Reconciling two laws

[blackshoe]

The Introduction to the Law says that when the laws say a player "may" do something, failure to do it is not wrong, and when a player "should" do something, failure to do it is an infraction of law, but will rarely be penalized.

 

Law 9B1{a} says "The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." So if the Director is not summoned, it would seem we have an infraction of law. However...

Law 9B1{b} says "Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity." So any player who does not summon the director has not done anything wrong.

 

Frankly, if an irregularity occurs, and nobody calls the director at the time, but later it becomes a big problem, I might like to penalize somebody, or everybody, for not calling in the first place. But if nobody has done anything wrong, I can't do that. So how should these two laws in conjunction be interpreted? :unsure:

 

Note that Law 9B1{a} was changed from "must" in the 1997 laws to "should" in the 2007/2008 laws. That, I'm sorry to say, was my fault. :(

[Vampyr]

The Introduction to the Law says that when the laws say a player "may" do something, failure to do it is not wrong, and when a player "should" do something, failure to do it is an infraction of law, but will rarely be penalized.

 

Law 9B1{a} says "The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." So if the Director is not summoned, it would seem we have an infraction of law. However...

Law 9B1{b} says "Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity." So any player who does not summon the director has not done anything wrong.

 

Frankly, if an irregularity occurs, and nobody calls the director at the time, but later it becomes a big problem, I might like to penalize somebody, or everybody, for not calling in the first place. But if nobody has done anything wrong, I can't do that. So how should these two laws in conjunction be interpreted? :unsure:

 

Note that Law 9B1{a} was changed from "must" in the 1997 laws to "should" in the 2007/2008 laws. That, I'm sorry to say, was my fault. :(

 

I think that (b) is just a modification of (a), giving permission for any player to call the director; that is why dummy is mentioned. So the meaning may well be that if one person calls the director, the other three players have not done anything wrong.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, together the two sections state (a) that the Director should be summoned, and (b) who may do so after attention is drawn to the irregularity.

 

I don't see any need to reconcile them; they complement each other. IOW, someone should; and after the irregularity has come to light, anyone is allowed to.

[nige1]

Fine nuances of modality in Bridge-rules just add to players' confusion.

[blackshoe]

So if someone should, but no one does, and taking into account that when a player doesn't do what he "should" a PP should be rare, but still possible, who should get a PP here if one is given? One to both sides? Two to both sides? Try to figure out who is most responsible? Using what criteria?

 

The easiest "solution" of course is to do what many club level TDs, at least, always do: decline to give a PP at all. I'm not sure that helps much, and I'm certain it's not a good policy in general.

[gordontd]

A warning all round is a good start.

[blackshoe]

A warning all round is a good start.

Well, sure, the first time. Then what?

 

One of the things TD/club owners around here do that I just do not understand is that they keep giving the same people the same warnings over and over again. :blink: :(

[aguahombre]

There must be better things to ponder than how to exact revenge just in case we aren't needed to adjust. If we are needed to adjust, let's do it then explain that we would have appreciated being called when the irregularity was noticed.

[Vampyr]

My other thread about translating the Laws into readable English had much to do with the use of the passive voice and embedded clauses. The director "should" be summoned, but by whom? It seems as if there is no one who can be held responsible.

[blackshoe]

There must be better things to ponder than how to exact revenge just in case we aren't needed to adjust. If we are needed to adjust, let's do it then explain that we would have appreciated being called when the irregularity was noticed.

It's not about revenge. I think you know that. It's about what these laws mean. If directors can't understand the laws, can we expect players to understand them?

[iviehoff]

The Introduction to the Law says that when the laws say a player "may" do something, failure to do it is not wrong, and when a player "should" do something, failure to do it is an infraction of law, but will rarely be penalized.

 

Law 9B1{a} says "The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." So if the Director is not summoned, it would seem we have an infraction of law. However...

Law 9B1{b} says "Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity." So any player who does not summon the director has not done anything wrong.

In some circumstances, players are not allowed to call the director, which varies according to who they are and who did what. So 9B(1) is important in giving permission to all players to call the director once attention has been drawn to an irregularity. With that permission, the players then collectively have a (mild) duty to call the director. Thus if the delay in calling the director makes a mess, the director can say "well you should have done". For those who might have been disadvantaged by that delay, there's a law that says it's your own fault. For those who might be on the other side of that, well I think the director can usually make life for them uncomfortable too if he feels that is unfair.

 

In sum, this seems to be right to me.

[cloa513]

In some circumstances, players are not allowed to call the director, which varies according to who they are and who did what. So 9B(1) is important in giving permission to all players to call the director once attention has been drawn to an irregularity. With that permission, the players then collectively have a (mild) duty to call the director. Thus if the delay in calling the director makes a mess, the director can say "well you should have done". For those who might have been disadvantaged by that delay, there's a law that says it's your own fault. For those who might be on the other side of that, well I think the director can usually make life for them uncomfortable too if he feels that is unfair.

 

In sum, this seems to be right to me.

I think really the problem is people who eschew the role of director. Someone realise there is an irregularity and then someone "applies" the law (such a secretary bird). If all players realise there is an irregularity but fail to use their right as appropriate to call director as soon as possible then they can't call the director later (stiff bickies). Of course the cases where the irregularity cannot be realised until later are reasonable exceptions like a revoke. There should be a severe penalty for trying act like director.

[iviehoff]

I think really the problem is people who eschew the role of director. Someone realise there is an irregularity and then someone "applies" the law (such a secretary bird). If all players realise there is an irregularity but fail to use their right as appropriate to call director as soon as possible then they can't call the director later (stiff bickies). Of course the cases where the irregularity cannot be realised until later are reasonable exceptions like a revoke. There should be a severe penalty for trying act like director.

