OC ruling

[h2osmom]

[hv=s=stxxxxh9xxxxd9xxc]133|100|[/hv]

 

bidding goes, starting to your right, p you pass, 1s by lho, 2c by your pd, double, alerted. You don't ask what the double is. You pass. Original spade bidder bids 2s, your partner doubles, and rho passes to you. Now you ask what the alert was, and are told drury, limit raise in spades. So you bid 3h, bidding proceeds p p p. Dummy comes down with

Kx KJ AKx AJxxxx. You play the hand and go off 2. After the hand is played, you question the drury explanation, and find out that it was actually meant as negative double, not drury. But you are running late. Opps ask you to defer calling director and play the rest of the set. You agree, play out the set, and call director after conclusion. Ruling is that you gave up your rights when you continued playing, result stands. Is this ruling correct? Is it fair? This occured at AX swiss at OC regionals. Thank you.

[pclayton]

Adam already posted this hand I think Carol.

[awm]

Given that the opponents asked you to defer calling the director until the end of the set, I think the director's ruling that you thereby forfeited your rights is atrocious. Essentially the opponents were allowed to coffeehouse you into forfeiting rights. Even if it's the case that by waiting until the end of the set you would normally forfeit your rights, which I think is an incorrect interpretation of the laws, the fact that this was by opponents request should take precedence here.

 

On the other hand, I did already post this hand as a bidding problem and even with the correct explanation (double was negative), essentially everyone voted to bid 3♥ (or to bid 2NT lebensohl followed by 3♥, for those playing 2NT lebensohl). Given this vote, I think the director should rule that the table result stands in any case.

[cherdano]

Actually I have a question on this:

Director has to be called as soon as "attention has been drawn to an irregularity". The moment dummy comes down, I know double wasn't drury (unless LHO psyched, which seems quite unlikely). However, I would really prefer calling TD only at the end of the play since it doesn't matter for my play and since calling the TD gives AI to the opponents (it wakes them up about their misunderstanding and tells them I have long spades) which IMO they don't deserve.

What is the right thing to do? Does "attention has been drawn" mean it has become public knowledge at the table, or does it kick in as soon as I can infer the MI from my hand?

[jtfanclub]

Does "attention has been drawn" mean it has become public knowledge at the table, or does it kick in as soon as I can infer the MI from my hand?

When it becomes public knowledge or when somebody mentions it, whichever comes first.

 

I guess that's kind of redundant.

 

You do not need to, for example, call the director when it's obvious to you that an opponent has revoked, if you think that your other opponent will misplay the hand as a result.

[ralph23]

Does "attention has been drawn" mean it has become public knowledge at the table, or does it kick in as soon as I can infer the MI from my hand?

The former. You have figured out from your hand + dummy that they only have 6 ♠ collectively, but no one's attention "has been drawn" to the fact that there was (probably) a mistaken explanation (yet).

 

BTW, you're not absolutely positive yet that there was MI. It's possible (though I think very unlikely) that they have the (somewhat unusual) agreement that the double is a "stolen bid" type of Drury-bid here, rather than just a garden variety negative double; and that responder just forgot that and misbid.

 

Hmmm, I'm giving that about a 1.3% probability B) .

[bid_em_up]

But you are running late.  Opps ask you to defer calling director and play the rest of the set.  You agree,  play out the set, and call director after conclusion.  Ruling is that you gave up your rights when you continued playing,  result stands.  Is this ruling correct?  Is it fair?  This occured at AX swiss at OC regionals.

Turn it around and answer some questions of yourself:

 

1) Did you know you are supposed to immediately call the director" when an infraction occurs?"

 

2) Did you know that by failing to call the director immediately, you may lose some or all of your rights to a remedy or resolution?

 

If you can state that you were unaware of the obligation to call the director immediately, then no, its not fair and probably not correct either.

 

If you can state that you were unaware that by failing to call the director immediately, you may lose some of all of your rights, then no, its not fair and probably not correct either.

 

The director should take this into consideration when making a decision on whether to rule or not, along with the fact that it was the opponents who requested the delay in calling the director.

 

If you were aware of 1 & 2 above, then the ruling is correct, even though you delayed calling the director at the opponents request to do so.

 

If I am not mistaken, you are a Flight C player, and were playing in an A/x flight. Given that, and had you informed the director that you were unaware of any such ruling or law, they should take that into consideration when deciding whether to rule or not. It is entirely possible the director just assumed since you were playing A/x, that you would be aware of this. So, in a sense, no the ruling is not correct when taken in context (assuming you did not know 1 & 2 above), but it is the correct ruling according to the laws. And no, its not fair; all you can do is chalk it up as a learning experience.

 

If you were aware of either 1) or 2) above, then you should have done as the laws require and called the director immediately, regardless of what the opponents wanted. Never let an opponent try to get you to do something that is not in YOUR best interests at the table. No matter what their reason is. Just tell them, "I'm sorry, but I am protecting my rights" and call the TD.

 

It's unfortunate that there are many players who will attempt to pull this sort of stunt, knowing that if they can convince someone not to call the director then and there, that the person will lose their rights to redress later and they will attempt thru any means possible to get you not to call the director. Do not let them intimidate you. Treat them exactly as you do me at the table. B)

 

If I had to bet, the misexplanation of the alert was probably also deliberate, in the hopes of getting your side to do exactly what happened at the table. I've seen this tactic pulled before also by players who should know better vs. people who are less likely to be aware of the rules. "Oh, did I say it was Drury?, I'm sorry, I meant negative double." You know that they knew damn good and well what the proper explanation was supposed to be, but you can never prove it.

[blackshoe]

Ruling is that you gave up your rights when you continued playing

 

I would like to know under which Law the TD made this ruling.

 

Hint: he made it up. :huh: