sanst

Actually, Law 11 is useless in this form. You can’t expect a director at the table not only to look up that law, but also the Commentary. Quite a few have no idea of its existence, I guess. So you decide something, based on a cryptic text. I find that unacceptable.

As far as I’m aware: nobody here states that there should be an immediate change. But that a change is necessary, is more than obvious. Note that Ton Kooijman in the Commentary doesn’t mention “in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law”, although it would be quite interesting to know what this means. To me, it’s something the Oracle of Delphi might have said.

You’re right. Why the WBFLC didn’t put that in the law, is a mystery to me. I think we can agree that this law is in dire need of rephrasing.

Law 11 begins with “The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non‐offending side takes any action before summoning the Director.” So, it’s about the irregularity that happened before the TD was summoned, not about the not summoning of the TD. In the Commentary to the Laws it says about this law: “ Law 11 deals with players who don’t call the director when there is an irregularity. If the non- offenders act before calling the TD, the Law has said for years they may forfeit their right to rectification of that irregularity. Law 11A is changed in the 2017 code. We are to award a split score (two-way bad) when either side gains”. You should award a score that is the worst possible for, in this case, EW, but within reason. Their result was 1♥+2, all the others score one off, so -100 is the probable outcome had the infraction - the inadmissible call - not occurred. Had their result been 1♥+1, the adjusted score would be -2, -200.

The call was not insufficient, but inadmissible and cannot be condoned. You may find Law 11 gobbledygook, that doesn’t mean you can ignore it. You’re bound by the Laws, existing jurisprudence, like WBFLC minutes, and the Commentary to the Laws. Nowhere in Law 11 it says that you should reconstruct what would have happened had the TD be called in time. It obliges the TD to take away an accrued advantage. As an aside: Ton Kooijman in the commentary doesn’t mention the ‘ignorance of the relevant provisions‘, which he probably find as mystifying as I do. It’s up to the TD to decide if in this case EW have accrued an advantage and take that away. Law 36 may provide a ground for discussion, but you don’t need to use that law here. You just decide whether there is and advantage - and looking at the score card it’s obvious that there is - and take that away. Both sides have to get a bad score, according to the commentary.

That’s not what I read in the Laws, not to mention the complexity of your solution. The TD should take away ‘any accrued advantage’ (11A). “The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred.” (12C1b). The infraction was the inadmissible double. Had that not occurred EW would in all probability have scored -100. You shouldn’t consider what would have happened had the TD been called in time, because that didn’t happen. Using your method there’s a not insignificant chance that EW still get a result that’s better than the rest of the field, which certainly is not what the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote 11A if the commentary is a guideline.

I think the ambiguity of Law 11A is in “an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law”. Ignorant in what way? Not a trained and experienced TD? Not a total beginner? What if somewhere in between? I think this law would serve the purpose stated in the commentary when the emphasized part was dropped from it. In this case, where every EW went off one trick, I would adjust their score to -100 too, nothing as complicated as mycroft proposes. If the score card shows a number of different outcomes, a weighed score might be necessary, but not here. BTW: the 2017 version of this law is more equitable than the older, but that one was much easier to apply for the TD :D. Why do the lawmakers have to complicate life for us poor directors?

S made a mistake, N explained the 2♣ correctly, as did S, by sheer luck, of the 2♦ answer. S became aware or in any case could have become aware of his mistake by the explanation, but without it he would probably have made a NT call, 2NT or 3NT. The real problem for EW is, that E was put on the wrong footing. E assumed a 15-17 HCP three suiter on his left and would probably have kept his mouth shut if he had known that S made a mistake. In that case W would have led a spade and killed the contract outright. But, you’re not entitled to know that an opponent made a mistake. However, W learned of the mistake before he faced the lead and had the opportunity to change it. So NS could claim self-inflicted damage, but I wouldn’t go with that. This is certainly not a serious error. I’m afraid it’s a case of bad luck, where a mistake results in a good result. A poll could show what is a LA for S, 2NT, 3NT for the adepts of Hamman’s Rule, of maybe even 3♦. If NS introduced this agreement recently and had not much experience with it, I think N should have said so when asked to explain. For me, that’s part of ‘full disclosure’. Would E in that case still have bid 2♥? The only one who can answer that is E and he’s not likely to say “Yes” when asked. So, it’s up to the TD to decide after hearing what the players have to say.

I rather doubt that these are ‘high level partnerships’. I can see this happening in a club game, E makes a mistake, becomes aware of it by W’s answer and chooses 3NT, maybe even in panic, hoping for the best. I simply refuse to believe that ‘normal’ pairs make a habit of tricks like this, like mycroft seems to do. Most amateur players play for fun, entertainment, nothing else. Don’t forget that situations like this only come to the attention of the TD when a mistake results in a good score. Mostly the result is just the opposite :D. And I don’t like an attitude of “If they get a good result by making a mistake, find a way to punish them anyway”. That’s close to “guilty unless proven innocent”. You’re right, 3NT has all kinds of artificial meanings in high level partnerships, but not for the average pair in a club, not over here in my experience.

There’s the possibility that E didn’t misclick or mispull, nor psyched - I think that’s unlikely - but just forgot the agreement and thought it was forcing, but weaker than 2NT. In that case there might have been UI if W didn’t alert. But as you wrote, we are still in the dark about some essential points. That’s a basic problem with our discussions here, we rarely read both sides of the story and we can’t ask questions to both parties that are involved.

Just one question: what is the infraction? Without UI you’re free to deviate from your system and bid whatever legal bid you like to make. In the OP doesn’t say anything about UI, MI, a failure to alert or what 3NT is for this pair. Pescetom, it’s not unusual where I live to have 2♥ as natural, preferably 5+, and forcing.

AFAIK W didn’t receive UI. So W isn’t under any obligation to distrust E’s decision to bid 3NT. When I’ve told what my holding is, I trust my partner, however stupid it might seem a that moment. Luckily, I’ve partner who usually can be trusted and if it goes wrong, well there’s the next board. This isn’t a case of misinformation, this is a case of signaling positive for spades by N, which was an obvious mistake and an attempt to get redress by the TD. Well, that’s not what the TD is for.

Whar’s the problem? E might have mispulled/misclicked or just have forgotten the agreement. W has told everything there can be told about her or his hand, E realises legally his or her mistake after 3♥ and hopes for the best in 3NT. Thanks to S continuing spades that makes. No reason to change the score. EW were lucky, NS inflicted the damage on themselves. “Next board, please.”

If they play 1430 answers, W would have bid 5♦, still assuming hearts are trumps, which E can legally pass. That can be made, even with an overtrick given the finesses.

Did EW explain how they are damaged by the infractions? In what way is the explanation misleading and how put that them on the wrong footing? In what way did N make use of the unauthorized information caused by the pause? BTW, I’m a fairly moderate player and out of practice, but I can’t come up with a reason for W not to double 5♠. That is self-inflicted damage.

I rather doubt EW are the peers of an international player. Or is that someone, e.g a Dutchman, who is having a holiday on a camping in France playing a game on a sunny afternoon?

Neither do I. But he made that call and as a TD you have to decide, given the auction. I agree with pescetom that you have to know what the answers to 4NT are for this pair. If 5♦ denotes three of five key cards, E would have had an easy escape. But W certainly deserves an slap on the wrist for the use of UI. And if you’re quite certain that E deliberately paused to convey the message that 4NT was to play, not Blackwood, than this pair should pay a heavy price.

If there really was a long delay - and in a situation like this I’m not inclined to believe a loss of signal, but I don’t know how probable that is in Oz - there’s obvious use of UI. It must be clear for W that neither N nor S has been thinking at this point, so it must have been E. W should have answered with whatever bid indicates three aces, in classical Blackwood that would have been 5♠ and E would probably have bid 6♦, which would have gone off one trick. Deserves W a penalty for the blatant use of UI? I would say so, I would at least throw the Laws book at him or her.

The comparable call is obviously an experiment gone wrong. Just let the auction continue and apply 23C when necessary. I wsh the WBFLC takes that line in 2027, but, based on experience, I’m afraid it will be changed into something still more complicated for your average TD.

So, guilty, unless proven innocent.

In online bridge you should not assume foul play on the basis of a single occasion, however suspicious. Even Nicolas Hammond, whose methods are not generally accepted, needs a pattern of ‘strange’ plays. The proof has to be statistical. There’s another advantage in that: you can build a case against a player like ChCh not merely based on a reputation, but on facts. Here it looks like the same old story, ChCh finds a way to put SB on the wrong foot, SB has a bad result and makes an extraordinary show of his anger. I can imagine ChCh laughing his head off and doing it just for the fun of it. It’s a pity we only know of the cases were SB claims damage, not of the cases where ChCh falls in his own trap.

I’m quite interested to know how this club organises the game. Bellowing and leafing through the law book is typical for the physical game, misclicks can AFAIK only happen online. Are the playing sitting at the same table with a screen in front of them, playing online?

Stepbridge, internet bridge club of the Dutch bridge union, has over 30.000 members and has grown considerably during the pandemic.

Has anybody who made this rule, exlained how to bid with a hand as south holds? These hands are notoriously difficult to handle in an otherwise natural system. I don’t know how this should be handled, but I’m glad that I’m not playing or directing in ACBL-land.

We all know that argument “I was always going to bid XYZ”. The answer to that is, “If you were going to bid that, why didn’t you do it in the first place?”. Here E has no reason to disbelieve that his partner’s hearts are better than his pretty l**ssy diamonds other than the UI that came from the alert and explanation. W also used the UI from the flinching of E. They both deserve a serious warning about the use of UI, and if they are really experienced a PP. I’m afraid that polling won’t help. I don’t know whether it would be possible to find the peers of W that would bid 2♥ with this hand and agreement, but I have my doubts. But I would decide for 3♥x -2 if a weighed score is impossible and a poll shows four out of five players choose to double 3♥.