[blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis)

[Eric Landau]

On Jul 4, 2007, at 6:58 PM, David Grabiner wrote:

> L21A: A player has no recourse if he has made a call based on his own
> misunderstanding.  Thus East's 1S overcall must stand as being  
> made, and E-W
> must pay any penalty.  (This law more frequently applies when a  
> player makes an
> insufficient bid because he misheard the auction; he still pays the  
> penalty.)
>
> However, it does not condone or negate the out-of-turn 1H call;  
> L28B says that
> only the player whose turn it was to call may negate an opponent's  
> out-of-turn
> call by calling in turn, and L29A allows only offender's LHO, not  
> offender's
> RHO, to accept the call with a subsequent call.  E-W did not gain  
> anything from
> action taken in ignorance of the penalty, so L11A does not apply.
>
> Thus South has bid out of turn.  I will not allow West to accept  
> the 1H call
> once East has taken an action, so South's out-of-turn 1H is  
> withdrawn, and North
> is barred from the rest of the auction.    Now, East bid 1S at  
> North's turn to
> call when North was required by law to pass, and this is no longer  
> an infraction
> under L28A but the bid stands.
>
> I would still rule that West has UI that East's 1S was intended as  
> an overcall
> rather than as an opening bid, since East was responsible for that  
> piece of
> information.

I cannot accept the finding that "East bid 1S... when North was  
required by law to pass".

Regardless of what the law says about the infraction in question, I  
don't believe that anybody is ever "required to pass" unless and  
until the director has been called and has so ruled.

This is even clearer in David's scenario, where North may have been  
forced to pass only because of David's ruling "not [to] allow West to  
accept the 1H call once East has taken an action".  But that doesn't  
really matter; I stand by the previous paragraph.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net