Off-centre weak 2

[nige1]

[sNIP] In effect, the AC decision gives players an incentive to call the TD every time there is a misexplanation, so as to inflict PPs on the opponents (which according to this AC should be given whenever a player forgets his agreement). This is not how the game should be played.

If the misexplanation is an infraction to which attention was drawn then it is both sides' duty to summon the director. IMO, when deciding whether to call a director, players should ignore putative shortcomings in law or director/committee judgement.

[duschek]

If the misexplanation is an infraction to which attention was drawn then it is both sides' duty to summon the director. IMO, when deciding whether to call a director, players should ignore putative shortcomings in law or director/committee judgement.

Do you mean to say that if, after the play of a hand is completed, I am aware that an inaccurate explanation has been given to me but know for sure that I have not been damaged, I should routinely summon the TD?

[nige1]

If the misexplanation is an infraction to which attention was drawn then it is both sides' duty to summon the director. IMO, when deciding whether to call a director, players should ignore putative shortcomings in law or director/committee judgement.

Do you mean to say that if, after the play of a hand is completed, I am aware that an inaccurate explanation has been given to me but know for sure that I have not been damaged, I should routinely summon the TD?

Assuming attention has been drawn to an infraction ...

• I confess that I sometimes fail to call the director.
  
• I feel that calling the director is the ethical course of action.
  
• If the victim calls the director only if he is damaged and in contention, then it becomes even more profitable to break the law.
  
• I believe that the law says the victim should call the director.
  
• I believe further that the law says that the law-breaker himself should call the director. Although few do that.
  

[blackshoe]

The Law says

{a} The director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

{b} Any player, including dummy, may summon the director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

{c} Summoning the director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled.

{d} the fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does not affect the rights of the opponents.

The laws say, of "should", that failure to do what one "should" do is an infraction, albeit one which will seldom draw a procedural penalty. So. The director should be summoned. Any player may do so. Regarding "may" the laws say that failure to do what one "may" do "is not wrong". We have a dilemma. Someone should call the director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity. If no one does, there has been an infraction of law. But anyone may call, so if a particular player does not call, he has done nothing wrong. I think a practical interpretation of this is that once someone calls the director, the rest of the players at the table are off the hook. Still, someone should call. The Law does not say the victim (poor choice of words, Nigel, but I'll run with it) should call. It does not say the offender should call. It says someone should call, and leaves wide open who that someone should be.

[Jlall]

No chance west would bid 5H