unduly soured by "penalty seems absurdly harsh" rather than "I committed this infraction but I suspect the TD was wrong".

[gordontd]

pholly, on 2021-January-18, 07:08, said:

This penalty seems absurdly harsh to my way of thinking and I wonder whether I just have to treat this as a learning experience or is there discretion to modify the penalty. I would be interested in the forum's views.

I don't think it's you who should treat this as a learning experience.

[mycroft]

Directors are trained to read their rulings out of the book. Everyone gets a little lazy, and some get too lazy. But you are entitled to have the ruling out of the book, and you're entitled to ask.

Some directors who are too lazy will find that difficult (blackshoe's story of "I'd have to get it out of the car"); some who are less confident than they should be (or more confident than they should be) will take offense. Neither of those are your fault.

I have to admit, 90% of the time that I ask "could I have that read out of the book, please", it's code for "you're straight up wrong" and the director knows it. So I try not to do so unless it is blackletter wrong. But my situation is unusual (I'm the person these directors come to when *they* have a ruling question, for legitimate reasons). Most people, it's just "I thought the ruling was different, and I could be wrong."

Now, back in the old days (pre-2017), an opening call out of turn by fourth hand was very confusing (pass was easier than bid). "I know this is not going to make any sense, but you can refuse the pass, and open in first seat, or accept the pass, and open in second seat, if you feel that is advantageous to you." Now, with Comparable Call, they're all harder if not accepted, but at least it isn't immediate "what's the difference?" But you don't have to worry about that until your opponents do it to you. And you certainly don't have to worry about it for the next few months, as it's amazing how calls out of turn have dropped since March.

[blackshoe]

Some places are already back to playing f2f. Not many, but some.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2021-January-19, 16:00, said:

Some places are already back to playing f2f. Not many, but some.

People are already opening bridge sites that allow us to watch partner's face and let her hear us explain her bids... being able to call out of turn would liven things up a bit too.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2021-January-19, 16:00, said:

Some places are already back to playing f2f. Not many, but some.

Here in the US its the deadliest time in the whole epidemic and idiots are opening bridge clubs to F2F play

[gordontd]

pescetom, on 2021-January-20, 04:01, said:

People are already opening bridge sites that allow us to watch partner's face and let her hear us explain her bids... being able to call out of turn would liven things up a bit too.

... to be followed by revokes and insufficient bids. Then we can get back to real directing.

[blackshoe]

I wasn’t talking about the US.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2021-January-20, 05:49, said:

... to be followed by revokes and insufficient bids. Then we can get back to real directing.

I much prefer the fifth card played to a trick which I have missed ...

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2021-January-21, 11:56, said:

I much prefer the fifth card played to a trick which I have missed ...

Maybe we could finally make the ultimate sacrifice of 8 in a suit.