[dburn]

North deals and West opens 1♠ out of turn. You, the Director, are summoned to the table. What do you do?

[aguahombre]

It seems straightforward.

1) 29A Allows dealer to accept by making a call, since he is next.

2) Otherwise:

"When the offender has bid at his .......LHO’s turn to call, if the offender has not previously called**, offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply."

So, if the OBOOT is not accepted, Dealer resumes his role as "first to call", lefty is out of the auction, and life goes on.

[blackshoe]

I don't think you've answered David's question, Agua.

[Trinidad]

I guess David can read the law book, so I assume his question is: what do you do as a TD?

My answer is:

You start by telling North that he has options and that at the end of your story he will have to make a choice. (And you make sure that North understands that he is allowed, if not expected, to take full advantage of the mistake.)

Then you explain the options (see agua's post). You do not talk about "LHO" or "declarer". You are indicating the actual players: "this lady has to pass each time" or "Daisy has to pass each time".

If North accepts the OBOOT, your job is done. You tell that the auction and play proceed as if West was dealer.

If North doesn't accept the OBOOT, you stay at the table during the entire auction, making sure that East passes.

If West ends up declaring or if you rule that there are no lead penalties,, you will tell them to call you after the deal is over since you will have to judge whether East's forced passes have damaged NS. But, other than that, your job is done.

If North or South ends up declaring and you are ruling that there are lead penalties, you instruct the players, (particularly East) about the lead penalties. You stay at the table to make sure the lead penalties are enforced. At the end, you will Judge whether East's force to pass has damaged NS.

Rik

[gordontd]

 blackshoe, on 2015-January-29, 20:47, said:

I don't think you've answered David's question, Agua.

Presumably what is behind David's question (since it is always the case that something is behind David's questions) is the fact that North is not only West's LHO (Law 29A) but also the player whose turn it was to call (Law 28B).

[campboy]

 gordontd, on 2015-January-30, 01:40, said:

Presumably what is behind David's question (since it is always the case that something is behind David's questions) is the fact that North is not only West's LHO (Law 29A) but also the player whose turn it was to call (Law 28B).

I suppose technically any call North makes before we get there falls under 28B's "before rectification has been assessed". This causes problems if it is, say, a double. It would make more sense to be able to ask North whether he intended to call over 1♠ or to make an opening call, and apply 29A or 28B respectively. It's a bit early for me, but hopefully someone can come up with an argument why this is consistent with the laws. There is nothing in the White Book about this.

[pran]

What is the problem?

[RMB1]

 dburn, on 2015-January-29, 15:44, said:

North deals and West opens 1♠ out of turn. You, the Director, are summoned to the table. What do you do?

I can answer what I do (and leave what I should do to others)

I check what has happened.
I offer North the chance to accept the bid out of turn and call (Law 29A) or otherwise the bid is cancelled, it is still North's turn to call and East is silenced for the rest of the auction (Law 29B/Law 31B). I do not "offer" North to call under Law 28B because now "rectification has been assessed".
Depending on the circumstances, I may explain to North that he is under no pressure to accept the call out of turn.

Unless the bid out of turn is accepted, I stand by to apply lead penalties.
Once the lead penalties are resolved, I allow play to continue and leave; asking to be recalled in North-South have a problem.
If recalled, it may be necessary to address Law 23.

[ahydra]

28B seems irrelevant here - the OP doesn't state that North made a call, only West.

campboy - Why does North calling X here cause a problem? It's just taken as acceptance of the BOOT, and we carry on. Maybe things get more interesting if North, not spotting that West has bid OOT, calls "stop 2H" or even an insufficient 1H. I'm guessing in the former case we carry on but South would be perfectly entitled to know that North has a weak two, rather than a 2H overcall of 1S; and in the latter case, East can decide whether to accept the insufficient 1H, etc (the 1S bid now being treated as AI).

ahydra

[dburn]

Oh, I don't have a problem with North's being to the left of West. What I do have a problem with is this:

If I am North, I know that if I don't accept West's bid East is silenced for the duration. But if someone else is North, he may not know that. Is it part of standard operating procedure to tell him before he selects his option? If not, why not?

[ahydra]

The way I was taught on the TD course, the TD should fully explain the ramifications of the options before letting the player make a decision. (Doesn't happen in practice though I've found - they interrupt after "you can accept the bid and carry on as normal" saying "yeah let's just do that it's easier" )

ahydra

[Trinidad]

 dburn, on 2015-January-30, 08:08, said:

If I am North, I know that if I don't accept West's bid East is silenced for the duration. But if someone else is North, he may not know that. Is it part of standard operating procedure to tell him before he selects his option? If not, why not?

It should be, but I know TDs who are relieved when North simply accepts and quickly walk away.

So, the reason why is that the TD is not comfortable with the laws.

Rik

[pran]

 ahydra, on 2015-January-30, 08:13, said:

The way I was taught on the TD course, the TD should fully explain the ramifications of the options before letting the player make a decision. (Doesn't happen in practice though I've found - they interrupt after "you can accept the bid and carry on as normal" saying "yeah let's just do that it's easier" )

ahydra

 Trinidad, on 2015-January-30, 08:19, said:

It should be, but I know TDs who are relieved when North simply accepts and quickly walk away.

So, the reason why is that the TD is not comfortable with the laws.

Rik

Let me call attention to:

Law 9B2 said:

No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

so a player interrupting TD during his explanation of the relevant Law(s) "will incur [on himself] a procedural penalty more often than not"!

(And a TD accepting such practice commits a Director's error)

Note: I shall not impose on the involved players a full and complete explanation of the relevant law(s) when I am satisfied that these laws are already fully known and understood by them.

[blackshoe]

Agree pretty much with Sven. When a player interrupts my explanation of the options, I say "please do not interrupt" and continue on unless I am sure that all four players at the table are fully aware of the relevant laws. If the player interrupts again, I give him a DP. IMO DPs rather than PPs are appropriate when a player ignores instructions from the TD, or interrupts or argues with the TD. If I have to read 9B2 to the table, I'll do that.

[RMB1]

 dburn, on 2015-January-30, 08:08, said:

Is it part of standard operating procedure to tell him before he selects his option? If not, why not?

Yes, it is what we except expect of club TDs.

TDs (at all levels) can hope that infractions are accepted because it is easy to rule. But we teach TDs that they must explain the consequences (for the offenders) if the non-offender does not accept, before giving the non-offender the option of accepting. When assessed, trainee TDs will be marked down if they give the option to accept without elaboration.

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2015-February-02, 16:28

[barmar]

I, and the TDs I know, explain the ramifications. Something like "You can accept the lead and everything proceeds normally; if you don't, East will have to pass for the rest of the auction." Then I ask North, "First, do you want to accept the lead?".

This is one of the laws that I'll usually read directly from the lawbook, because it's easy to misremember which cases bar partner for just one round versus the entire auction. I think players are less likely to interrupt you while you're doing this.

[blackshoe]

I've had a player tell me "we don't have time for that" when I've started to read from the book.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2015-January-30, 12:17, said:

I've had a player tell me "we don't have time for that" when I've started to read from the book.

Well, playing a board takes a lot longer than that, so you should offer to remove a board from the table and award A- all round.

[Trinidad]

 pran, on 2015-January-30, 09:13, said:

so a player interrupting TD during his explanation of the relevant Law(s) "will incur [on himself] a procedural penalty more often than not"!

That is a misunderstanding. The players are not interrupting these TDs. These TDs will say:

"Well. You could, of course, accept the bid out of turn."
Then they will turn to North.
When North is not reacting, the TD will sigh: "Then I will have to get my lawbook."

In practice, many North players will "help the TD out of his predicament".

In addition, the TD can easily prevent that he will be interrupted (obviously never 100%, but still): Before he gives any ruling, he needs to tell North that he can only make his choice after the TD has given him all the options (as I wrote in post #4).

So, with few exceptions for very obnoxious players, the blame lies entirely with the TD, not with the player.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2015-January-30, 13:16, said:

That is a misunderstanding. The players are not interrupting these TDs. These TDs will say:

"Well. You could, of course, accept the bid out of turn."
Then they will turn to North.
When North is not reacting, the TD will sigh: "Then I will have to get my lawbook."

The Lawbook is not in the TD's hand?