[Cyberyeti]

I had an odd situation yesterday, and want to know what the correct procedure was. (EBU if it matters)

You have a 5332 14 count with 3 hearts and 5 diamonds playing weak NT.

Partner pulls a card out of the bidding box and is immediately told it's not his bid without anybody seeing the card pulled (which was at about its highest point, not heading for the table).

Is the bid made ? director said it was

It was my RHO's turn to bid, who rejected the BOOT and passed.

I contemplated my options:

Open 1♦, partner bids 1♥ and I'm barred
Open 1N and partner transfers and I'm barred

In both these cases partner could have a much weaker hand so the bid of hearts is not comparable

Open 4♥ - not legal, using UI

Pass - odd choice, but if the next hand passes there is no further UI

Apparently I'm allowed to know partner opened out of turn but not what.

It went p-p-p, partner opened 1♥ and there was no further issue

Is this all correct ?

[pescetom]

No, there was no bid made (at least under our regulations) and this is a Director error.

How did you know partner had hearts?

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2025-March-03, 13:48, said:

No, there was no bid made (at least under our regulations) and this is a Director error.

Could have caused an exchange that might not have been good for partnership harmony:

What was the damage ?

Well if I play the contract, I don't play it like an idiot and 4♥ makes rather than goes -1 (they also can't find the inconvenient lead they did which made his job harder but he should still make it)

[jillybean]

It's not a BOOT in so far as noone has seen the card however it is a BID not a PASS. This is UI for partner.
I think we need delve deeper, do does the Commentary on the Laws cover this? I will look at that later.

[mycroft]

hmm, where might you find this information for'EBU if it matters'? said:

A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent (but the TD may apply Law 25).

Cyberyeti, OP said:

Partner pulls a card out of the bidding box and is immediately told it's not his bid without anybody seeing the card pulled (which was at about its highest point, not heading for the table).

Is the bid made? Clearly, yes, at least anywhere the first quote applies. If it was "at its highest point", it had cleared the box.

This is a common situation, and yes, it is very likely that the person who made the mistake is about to guess what the contract should be after having made their mistake. Which is likely to be as much of a damper to the partnership score as any other mistake that player makes during the game, say forgetting to signal, or repeating the "winning" finesse after there is no more entry to the board, or miscounting Blackwood steps, or forgetting that there's a special bid for "this hand" and making the generic, but less specific, call instead.

Why, when the player commits an infraction, the fact that "the director is going to give us a bad score" is worse than when the player makes a non-infraction mistake of the same cost, is a question I am surprised I have to continue to contemplate. After all, one would think if anything it should be worse.

Oh, the source of the first quote? The "easy to find, easy to search" EBU Blue Book, section 3M1 on bidding boxes. Which was actually the third place I looked (I first checked the "easy to find, easy to search" EBU White Book interpretations on Law 25 (section 8.25) which pointed me to "Advice for Players", section 1.6.2, which mentioned 3M. Maybe I should have realized these regs, being more aimed at players than interpretations for directors, would be in the Blue Book.) Easy to find, though, yes. Congratulations to the EBU (no sarcasm here). But since it is so easy to see and understand, that all the players will have read and understood it (and at least one non-EBU player has read and understood it), I'm surprised there was any question about whether the call was made.

Spoiler

Oh, or people could have read any of the hundred or so times I've pointed out the difference between ACBL bidding box regulations (and, it seems FIGB) - where the bid is not made, but yes, there is a short ton of UI, and opener has to worry about guessing which bid will not get ruled against for use of UI instead of the Yeti's problem - and the civilized world. But don't take my word for it (seriously, don't. I make mistakes, especially with regulations I don't have to rule under).

[smerriman]

Surely passing with an opening hand based on the knowledge partner was going to open the bidding is "choosing a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information".

[Cyberyeti]

smerriman, on 2025-March-03, 22:37, said:

Surely passing with an opening hand based on the knowledge partner was going to open the bidding is "choosing a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information".

This is an interesting question and part of why I was posting this here, because there is AI and UI here. I know he was going to open but not what. I also know that I'm going to be barred if he makes a non comparable choice of bid.

Is the director allowed to ask partner what the bid was in private, and relay this info to my RHO without telling me to avoid that part of the UI ?

[jillybean]

What is the AI here, other than AI for your opponents?

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2025-March-04, 05:38, said:

What is the AI here, other than AI for your opponents?

