[blml] Dealer or no dealer

[Alain Gottcheiner]

David Grabiner a écrit :
> Some sets of duplicate boards have stickers next to the pockets, identifying the 
> dealer and vulnerability.  The absence of a sticker indicates that the player is 
> not the dealer and is not vulnerable.  On one such board 4, the sticker for West 
> as Dealer-VUL is missing, so there is no dealer marked.  The second time the 
> board is played (so a redeal or replacement board is not possible), South opens 
> out of turn.  Do you enforce a penalty for an opening bid out of turn?
>
> L2 doesn't help here; it says that the board must be played as marked, which 
> would imply that it must be played with no dealer, and with East vulnerable but 
> West not vulnerable.
>
>   
L2 says that, when there is a discrepancy between the official 
dealer+vulnerability and what's mentioned on the board, the board takes 
precedence.
While the subject of vulnerability isn't settled by the board (which 
could result in a fouled board, if for example EW played variable NT and 
had a mixup in all good faith due to the improper marking), the facts 
are that South shouldn't be the opener in the official schedule, that 
there was no indication at all that South was dealer, and that South did 
open . Therefore, South opened OOT.

It has been ruled, however, that somebody who opens because it's one's 
turn to open on this board according to the L2 schedule, while the board 
mentions somebody else as opener, doesn't necessarily open OOT. Here, 
South didn't have this mitigating circumstance at one's disposal.

What should have happened : nothing, until somebody asked "whose turn is 
it ?" and they realized the problem and called the TD.


Best regards

     Alain

NB : somebody please tell whether the message format problem is solved ; 
I changed mailing systems.