Reconciling two laws

[campboy]

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.

That's the sort of thing I mean. I do not see why it is "certainly an irregularity".

[campboy]

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.

Neither the headings, nor what may or may not be implicit in the nature of the game, are part of the laws.

[blackshoe]

If I were declaring, and a defender told me I must lead from the correct hand, I'd call the director. First, the defender apparently thinks he's the director, second, that makes him wrong on two counts, and third, I'm not going to make the mistake he's already made, and put on my own director hat and explain his errors. Not my job.

[Vampyr]

I don't think "eschew" means what you think it means. Or maybe it doesn't mean what I think it means. B-)

 

LOL you are correct obviously.

[blackshoe]

Neither the headings, nor what may or may not be implicit in the nature of the game, are part of the laws.

So?

[iviehoff]

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

Pulling the 1S card out is clearly not the correct procedure for calling 1NT. Do you need a law to tell you that is the case?

[campboy]

Yes I do need a law to tell me that making an unintended call is an irregularity, because I do not believe it is one and because it seems to be to everyone's advantage if it is not. I am not going to start calling the TD every time there is a 25A correction unless I see a clear legal reason for doing so.

[aguahombre]

Yes I do need a law to tell me that making an unintended call is an irregularity, because I do not believe it is one and because it seems to be to everyone's advantage if it is not. I am not going to start calling the TD every time there is a 25A correction unless I see a clear legal reason for doing so.

This is interesting. We often recognize a 25A situation, and see no reason to involve the TD --"No problem, what happened is obvious. Go ahead and pull the right card."

 

It never occurred to me to deny it was an irregularity so my conscience would be clear.

[broze]

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.

 

I have to admit I was under the impression that if declarer leads from the wrong hand and it is drawn attention to then he must correct it.

 

Indeed I have been informed countless times by players much more experienced than me that declarer "can show the defence whatever cards he wants during the play" and that a lead from his own hand instead of from dummy just constitutes a card 'shown' to the defence and not a card led....

[blackshoe]

If it's not an irregularity why is there a law explained how to rule when it happens?

 

"Not part of the laws" not withstanding, if it's not an irregularity why is it in a section the ACBL labels (and the WBF used to label) "Irregularities in Procedure"? Are the lawmakers insane?

 

I'm pedantic, and perhaps a bit obsessive, about a lot of little things, but this strikes me as ridiculous.

[campboy]

If it's not an irregularity why is there a law explained how to rule when it happens?

 

"Not part of the laws" not withstanding, if it's not an irregularity why is it in a section the ACBL labels (and the WBF used to label) "Irregularities in Procedure"? Are the lawmakers insane?

 

I'm pedantic, and perhaps a bit obsessive, about a lot of little things, but this strikes me as ridiculous.

Law 25A does not explain how to rule, or suggest that a ruling is required. It just says the player may change his call. There are plenty of other laws which say a player may do something which do not involve irregularities.

 

Law 25B clearly does deal with an "irregularity in procedure" (making a correction that is not permitted), so perhaps that is why law 25 is in that section. Although, since the section headings are not part of the laws and are known to not always be perfectly appropriate, I hardly need to answer this point.

[blackshoe]

You don't "need" to answer any point - but not answering makes it difficult to have any kind of reasonable discussion.

 

25A4 contains the sentence "there is no further rectification". If there's no irregularity, why is there a rectification?

[RMB1]

Yes I do need a law to tell me that making an unintended call is an irregularity, because I do not believe it is one and because it seems to be to everyone's advantage if it is not.

 

I do not want unintended caller to have the advantage of seeing LHO's call over the unintended call. I want Law 16D2 to apply to unintended caller, so I want them to be an offender.

[aguahombre]

I do not want unintended caller to have the advantage of seeing LHO's call over the unintended call. I want Law 16D2 to apply to unintended caller, so I want them to be an offender.

Yes, of course. Campboy's position on the term "irregularity" has that problem. To make his work, the 25A finger fumble would only become an irregularity if the next player's legal action made it one, and thereafter the "offender" noticed his/her boo boo.

 

I prefer to call the unintended action an irregularity for which the offender should call the TD and --- if he somehow shows it to be unintended before anything else happens, yet hasn't called --- we may choose to let him fix it or call the TD ourselves. The indications of an unintended call are usually clear to all others at the table who are paying the slightest bit of attention.

 

Try to give me a PP for letting him fix the irregularity. Who will be calling the cops ---the grateful offender, or a spiteful partner?

[campboy]

I do not want unintended caller to have the advantage of seeing LHO's call over the unintended call. I want Law 16D2 to apply to unintended caller, so I want them to be an offender.

