mycroft Posted November 21, 2011 Report Share Posted November 21, 2011 If you call for *every* irregularity, you'll be finished by tomorrow midnight, possibly. We all know this - which is why the wording of Law 9 has been softened. But if you "immediately accept" an IB *deliberately*, you are making your own ruling and that is illegal. If you call, and the TD gives you the option, and you accept it, fine. The TD *should* also be explaining what options you have to the table, so that the non-pro players know what options you decided *not* to take. I believe that they take pros calling the TD badly - people do. Given what I saw in Toronto, pros take non-pros calling the TD badly too (in the two cases I'm thinking of, they did have a point, it was sheer rules-lawyering, and I believe they were being extra-ethical in their illegality; but they were still lazy, they were still wrong, and they were still putting up an example that their lesser followers would follow (without the extra-ethicality) and that is bad for the game in general). There are, in my experience, ways and ways to call the TD; and it is possible to get some opponents on your side with a "look, let's just see what should happen here" (some, I agree, are a Lost Cause; but those are almost certainly the ones that are going to call the TD when you accept the IB!) I guess I'm just upset because there are "helpful experts" in my world who also don't call the TD, and apply the Law as it is written in their memory, but which is either flat-out wrong, or was changed in 1973 if not 1997. The real answer, as we all (here) know, is to educate the players about the referee nature (as opposed to the police nature) of the TD; and that having the TD at the table when something goes wrong is in the best interest of everybody, including the side who's responsible for the irregularity. Also, of course, to educate the TDs so that they actually rule according to Law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted November 21, 2011 Report Share Posted November 21, 2011 But if you "immediately accept" an IB *deliberately*, you are making your own ruling and that is illegal. If you call, and the TD gives you the option, and you accept it, fine. The TD *should* also be explaining what options you have to the table, so that the non-pro players know what options you decided *not* to take.If he accepts it verbally, fair enough. If he accepts it by making his own call in turn, though, no-one has drawn attention to the irregularity so the TD need not be summoned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 I would suggest that *deliberately* not pointing this out and *deliberately* making a bid that accepts the IB is close enough to Law 11A to be an issue. I would accept as a counterargument that Law 27A1 says nothing about rectification, and that this is just "proper procedure." I would still believe that doing so deliberately, rather than pointing it out, summoning the TD "just to see what should happen", and then taking the option to accept, is the less proper, if not improper, route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 I would suggest that *deliberately* not pointing this out and *deliberately* making a bid that accepts the IB is close enough to Law 11A to be an issue.11A says that Fluffy may forfeit his right to rectification by doing this, which I imagine he accepts, but it doesn't say he shouldn't do it. Indeed, since you are not obliged to draw attention to your own irregularity (9A4) it would be strange to rule that you are obliged to draw attention to your opponent's irregularity. This is the IB equivalent of 29A for a BOOT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 [...]But if you "immediately accept" an IB *deliberately*, you are making your own ruling and that is illegal. [...]Law 27A1 ("It is accepted if that player calls.") explicitly allows offender's LHO to accept the IB by calling without summoning the Director if he does so before attention is drawn to the insufficient bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 I think the assumption behind 27A1 is that LHO probably didn't notice that the bid was insufficient, not that he's deliberately making his own ruling. If you don't pay enough attention in this situation you may lose the right to rectification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 I think the assumption behind 27A1 is that LHO probably didn't notice that the bid was insufficient, not that he's deliberately making his own ruling. If you don't pay enough attention in this situation you may lose the right to rectification.Yes, and Law 27A1 is an option that is available to him also after summoning the Director, so he is in no "hurry" to face his cards in order to become Dummy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.