[CamHenry]

barmar, on 2013-March-31, 13:59, said:

The issue isn't that they pointed out the irregularity, it's the manner in which they did it. A simple, calm "It's not your turn" doesn't suggest much, but an annoyed "Pay attention, partner!" might indicate that they have a hand that really wanted to open.

It could, however, indicate that it's the third time this session that partner's done something stupid (passed me in a splinter; revoked to let through the contract; misplayed an easy 6NT...) and we're still only on board 8. Though I try to be a considerate (and polite!) partner, sometimes I lapse.

[billw55]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-02, 00:57, said:

Do you really have Jan Martel blocked, or do you just not know that when we repeat a story which the subject himself told it is not slander? Or libel because we wrote it.

No, not slander.

But objectively: an expert player deliberately commits an infraction to gain an advantage, and this (according to Jan) against a low level player in a lowish level event. He then tells the story repeatedly and with gusto. I do think this reflects poorly on his bridge ethics.

[nige1]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-02, 00:57, said:

Do you really have Jan Martel blocked, or do you just not know that when we repeat a story which the subject himself told it is not slander? Or libel because we wrote it.

I read the only the post to which I replied. I queried whether the gossip were slanderous. I intended no offence

[barmar]

CamHenry, on 2013-April-02, 04:21, said:

It could, however, indicate that it's the third time this session that partner's done something stupid (passed me in a splinter; revoked to let through the contract; misplayed an easy 6NT...) and we're still only on board 8. Though I try to be a considerate (and polite!) partner, sometimes I lapse.

Didn't I mention this possibility in my earlier post? That's why I wrote "might indicate" in the post to which you replied.

The basic point is that when attention is drawn in an excited manner the TD has to decide what, if anything, the tone demonstrably suggests. On the other hand, if attention had been drawn clamly, there probably would be no issue at all.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2013-April-02, 09:22, said:

If attention had been drawn clamly, there probably would be no issue at all.

Those two words are actually synonymous.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-30, 05:25, said:

OK, but that ship has sailed. A normal bridge auction is no longer possible.

Accepting the call out of turn ensures a normal bridge auction, although not the same auction as would otherwise have taken place.

[mycroft]

And in this case, very likely detrimental to the NOS. Strong NT systems being what they are, they've managed to rightside a contract that may not have been able to be rightsided any other way (be it South opening a light-but-acceptable 1M vs transfer, or West opening with a preempt, or...)

In many cases I'm happy to accept such a call (not as often an opening bid out of turn, but definitely an insufficient bid) because it easily could be wrong for the opponents (or it's good for my hand). The classic "limiting bid" is not one of them.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-02, 09:26, said:

Those two words are actually synonymous.

You quoted 14 words, I can't figure out which two you're referring to.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2013-April-02, 09:51, said:

You quoted 14 words, I can't figure out which two you're referring to.

calmly and clamly.

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2013-March-30, 17:21, said:

When partner opens a strong no trump out of turn, you know that he is going to correct it to 3NT exactly 100% of the time. If I had a balanced 3-count, I would be this annoyed - . With a balanced 13, on which I would have simply raised to 3NT, much less so .

Then you are illegally communicating with your partner who will pass when you are very annoyed, and open 3NT when you are less so.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2013-March-31, 13:59, said:

The issue isn't that they pointed out the irregularity, it's the manner in which they did it. A simple, calm "It's not your turn" doesn't suggest much, but an annoyed "Pay attention, partner!" might indicate that they have a hand that really wanted to open.

Indeed. Occam's Razor suggests that the reason he was annoyed is that he knew there was a game on and the bid out of turn had hampered the chances of reaching that. To think "partner will now open 3NT and I do not want that" is a much less likely scenario.

[billw55]

lamford, on 2013-April-02, 10:11, said:

Indeed. Occam's Razor suggests that the reason he was annoyed is that he knew there was a game on and the bid out of turn had hampered the chances of reaching that. To think "partner will now open 3NT and I do not want that" is a much less likely scenario.

Perhaps. But then, if partner is expected to have a strong hand, perhaps opener is being ethical by bidding only 3NT?

Anyway, none of this seems to matter. Everyone seems to agree that an out of turn NT call is virtually always replaced by 3NT. So what difference does UI make? Basically, if all peers always choose 3NT, there is no LA, so no adjustment.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2013-April-02, 10:17, said:

Perhaps. But then, if partner is expected to have a strong hand, perhaps opener is being ethical by bidding only 3NT?

Anyway, none of this seems to matter. Everyone seems to agree that an out of turn NT call is virtually always replaced by 3NT. So what difference does UI make? Basically, if all peers always choose 3NT, there is no LA, so no adjustment.

Quite right. Although in the heat of the moment, I can appreciate why the NOS might be concerned. It seems like the excited tone suggests something, and if the guess works out well it's natural to think that at gave an advantage.

It would be more obvious if the player made a weird bid. For instance, the outburst could have been because the player had a distributional hand, and now he won't be able to show his long suit. If the BOOTer jumped to game in his short suit, THAT would seem to be catering to his partner's tone. But it's still a guess -- I think it would be hard to say that the tone demonstrably suggests which suit he held.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2013-March-30, 02:48, said:

If one were to accept that the comment provided UI demonstrably suggesting bidding 3NT (which I do not), I think a poll of players who were asked what they would call if they knew that their partner was barred, but not for what reason, would find that pass is not a logical alternative.

I think a poll of players familiar with Law 16B who were asked what they would call if they knew that their partner was barred would select a mixture of Pass and 3NT. The strong player, not a disciple of King, at the table actually chose Pass (I told you that it was broadly true and I was interested in what would have happened if he had chosen 3NT). The other interesting point is that the IBidder now knows that the person sitting over does not want to accept 1NT. Presumably his LHO's game-theory strategy is to accept 1NT most of the time when he does not want you to reach game, and to not accept it most of the time when he wants to double 3NT. Your game-theory strategy cannot therefore be to bid 3NT 100% of the time, as King suggests.

Whether the UI demonstrably suggests values is unclear. If it does then it does demonstrably suggest 3NT.

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2013-April-02, 10:06, said:

Then you are illegally communicating with your partner who will pass when you are very annoyed, and open 3NT when you are less so.

In the situation you describe I would certainly adjust and give a PP. In the actual situation, an adjustment would be terrible and it seems logical to assume you agree.

[ggwhiz]

lamford, on 2013-April-02, 10:25, said:

Presumably his LHO's game-theory strategy is to accept 1NT most of the time when he does not want you to reach game, and to not accept it most of the time when he wants to double 3NT. Your game-theory strategy cannot therefore be to bid 3NT 100% of the time, as King suggests.

I disagree. Not accepting the 1nt call simply bars your lho from finding whatever... the making game or a slam as opposed to you smashing 3nt.

An astute pard should probably strain to bid on nothing in front of North. Lead directing if the UI was so obvious but it isn't.

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2013-April-02, 10:25, said:

I think a poll of players familiar with Law 16B who were asked what they would call if they knew that their partner was barred would select a mixture of Pass and 3NT. The strong player, not a disciple of King, at the table actually chose Pass (I told you that it was broadly true and I was interested in what would have happened if he had chosen 3NT). The other interesting point is that the IBidder now knows that the person sitting over does not want to accept 1NT. Presumably his LHO's game-theory strategy is to accept 1NT most of the time when he does not want you to reach game, and to not accept it most of the time when he wants to double 3NT. Your game-theory strategy cannot therefore be to bid 3NT 100% of the time, as King suggests.

Whether the UI demonstrably suggests values is unclear. If it does then it does demonstrably suggest 3NT.

FWIW I don't agree with any of your GTO conclusions.

[mycroft]

lamford, on 2013-April-02, 10:11, said:

Indeed. Occam's Razor suggests that the reason he was annoyed is that he knew there was a game on and the bid out of turn had hampered the chances of reaching that. To think "partner will now open 3NT and I do not want that" is a much less likely scenario.

I agree, but I would (and have, oddly enough) suggest that the Occam possibility has nothing to do with his cards and everything to do with partner's chronic lack of attention this session, of which this is the least part. Much lower in my list would be either of your choices above.

And really, you found anybody willing to pass this hand with partner barred? 1NT I can see, but pass?

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2013-April-02, 16:17, said:

And really, you found anybody willing to pass this hand with partner barred? 1NT I can see, but pass?

In real life there was no comment at all. It happened near the beginning of a 24-board match; the player probably thought that if there was a game on, there would be plenty of time to make up the IMPs; if there was no game, he could be bringing back a silly score on a nothing board.

When you have a strong NT, it is significantly odds against that you will have a game, perhaps 30%; additionally if you have a game, it might not be in NT.

Now opening 1NT is an interesting idea. If it is your hand and you make 9 tricks, you will have made up a few of the IMPs that the opponents gained by being in game. Of course the opponents can compete rather freely, since you will not find out whether your side have the assets to double them (potentially) into game.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2013-April-02, 09:28, said:

Accepting the call out of turn ensures a normal bridge auction, although not the same auction as would otherwise have taken place.

Right, and since there is no rectification available if I do this (apart from L23, which is a little far-fetched) I would rather not randomise my result. Naturally it will be randomised anyway, but if my opponents have to guess, it might not be too bad for me.

And if I have teammates, I am under an obligation to them to try to maximise my score on every hand. They will not be impressed if I refuse to take the penalty available because I am "a nice guy". But I play in games where calling the director and receiving rulings, including accepting advantages that they may involve, is not considered less nice than simply letting things go.