BBO Discussion Forums: Opening out of turn, why so big penalty? - BBO Discussion Forums

The penalty for opening out of turn when someone else is dealer (in case of the bid not being accepted) is to bar one player from making any bids during the full auction. Its hard to think for a bigger penalty to a pair, I think I would rather play wiht my hand exposed to the opponents during bid and play than bar my partner from amking any bids. And that is for something very mundane and without any intention. Why is it so big?

It's not that big in all circumstances. If it's RHO's turn to call, then you might not bar partner at all (if RHO passes) or just for one round (if you repeat your denomination). If it's LHO or partner's turn to call, it's more significant because you have put your partner in a position where they are acting with knowledge of your hand that they should not have.

That's not to say that you can't argue against the severity, but the two situations are significantly different. Personally I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for someone who does this, so I can't get too upset about the penalty.

You refer specifically to opening out of turn, but the penalty for bidding out of turn at any other stage of the auction is just the same. It is only in the case of passing out of turn (not a strong pass) that it makes a difference whether it is the initial action in the auction or not.

The laws seem to have powerful remedies against offences which subvert particularly fundamental principles of the game. Thus revokes have powerful penalties, (though they have been watered down over the years), as following suit is a particularly fundamental principle of the game, and it wouldn't do for people to get this wrong so often. Likewise, calling in rotation is a particularly fundamental principle of the game.

Precisely because the penalties for calling out of turn are so draconian, I think it is important to take due account of whether some other irregularity is the cause of it, such as a bidding card left on the table from the previous deal.

I think that the mechanics of the game are simple enough that expecting a person to play accordingly is not asking too much.

Next time, bid at your own turn.

What's wrong with the current Law is that it's arbitrary. The effect of barring partner could be nothing at all, or it could be a grand-slam swing. Similar criticsms apply to all the penalties for procedural mistakes, eg cards exposed in the auction, leads out of turn, and revokes.

Luckily now is the time to do something about it: the WBFLC are soliciting opinions about how to change the Laws, so write to them about it:

http://www.bridgebas...ion-from-wbflc/


PS Maybe one of our esteemed moderators should move this thread to the proper forum?

Vampyr, on 2012-April-13, 08:52, said:

The problem is that the penalty doesn't just affect the player who bid out of turn: it also gives a bonus of random value to their opponents. They may not even want this bonus: personally I prefer to win by thinking better than the opponents, rather than by having one of them prevented from participating in the auction.

gnasher, on 2012-April-13, 09:55, said:

Done.

The trouble with an opening bid out of turn is that in one way you have wrecked the board. Whatever happens, normal play can never be resumed. A big bonus for the opponents? Maybe, but why not: their board has been wrecked and it is not their fault.

It does not matter that the player did not intend to mess the board up: big penalties are a good idea for messing the board up.

bluejak, on 2012-April-23, 09:21, said:

Last time this hapened, the player forced to pass all deal had some very strong hand, everyone was in 3NT down 2, so pass out was a top for offending side, what do you think wrecks the board more?

another funny thing was that the board was old, and somehow the dealer was very hard to see. Obviously the rules don't handle this tiny (but important) factors when putting so big penalties.

It is incumbent on the Tournament Organizer to provide properly marked boards. If the designation of the dealer is hard to see, that's easily fixed.

As for "the last time this happened", you mean the last time it happened to you, or at least to your knowledge. Bridge is played in a lot more places than just our own private little corners of the world. One incident is not enough to justify changing the laws IMO. And did the TD in your case look at Law 23?

blackshoe, on 2012-April-23, 17:37, said:

It seems unlikely that Law 23 was applicable here; it just seems like a "rub of the green" case.

Oh, I don't disagree, Stefanie, but it is something that should be considered, even though in many cases it will not apply.

Of course, these "rub of the green" cases show why we have Law 12B2.

blackshoe, on 2012-April-23, 18:19, said:

In the situation that Fluffy describes (an enforced pass leads to a fortuitous good score for the offenders, and the offender couldn't have known that this might occur), are you saying that you can use 12B2 to take away their good score?

No, I'm saying that 12B2 prevents doing that.

blackshoe, on 2012-April-24, 07:22, said:

OK. Good.