Law 11A

[gordontd]

Other irregularities may never be accepted, to the extent that the law never even mentions the possibility of "accept(ing)" them.

One might say that there are no other irregularities that may never be accepted, in the sense that the law never says of anything else that it can never be accepted.

 

Of course, in other situations if the players do something they shouldn't, appear to accept it, and reach a point where a problem/contradiction arises, then we will have to adjust or cancel the board. If they don't reach a problem/contradiction, we can happily let them get on with it, and if it's drawn to our attention we might invoke "you didn't need me earlier, so you can manage without me now".

 

But L32 is the only time that the Laws use the words "may never" and I think that's a pretty strong indication that we're not allowed to use sophistry to make it mean "may not, unless the players manage to muddle through and persuade themselves they've reached a proper outcome".

 

It's no surprise, though, that this question arises out of a TD exam and is not based on a real occurrence. In real life we would either be called when we knew what to do, or would never be called at all.

[iviehoff]

But L32 is the only time that the Laws use the words "may never" and I think that's a pretty strong indication that we're not allowed to use sophistry to make it mean "may not, unless the players manage to muddle through and persuade themselves they've reached a proper outcome".

But you are still trying to make "accept" mean something it doesn't mean, it is as if you are trying make it mean "tolerate", and give the impression that it is at least the director who is being instructed not to "accept" it. Whereas actually "accepting" in that law is a precise technical process carried out by non-offenders, and is not really very important to anything.

[campboy]

The one time the laws expand on what "accepted" means, in law 27, they say "accepted (treated as legal)". Isn't this exactly what Gordon is using the word to mean?

[iviehoff]

The one time the laws expand on what "accepted" means, in law 27, they say "accepted (treated as legal)". Isn't this exactly what Gordon is using the word to mean?

If you put "treated as legal" instead of "accept" in what I said before, it reads even better. It remains the case that only people who ever do any accepting are the non-offending side, and they can only do that to certain irregularities. The fact that something may not be "treated as legal" by the non-offending side does not mean that if they proceed on after it without drawing attention to it, the whole procedure thereafter is so suspect we cannot get a result. There are plenty of other irregularities that may never be treated as legal, but we can proceed on after them without immediate rectification.

 

Gordon is reading this "never accept" or "never treat as legal" as if it were an instruction for the director, but it is not, it is an option for the non-offending side.

[blackshoe]

No. It eliminates an option for the non-offending side.

[iviehoff]

No. It eliminates an option for the non-offending side.

I'm happy with that wording of it too. It is an option that doesn't exist in the case of many other irregularities too.

[mjj29]

I have replied to that question (which about 4 people have now asked) several times now. I said because it is not clear what the contract is, no result can be obtained. Therefore an artificial adjusted score can be given.

Then I think you must also give an artificial score in the case of the OP. I know it's tempting to think we have something that looks like a real contract in the other case, but I don't think you can treat them differently like this.

[Zelandakh]

I assume that in that case you believe the "ruling" in post 10 of this thread is illegal? Interestingly iviehoff muses about precisely this scenario in that thread and (at the time) thought an adjusted score would have to be given. While blackshoe condones the ruling of letting the table result stand despite thinking it might not be strictly legal. It does rather seem that this case is difficult enough that perhaps it should be looked at by some L&E Committee somewhere to decide what the official ruling should be. FWiiW, I think I like Andy's line that letting the table result stand, where it makes sense to do so, is probably the fairest and most practical solution.

[blackshoe]

Three or four local players and directors much preferred the "You didn't need me when it happened, you don't need me now" line that someone suggested upthread. B-)

 

One very good local player's (I don't think he's a qualified director, but he could pass the test with no problem, I'm sure) immediate reaction was "average minus both sides". :ph34r:

 

Nobody mentioned "not played" so I guess I was wrong about that. :P

[barmar]

I don't think he's a qualified director, but he could pass the test with no problem, I'm sure

Sounds like he's qualified, but not certified.

[iviehoff]

Interestingly iviehoff muses about precisely this scenario in that thread and (at the time) thought an adjusted score would have to be given.

You misinterpret me. I said that score stands under Law 11A was a fine ruling. But I also said that an adjusted score could be given under Law 23 if there was damage and the other conditions of Law 23 applied. Even if Law 23 is applicable, whether one would choose to adjust would depend upon exactly why a complaint was now being brought, etc.

[gordontd]

You misinterpret me. I said that score stands under Law 11A was a fine ruling. But I also said that an adjusted score could be given under Law 23 if there was damage and the other conditions of Law 23 applied. Even if Law 23 is applicable, whether one would choose to adjust would depend upon exactly why a complaint was now being brought, etc.

What you actually said (your first post in that thread, in its entirety) was:

I wonder if anyone has ever come across a case of getting into the play period following an uncorrected inadmissible (re)double? I guess you'd have to give an artificial score.

[blackshoe]

Sounds like he's qualified, but not certified.

Fair enough, yeah. B-)

[bluejak]

IMO the directors's laziness is not a valid condition.

I think this is a fairly disgraceful comment. No-one [apart from yourself] is suggesting TDs do not take action from laziness: the suggestion is they do not take action because they think it wrong to do so.

 

There is another aspect that has not been mentioned yet. Duplicate Bridge is not played just at one table. The score of all other contestants is influenced by any non-artificial score. Is it really desirable that either side gets a top after messing up the auction beyond rectification?

Oh, goodness, not again!

 

The effect on "the room" of any individual action is fairly trivial [think one match-point] and is just the same as a lead out of turn [whether accepted or not], a revoke, a failure to finesse with eight cards missing the queen, forgetting to make a safety play, forgetting your system, and so on.

 

"Protecting the field" was invented by certain American professionals as an excuse for some of their more vicious attempts to get rulings in very dubious situations, but has been accepted world-wide as not being a basis for rulings.