That partner opened out of turn and that if he makes a bid not comparable to his opening bid, I will be barred from the auction

[jillybean]

I know that this information is often used by players but Law16C 2 tells us information from withdrawn calls and plays is UI

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2025-March-04, 07:45, said:

I know that this information is often used by players but Law16C 2 tells us information from withdrawn calls and plays is UI

That is "what the BOOT was" not that there was one.

There is clear direction that you're allowed to discuss what is and is not a comparable call with the director.

[jillybean]

It makes sense that the Director can discuss comparable calls with you and your partner.
It does not make sense that you can use the UI that there was a BOOT to influence your action.

In this case, pass with a 14 count.

This is headed to an adjusted score.

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2025-March-04, 09:08, said:

It makes sense that the Director can discuss comparable calls with you and your partner.
It does not make sense that you can use the UI that there was a BOOT to influence your action.

In this case, pass with a 14 count.

This is headed to an adjusted score.

No need for one.

a) partner butchered the play, so opps got a good result
b) If I open 1N, we end up in the same place, he knows I'm barred and bids the final contract of 4♥ that we reached anyway.

[mycroft]

Law 16A1, excerpts said:

A player may use information in the auction or play if:
c) it is information ... arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations

So, knowledge that partner was bidding something (but not what, although in my experience you can almost always tell "1-level" from "preempt") rather than passing is UI;

but that partner will be under Law 23 restrictions when it gets around to him is AI, and you are allowed to judge your call based on that (at your risk) - but not to the point where "agreements about this situation" become implied (if your RA is one of those that ban those).

So it is valid for OP to wonder how to get partner off the hook, if possible, as long as this situation isn't one where partner can guess *from experience* that, for example, "partner might have passed a 15 count, and therefore their drury call might be a _bit_ heavy".

But there is risk that partner is going to pass out this hand. That "risk" is very much ameliorated by the (unauthorized) knowledge that the attempted call out of turn wasn't green (and, I assume, probably not at the 3 level). Is that enough to make another "survive partner's barring me" call a LA? That's a question.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-March-03, 22:02, said:

I'm surprised there was any question about whether the call was made.

If you are pointing at me, I was as I said referring to our (FIGB) regulations, although I did remember wrongly that EBU was similar (as is usually the case, both being WBF-oriented).

Had this been in Italy there was clearly no call made: "a call is considered made when the related bidding box card is released on the table". Which of course has its own issues.

[mycroft]

Well, I was and I wasn't. Yes, according to your regulations (and mine) the bid was not made.

However, in the OP's game, it absolutely and clearly was, and there's no issue with Director's Error.

My frustration (probably heightened by "surviving this" (no link this time) - it did take a lot out of me. Not really fair, I realize) was that it has been a point recently that the ACBL regulations are so difficult to find and understand compared to the EBU, and as a result, fewer players read them and understand them. But of course, "we" were all unsure about this fact in this game, despite the blackletter regulation.

[jillybean]

Sorry to cause you so much grief!
Bids that aren’t quite, technically, bids but obviously not passes, doubles or preempts, out of turn are seemingly not well defined in any Bridge Authority’s Regulations .
Hands down, the EBU has done a better job than the ACBL at creating a Player Handbook.

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-March-03, 13:19, said:

In both these cases partner could have a much weaker hand so the bid of hearts is not comparable

Under EBU regulations this is clearly a BOOT, so the director was right about that.

Question: Whose bid of hearts is not comparable to what?

[sanst]

FWIIW:the Dutch rules are the same as the EBU's. That makes more sense to me than the ACBL's or FIGB's. If treated as a COOT it's much easier for the director, for otherwise there's a lot of UI you have to deal with.
Given all the possible methods, oral, digital, bidding boxes, written and maybe even more, I quite understand why there's nothing about bidding boxes in the Laws but it's up to the RA's to deal with regulations about bidding.

[sanst]

 sanst, on 2025-March-05, 02:52, said:

FWIIW:the Dutch rules are the same as the EBU's and WBF's (http://championships...ring-Scores.pdf). That makes more sense to me than the ACBL's or FIGB's. If treated as a COOT it's much easier for the director, for otherwise there's a lot of UI you have to deal with.
Given all the possible methods, oral, digital, bidding boxes, written and maybe even more, I quite understand why there's nothing about bidding boxes in the Laws but it's up to the RA's to deal with regulations about bidding.