SEoW?

[blackshoe]

This thing about PP.... shouldn't the call to director be made after the 5♦ bid?, are you talking about calling director again after the board, or about calling him only after the board for the PP

 

Law 16B3: When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the director when play ends*.

 

* It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later.

The emphasis is mine.

[pran]

Are we quibbling over the form of the request? Compare:

 

1) Director, please assess a PP against NS for blatant use of UI.

 

2) Director, I think NS are guilty of blatant use of UI, enough to warrant a PP. Here's what happened: ...

 

The first is an explicit request, the second just provides info. But the substance is clearly the same in both cases, it's just the form that's different.

No, even the second assumes the existence and use of UI.

 

Who is to decide if there was use of UI?

 

Try:

 

3) Director, This is what happened and I would like to have a judgement on North's call after South's BIT.

[aguahombre]

Yes, Barmar, we seem to be quibbling over the form of the request. IMO, the players can be excused for not having thought out carefully exactly how to word things when the TD arrives; but the TD himself should have the training, if not the predisposition, to ignore imperfect presentations and proceed without injecting personality into it by making gratuitous "I am the boss, not you" comments.

[bluejak]

Some strange posts here.

 

Any player has the right to call the TD if there is an infraction. He can tell the TD anything relevant, and that includes his opinion that a PP or DP is warranted. Any TD who tells them it is not his business is being unnecessarily rude and is wrong: it is his business. The TD, of course, does not need to act on such a suggestion.

 

Furthermore, there is no need to recall the TD if there seems to be no damage. So if 800 was scored by E/W they can call the TD or not as they please.

 

5♦ is not an LA per se. That does not affect the fact that it can be ruled back. There have been a million discussions on this, with about five or six legal bases for doing so. Please just accept that we can rule it back.

 

Despite the ludicrousness of the choice of 5♦ there is no doubt it was a breach of Law 73C so we can adjust.

 

A weighted score between 420 and 450 seems reasonable outside the ACBL, and a split score inside the ACBL.

 

Finally, while it is generally wrong to consider other results because of different bidding sequences and so on, when it is solely the number of tricks to be made in a normal contract it is not unreasonable to consider other scores as part of the evidence.

[wyman]

Looking up Laws is somewhat better than making them up, because people may assume that a poster is actually quoting a Law rather than inventing one. "Could demonstrably have been suggested" is very different to "have been demonstraboy suggested".

 

Nonetheless, for that law to apply, the call chosen has to have been a logical alternative in the first place, which it is clearly not on this hand -- unless we're using the fact that it was chosen as evidence of it being a LA, and I forget which way the RA's have gone on that issue.

 

This call is so far out in left field! Would there be an issue had south chosen 7D over the hesitation and it rolled on a bad lead? I suspect "south is allowed to be terrible, sorry" would be the answer given to the NOS.

 

edit: I must have replied without seeing this page of responses, in particular, bluejak's immediately above.

[blackshoe]

Grattan once told me that "logical alternative" doesn't mean what it says. Instead it means something like "plausible alternative for the class of player involved". So it isn't the case that the alternatives under consideration, and in particular the one chosen by a player in receipt of UI, have to be "logical", only that it has to be plausible that this player might choose them — and the fact that he did choose a particular action automatically makes it a plausible alternative.

 

I've never liked that approach, but that's what I was told.

[gnasher]

Grattan once told me that "logical alternative" doesn't mean what it says.

It was clever of him to find a way to promulgate law changes that is even less effective than a WBFLC minute. Did he mention whether, when and how he planned to share this with the rest of the bridge-playing world?

[lamford]

It was clever of him to find a way to promulgate law changes that is even less effective than a WBFLC minute. Did he mention whether, when and how he planned to share this with the rest of the bridge-playing world?

I think we have to wait until the next issue of the Laws, as ever. Grattan has also indicated, via BLML, that there is a grammatical error in 12C1b, which reads:

 

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted.

 

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error or by wild or gambling action (unrelated to the infraction) it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted.

 

The intention was that any action related to the infraction would not deny redress, but the clause was wrongly worded last time out.

[gordontd]

The intention was that any action related to the infraction would not deny redress, but the clause was wrongly worded last time out.

I don't recall anyone at San Remo making this point, where we had an extensive discussion about Serious Errors and where several members of the WBFLC including Grattan were present. Perhaps it escaped me.

 

If we wish to disallow double-shots (and we could certainly have a discussion about whether or not that is desirable), then I think we should leave it as it is.

[jallerton]

I think we have to wait until the next issue of the Laws, as ever. Grattan has also indicated, via BLML, that there is a grammatical error in 12C1b, which reads:

 

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted.

 

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error or by wild or gambling action (unrelated to the infraction) it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted.

 

The intention was that any action related to the infraction would not deny redress, but the clause was wrongly worded last time out.

 

I find this difficult to believe. It seems clear that the lawmakers intended "unrelated to the infraction" to attach to (only) "serious error" because they have gone out of their way to order the words in the way they did. In fact a construction of the type you suggest: "has contributed to its own damage by a serious error or by wild or gambling action (unrelated to the infraction)" is ambiguous as it is not clear whether the wording in brackets relates to the part preceding the "or" or not.

[barmar]

I find this difficult to believe. It seems clear that the lawmakers intended "unrelated to the infraction" to attach to (only) "serious error" because they have gone out of their way to order the words in the way they did. In fact a construction of the type you suggest: "has contributed to its own damage by a serious error or by wild or gambling action (unrelated to the infraction)" is ambiguous as it is not clear whether the wording in brackets relates to the part preceding the "or" or not.

And there are other possible ways to reword it that would completely resolve the ambiguity. I find it hard to believe that they would reword it from something that (supposedly) doesn't mean what was intended to something that would be ambiguous. It's only through the history of the current construction that someone might expect that the new wording intends the parenthetical to apply to both branches of the OR.