Certain common and easy issues are routinely dealt with by the players without the need for the director's attendance, most commonly mechanical errors and declarer's lead from the wrong hand. Thus I don't think the generality of what you say is appropriate. The important thing is to realise that those cases are the exception, and players must not extend their franchise. If a player has, by acting with apparent authority, persuaded another player of something to the latter's disadvantage, the director should, and has the power to, protect the latter.

[campboy]

Well mechanical errors in the auction genuinely are an exception. A mechanical error is not an irregularity and there is no requirement to call the TD when one is corrected.

[gordontd]

Certain common and easy issues are routinely dealt with by the players without the need for the director's attendance, most commonly mechanical errors and declarer's lead from the wrong hand.

Do you think most players know the provisions of L55A?

[iviehoff]

Well mechanical errors in the auction genuinely are an exception. A mechanical error is not an irregularity and there is no requirement to call the TD when one is corrected.

From the definitions section:

"Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player"

 

I think an unintended call is therefore an irregularity, but not an infraction. L25 specifies its rectification.

[iviehoff]

Do you think most players know the provisions of L55A?

Not necessarily in its entirety. But they know that a defender can tell declarer to lead from the correct hand, and if they do that, then he can pick up the wrongly led card and that is the end of the matter. Some may also know they can accept the lead.

[gordontd]

Not necessarily in its entirety. But they know that a defender can tell declarer to lead from the correct hand, and if they do that, then he can pick up the wrongly led card and that is the end of the matter. Some may also know they can accept the lead.

That many may not know this is a reason why the TD should be called.

[campboy]

From the definitions section:

"Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player"

 

I think an unintended call is therefore an irregularity, but not an infraction. L25 specifies its rectification.

I don't see why making an unintended call is a deviation from correct procedure. Is there a law which says so?

[WellSpyder]

Not necessarily in its entirety. But they know that a defender can tell declarer to lead from the correct hand [.....]

Do they? In my experience they generally think that declarer leads from the correct hand instead, but not that this has anything to do with the defenders (or the TD!) at all.

[Vampyr]

Do they? In my experience they generally think that declarer leads from the correct hand instead, but not that this has anything to do with the defenders (or the TD!) at all.

 

Yes, I find this to be the case too. If none of the four players at the table knows the Law, it would not occur to the defenders to accept the lead or to anyone to call the director.

[barmar]

So if someone should, but no one does, and taking into account that when a player doesn't do what he "should" a PP should be rare, but still possible, who should get a PP here if one is given? One to both sides? Two to both sides? Try to figure out who is most responsible? Using what criteria?

Since everyone at the table should call the director, all are in violation, so the PP could be given to all of them.

 

A Secretary Bird could then conclude that if only one player at the table calls the TD, the others would still be in violation. However, since this is "rarely penalized", it would take an extremely perverse TD to give them a PP for this "violation".

 

In practice, I think people think of calling the TD as a group activity -- people frequently say "We should call the director." The person who actually says, "Director, please!" is just the spokesman for the table.

[blackshoe]

In some circumstances, players are not allowed to call the director, which varies according to who they are and who did what. So 9B(1) is important in giving permission to all players to call the director once attention has been drawn to an irregularity. With that permission, the players then collectively have a (mild) duty to call the director. Thus if the delay in calling the director makes a mess, the director can say "well you should have done". For those who might have been disadvantaged by that delay, there's a law that says it's your own fault. For those who might be on the other side of that, well I think the director can usually make life for them uncomfortable too if he feels that is unfair.

 

In sum, this seems to be right to me.

I'm not at all sure I understand your logic.

 

I think really the problem is people who eschew the role of director. Someone realise there is an irregularity and then someone "applies" the law (such a secretary bird). If all players realise there is an irregularity but fail to use their right as appropriate to call director as soon as possible then they can't call the director later (stiff bickies). Of course the cases where the irregularity cannot be realised until later are reasonable exceptions like a revoke. There should be a severe penalty for trying act like director.

I don't think "eschew" means what you think it means. Or maybe it doesn't mean what I think it means. B-) Anyway, there's nothing in the law that suggests "if you don't call the director now, you can't call him later". There is a law about who has the right to "assess rectification". That's Law 10 and the who is the director, and only the director. There's also a law about forfeiture of the right to rectification. That's Law 11, Essentially, it says that if the NOS takes an action before summoning the director, they may forfeit their right to rectification. They may not. It's up to the director.

[blackshoe]

Well mechanical errors in the auction genuinely are an exception. A mechanical error is not an irregularity and there is no requirement to call the TD when one is corrected.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "mechanical error". If you pull the 1NT card out of the bidding box when you intended to pull the 1♠ card, it's certainly a mechanical error - and it's equally certainly an irregularity, one addressed by Law 25A.

[blackshoe]

I don't see why making an unintended call is a deviation from correct procedure. Is there a law which says so?

In the 2007 laws, the wbf in its wisdom deleted most of the headings, leaving what might as well be a random sequence of individual laws. The ACBL has not done this, instead retaining the chapter and section headings that were in the 1997 laws (and probably versions before that). The first two sections of Chapter V ("The Auction") are "Part I - Correct Procedure" and "Part II - Irregularities in Procedure". Law 25 is in Part II, so clearly it deals with some irregularity. Aside from that, it seems to me that even if it's not explicitly stated, it is implicit in the nature of the game that making the call you intended to make is correct procedure, and so making a call you did not intend to make is an irregularity. Or you could look at it another way - attempting to change your call, which is a required element of Law 25A, is definitely an irregularity, since once you have made a (sufficient legal) call, you have satisfied correct procedure (see Laws 18 and 19) and it is no longer your turn to call.