[katsue]

I was dealer but my partner reached for bids in the bidding box. No one at the table saw her intended bid. TD said she had indicated 12+ points so before ruling she must make her bid. My first point is she might have had less than 12 and was going to make a weak bid. Anyway she bid 1S. It was not accepted and therefore she had to remain silent throughout. However I now had extra information as we are playing 5 card majors and with 14 points and Kxx in spades I bid 4S making. Opps were not too aggrieved as most were in 3NT + 1 so they had a good result. But was the TD correct? What should have been the ruling?

[Cyberyeti]

The bid is made if it's removed from the bidding box with intent IIRC, so the bid was not made.

There may be UI implications, but I believe there is no other rectification.

I believe had she bid 1♠ out of turn, she could bid what she liked but you should have been silenced throughout.

[ahydra]

That sounds like a disaster of a ruling to me. Cyberyeti nailed two of the key points - for a start, the bid was not made, secondly there's no law saying that "indicating" any number of points in some way means a player must bid, thirdly even if you are going to call it a BOOT it's you who should have been silenced, not partner, and fourthly you should have been ruled against for using the UI from the BOOT, though I guess there was no damage anyway (if playing matchpoints).

Perhaps the TD who made this ruling would like to attend one of the EBU's excellent club TD courses? That or buy a law book (or both).

The correct ruling should have been: nothing happened and you should call first as usual, but you should be careful to avoid using any information that partner had an opening bid of some sort. Hard to say what that information would suggest given that the bid could be a wide variety of shapes and strengths, so if you just make your normal opening bid and continuations I can't see any (knowledgable) TD ruling against you.

ahydra

[ggwhiz]

That indeed is one hopelessly messed up ruling and both sides deserve avg+ or perhaps the table result for them and avg+ for you after the fact. Not sure how a gross Director error adjustment should be applied but it was gross.

[mycroft]

This ruling in general depends on jurisdiction - as do enough ruling questions that we ask you provide your jurisdiction in all rulings posts.

In most of the world, what Cyberyeti said is correct - a bid is made when taken out of the box with apparent intent. Bid not made, you have a whole slew of UI, the opponents are allowed and expected to use any information they got from your partner's action, we will monitor the auction to ensure that you do not make a call that is suggested by the UI where there was a less successful logical alternative not so suggested, play on.

In the ACBL, the ruling is the same, but a bid is made when it is on the table or held close to the table with intent. So even if the bid had cleared the box before partner realized they weren't dealer, the bid wasn't made, UI, whole 9 yards.

Were the bid to be deemed made, then, should it not be accepted, Law 31B means that *you* must pass throughout, not partner (which makes sense, if you think about it). If partner then after (enforced)pass-pass decides to slam out 4♠, and it happens to play better than 3NT (or vice versa, which is more common), then by Law 10C4, it is both lawful and "appropriate" to take your top, and the opponents got unlucky (just as unlucky as when you take the finesse (which works, but is 50%) over the breaks-or-a-squeeze line (which is 90% but doesn't work on this hand) because you don't know how).

Finally, when the director realizes that she has misruled, she should apply Law 82C. What that means in this case would strongly depend on the hand and whether it was possible to determine a likely result (or results) had the ruling been given correctly.

You'll notice I'm citing Law numbers a lot. There's a reason for that :-).

[blackshoe]

Mycroft pretty much nailed it. I would add one other point: there is no legal ruling that includes an artificial adjusted score for one side and an assigned adjusted score for the other. See Law 12.

[Cyberyeti]

What Mycroft says looks accurate, there is just one proviso, I had a case almost exactly like this on an appeals committee.

The opener with a weak no trump with 5 spades opted to punt 3N, spades were 4-0, 3N made, 4♠ went off at other tables. Opener reached into the box and touched 1 something but was stopped before she started to remove it from the box. Director asked LHO whether she wished to accept the bid without making the bidder put it on the table so she didn't know what bid she was being asked to accept.

The only extra wrinkle was that the NOS maintained that during the director's time at the table explaining the ruling, the bidder's partner showed a fair amount of interest so gave UI she had values. You have to be careful about this if you're going to be legitimately silenced.

We ruled director error, but would have been more awkward had we not.

[mycroft]

Oh yeah, crap, should have thought of that. Always check for UI from the partner who legally has no input in the decision (esp. on Opening Lead Out Of Turn issues, but also "I'm about to be silenced, so I'll pay extra-special attention and ask questions about what I can't do, but only if I have values" cases).

TDing is not always easy...that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get it right every time.

[gordontd]

katsue, on 2016-August-24, 06:27, said:

I was dealer but my partner reached for bids in the bidding box. No one at the table saw her intended bid. TD said she had indicated 12+ points so before ruling she must make her bid. My first point is she might have had less than 12 and was going to make a weak bid. Anyway she bid 1S. It was not accepted and therefore she had to remain silent throughout. However I now had extra information as we are playing 5 card majors and with 14 points and Kxx in spades I bid 4S making. Opps were not too aggrieved as most were in 3NT + 1 so they had a good result. But was the TD correct? What should have been the ruling?

This sounds very like a ruling I was asked to give an opinion about today, except I was told that the bidding cards had left the box, which in the EBU would mean the call had been made.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2016-August-24, 10:09, said:

This ruling in general depends on jurisdiction - as do enough ruling questions that we ask you provide your jurisdiction in all rulings posts.

katsue's IP resolves to a sky.com name. I think that implies she's in the UK, so probably EBU jurisdiction.

[blackshoe]

I think so too. We still ask that folks provide the jurisdiction.