Unpleasant situation at the club

[blackshoe]

We don't know this. It could have been when declarer showed out of trump.

Indeed. In which case there is no UI from N to S. Or rather, any inference from what N said can only confirm what S already knows (or should know, unless he's been asleep).

[BunnyGo]

Hm. Interesting. During the auction period, any player may draw attention to any irregularity that may have occurred, unless prohibited by law (Law 9A1). During the play period, again unless prohibited by law, declarer or either defender may call attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period (Law 9A2, emphasis mine). So it may be illegal to call attention, during the play period, to an irregularity that occurred during the auction period. If this is true, I wonder how many directors are aware of it. It didn't occur to me until I just read those two laws again.

 

I suspect that the table director did not consider it wrong to call when north did, though perhaps, as someone suggested, ill-advised. It may not have occurred to a club director that North may have been providing UI to South.

 

Whatever the director did or did not say before he left the table, West had no business going on about North being "unethical". He's made his concerns known to the TD, now he should shut up.

 

Yes, NS shouldn't argue, they should just call the TD (call him back, since he was there already).

 

Is the irregularity of not correcting the lack of alert part of the auction or play period?

[blackshoe]

Is the irregularity of not correcting the lack of alert part of the auction or play period?

It depends. If the OS are declaring, the correction should occur during the auction period (after the final pass, but before the opening lead is chosen). If the OS are defending, the correction should occur after the play period is completed. If the player who mis-explained subsequently (to his mis-explanation) realizes that he has done so, the correct should occur immediately upon that realization, whenever it occurs. The laws do not say so, but presumably if his partner has already corrected the MI, his own correction is no longer needed. IAC, if the correct time for correction of partner's failure to alert or other MI has not arrived, no irregularity has occurred if no correction has been made.

[Trinidad]

One could argue that:

- declarer should have corrected before the opening lead

- when he did not do that, the opening lead was made and the play period started

- now declarer was aware that MI had been given

- declarer still didn't correct it

- this is an infraction during the play period

- that North noticed and called the TD for at trick 6

 

Rik

[iviehoff]

Hm. Interesting. During the auction period, any player may draw attention to any irregularity that may have occurred, unless prohibited by law (Law 9A1). During the play period, again unless prohibited by law, declarer or either defender may call attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period (Law 9A2, emphasis mine). So it may be illegal to call attention, during the play period, to an irregularity that occurred during the auction period. If this is true, I wonder how many directors are aware of it. It didn't occur to me until I just read those two laws again.

What North is certainly allowed to do half way through the play is obtain an explanation of the opponent's calls in the auction, whenever it is his turn to play (L20F). If he is saying "there has been MI" as a rather crude way of saying "I'd now like a correct explanation of 2D please", that's perfectly OK, if unfortunately phrased. If he's not really interested in a correct explanation of 2D, and wishes only to point out an irregularity by the opponent, he could have left that, and would have done better to leave that, to the end of the play.

[bluejak]

What North is certainly allowed to do half way through the play is obtain an explanation of the opponent's calls in the auction, whenever it is his turn to play (L20F). If he is saying "there has been MI" as a rather crude way of saying "I'd now like a correct explanation of 2D please", that's perfectly OK, if unfortunately phrased. If he's not really interested in a correct explanation of 2D, and wishes only to point out an irregularity by the opponent, he could have left that, and would have done better to leave that, to the end of the play.

Maybe. But how is he to know that, in the face of advice to call the TD immediately he becomes aware of MI?

[barmar]

Probably this is accurate, although it was not clear (to me, at least) from the wording in the OP.

 

In this circumstance, I would say that west asked for information, rather than a ruling, because (seemingly) no score adjustment was at issue.

 

I think we're getting into semantics here. What I think West effectively asked for was for the TD to make a ruling. While South may have been happy with the table result, West thinks he was damaged by the UI exchanged between North and South. If he referred to this request as an "appeal", he may have been interpreting the TD's walking away without doing anything as equivalent to a ruling of "result stands". And I don't think this is unreasonable: someone must have called him back to the table because they felt rectification was required, and presumably it wasn't South. If it was West, he should have been given a chance to request a ruling before the TD walked away because South was happy.

[blackshoe]

Generally, when I am called to a table, the first thing I find out is who called. Then I ask that person why he called. If somebody else sticks his oar in, I tell him he'll get his chance later.

 

I've seen TDs walk away from the table prematurely for all kinds of reasons. Most often, those reasons are just wrong.