You don't need law 16D2, though, since the second sentence of 25A4 covers that. IMO the fact that 25A4 says what it does, rather than referring to 16D, suggests that unintended caller is not an offender. But Blackshoe is quite right that the use of the word "rectification" suggests the opposite.

[aguahombre]

You don't need law 16D2, though, since the second sentence of 25A4 covers that. IMO the fact that 25A4 says what it does, rather than referring to 16D, suggests that unintended caller is not an offender.

I think it just suggests it is a PITA to bounce back and forth between sections, so they decided to stick in the 2nd sentence of 25A4 for convenience.

 

Edit: Furthermore, 16D2 addresses information from the withdrawn call itself ---which would just confuse the issue. It is authorized information to everyone that the guy was clumsy.

Edited July 23, 2013 by aguahombre

[RMB1]

You don't need law 16D2, though, since the second sentence of 25A4 covers that. IMO the fact that 25A4 says what it does, rather than referring to 16D, suggests that unintended caller is not an offender.

 

Sorry, I seem to be guilty of not reading the laws. I guess Law 25A4 was new in 2007. We had to the argue that the inadvertent caller was the offending side under the previous laws to make LHO's call unauthorised.

 

It is interesting to read the corresponding Law 45C4(b) for an unintended designation in playing cards (from dummy, usually). Here there is a reference to Law 16D but only to Law 16D1 - suggesting there is no offending side and the card played next in rotation (after the unintended designation and before the correction, and then withdrawn) is authorised to declarer (the unintended designator).

[cloa513]

LOL you are correct obviously.

What is the right verb?

[Vampyr]

What is the right verb?

 

I think that what you wanted was "appropriate".

[gnasher]

I think that what you wanted was "appropriate".

Or "usurp".

[blackshoe]

I'd go with "usurp". Or "assume".

[pran]

A simple (and I believe common) situation is that when the Director has not been called by any of the players when they became aware of an irregularity and this eventually resulted in "trouble" he will deny NOS any redress (Law 11A) and take any gain obviously (or there will be lack of evidence) gained by OS away from them.

 

Most times that means just let the table result stand.

[gnasher]

A simple (and I believe common) situation is that when the Director has not been called by any of the players when they became aware of an irregularity and this eventually resulted in "trouble" he will deny NOS any redress (Law 11A) and take any gain obviously (or there will be lack of evidence) gained by OS away from them.

I think that's usually OK as long as it's the failure to call the director that results in trouble. If the irregularity itself caused the trouble, and calling the director at the time would have made no difference, the director should rule as though he had been called at the proper time.

[iviehoff]

A simple (and I believe common) situation is that when the Director has not been called by any of the players when they became aware of an irregularity and this eventually resulted in "trouble" he will deny NOS any redress (Law 11A) and take any gain obviously (or there will be lack of evidence) gained by OS away from them.

 

Most times that means just let the table result stand.

You seem to have in mind that play may proceed to a conclusion without intervention, but you hvae been called because one side now feels that they would have done better if they had asserted their rights at the time. That can be one kind of "trouble".

However "trouble" may mean that play is now in an irregular condition and something needs to be fixed, but because it wasn't fixed immediately you are now off-piste as far as a lawbook ruling is concerned. Not acting is now not an option, but because you are off-piste you have a choice to make in terms of the balance of advantage of the ruling you make.

In terms of that balance of advantage, or indeed if the hand has proceeded to a conclusion, you need to consider if damage was really self-inflicted: sometimes one of the two sides has been taken advantage of by the other, for example by acting with apparent authority or making misleading comments - and it can be either OS or NOS.

[pran]

You seem to have in mind that play may proceed to a conclusion without intervention, but you hvae been called because one side now feels that they would have done better if they had asserted their rights at the time. That can be one kind of "trouble".

However "trouble" may mean that play is now in an irregular condition and something needs to be fixed, but because it wasn't fixed immediately you are now off-piste as far as a lawbook ruling is concerned. Not acting is now not an option, but because you are off-piste you have a choice to make in terms of the balance of advantage of the ruling you make.

In terms of that balance of advantage, or indeed if the hand has proceeded to a conclusion, you need to consider if damage was really self-inflicted: sometimes one of the two sides has been taken advantage of by the other, for example by acting with apparent authority or making misleading comments - and it can be either OS or NOS.

"Most times" when TD is eventually called, but too late related to when attention was called to the irregularity, play will either be completed or it is possible to Complete play somehow.

 

In the few remaining situations TD must of course make the best out of it, but IMHO his concern will still be the same:

 

The players have avoided their obligation to call the director, now they will have to live with the situation and a warning to remember calling the Director in due time.