[billw55]

I think we're getting into semantics here. What I think West effectively asked for was for the TD to make a ruling. While South may have been happy with the table result, West thinks he was damaged by the UI exchanged between North and South. If he referred to this request as an "appeal", he may have been interpreting the TD's walking away without doing anything as equivalent to a ruling of "result stands". And I don't think this is unreasonable: someone must have called him back to the table because they felt rectification was required, and presumably it wasn't South. If it was West, he should have been given a chance to request a ruling before the TD walked away because South was happy.

Yes, this is a plausible explanation of the events. It may have happened that way. Or it may not have; the OP was vague in regard to several of these points. I guess it is hard to give a correct answer when the circumstances are in doubt.

[iviehoff]

Maybe. But how is he to know that, in the face of advice to call the TD immediately he becomes aware of MI?

The advice would appear to be good about 99.999% of the time. I don't think we need lose sleep over it.

[Fluffy]

Maybe its my latin nature, but I don't find any of south's words to be worth even a lecture about his choice of words, he had just been ofended at the time he said them.

[blackshoe]

Maybe its my latin nature, but I don't find any of south's words to be worth even a lecture about his choice of words, he had just been ofended at the time he said them.

The fact that he was offended does not give him carte blanche to give offense himself.

[barmar]

Depends on whether you're Jewish or Christian.

 

Old Testament: An eye for an eye

New Testament: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Also, turn the other cheek.

[Sjoerds]

hmmm.... a little focus on North. :ph34r: What about this ruling?

 

 

The fact that north asks for the TD looks like MI for me. Saying something like: "partner they don't have a ♦-fit; let's get them down for a number"

The table result was 2♦-3. I would like to know the sequence of playing to see if -2 or -1 is LA.

And thus consider a AS.

 

All talking about unethical I would ignore for the moment and rule accordingly to my findings from above.

[ahydra]

The fact that north asks for the TD looks like MI for me. Saying something like: "partner they don't have a ♦-fit; let's get them down for a number"

The table result was 2♦-3. I would like to know the sequence of playing to see if -2 or -1 is LA.

And thus consider a AS.

 

You mean North is passing UI to South? This was my opinion also - he should wait until the end of the hand - but can an experienced TD tell us whether a TD call and the ensuing discussion legally constitutes UI? My guess is that it doesn't, but that does open up a few possibilities for using TD calls to pass information...

 

ahydra

[barmar]

We haven't been told how the play progressed before the director call. If there have been two diamond tricks and declarer has shown out, there's no UI from the report of MI.

 

North knew about the MI as soon as dummy came down. If he wanted to let his partner in on it, why did he wait until trick 6?

[BunnyGo]

Depends on whether you're Jewish or Christian.

 

Old Testament: An eye for an eye

New Testament: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Also, turn the other cheek.

 

Actually, that's Hammurabi as the "eye for an eye" and it's the Jewish bible that's "don't do unto others what you would find hateful done to you."

[Sjoerds]

You mean North is passing UI to South? This was my opinion also - he should wait until the end of the hand - but can an experienced TD tell us whether a TD call and the ensuing discussion legally constitutes UI? My guess is that it doesn't, but that does open up a few possibilities for using TD calls to pass information...

 

It is important for a TD to avoid UI when he arrives. When North says "that there has been misinformation" and TD sees that they are still playing he must be accurate and take North from the table.

Even his first statement might be UI for south. Unfortunately the TD sometimes helps to make things worse when he stays at the table and the discussion starts. :blink:

Of course you have to call the TD when your information was not correct; but if you figured out that the opps haven given incorrect information it is not appropriate/allowed to tell your partner during the play. Not even when you try to use the TD for this purpose :P .

[mr1303]

South describes himself as a militant atheist :-)

[TimG]

Actually, that's Hammurabi as the "eye for an eye" and it's the Jewish bible that's "don't do unto others what you would find hateful done to you."

 

I thought that too about the "Golden Rule", but my internet searching kept coming up with Sermon on the Mount which is New Testament. Can you point me to the Old Testament verse? (It is, of course, a sentiment expressed in many other beliefs.)

[BunnyGo]

I thought that too about the "Golden Rule", but my internet searching kept coming up with Sermon on the Mount which is New Testament. Can you point me to the Old Testament verse? (It is, of course, a sentiment expressed in many other beliefs.)

 

It's actually Talmudic which isn't in the books of the old testament, but is the commentary. I believe the quote is attributed to Rabbi Hillel.

[BunnyGo]

I thought that too about the "Golden Rule", but my internet searching kept coming up with Sermon on the Mount which is New Testament. Can you point me to the Old Testament verse? (It is, of course, a sentiment expressed in many other beliefs.)

 

Just checked, it's in the Sabbat section of the talmud, first discussed by Hillel around 50 BCE.

[barmar]

OK, but I was correct about "turn the other cheek" being New Testament, wasn't I?