insufficent bid

[Fluffy]

[hv=pc=n&s=saj62h6djt98cak62&w=sq3hatdak6543cqjt&n=s5hkj97432dq2c853&e=skt9874hq85d7c974&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1d3hpp]399|300[/hv]

 

At the end of an unlucky session where we played very well on a weak field, yet we were struggling to get over average this bidding happened.

 

At this point I could only pray for west to make a bid, and he thought for about 20 second before finaly reaching the bidding box with a bid,

 

I triumphaly saw how he picked a diamond bid, but instead of 4♦, he placed 3♦ on the board.

 

When he saw the bid was inssuficent he paused for a couple of seconds to correct it with a pass.

 

 

Going over a beginner is certainly not in fashion for a pro, and I got 2 down in 3♥. But I am wondering if me calling director to allow partner the option of passing 3♦ would convey UI of what I´d want partner to do over 3♦

[pran]

[hv=pc=n&s=saj62h6djt98cak62&w=sq3hatdak6543cqjt&n=s5hkj97432dq2c853&e=skt9874hq85d7c974&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1d3hpp]399|300[/hv]

 

At the end of an unlucky session where we played very well on a weak field, yet we were struggling to get over average this bidding happened.

 

At this point I could only pray for west to make a bid, and he thought for about 20 second before finaly reaching the bidding box with a bid,

 

I triumphaly saw how he picked a diamond bid, but instead of 4♦, he placed 3♦ on the board.

 

When he saw the bid was inssuficent he paused for a couple of seconds to correct it with a pass.

 

 

Going over a beginner is certainly not in fashion for a pro, and I got 2 down in 3♥. But I am wondering if me calling director to allow partner the option of passing 3♦ would convey UI of what I´d want partner to do over 3♦

Calling the director is your (as well as the other players') privilege, but doing so in any manner (whatsoever) that might give your partner an indication that you would be happy if he just accepted the 3♦ bid and passed is a serious offence.

 

So the answer to your question depends on the manner in which you called the director and what (if anything) you possibly said or indicated.

[bixby]

Saying, "wait a minute, my partner has the option to accept that 3♦ bid and might choose to pass it, Director!" would be ill-advised.

 

But saying, "Director, please!" and then informing the Director, "West bid 3♦ over my 3♥ and then changed it to Pass," would be perfectly appropriate. Indeed, calling the Director is required by Law 9B.

 

So as Pran says, it depends on the manner in which you call the Director. If you call in an appropriately neutral way, there wouldn't be UI.

[aguahombre]

This is interesting. If no one else has called for the TD to address the irregularity, then you must --and are in an uncomfortable position because only you can have a preference on this auction about what partner should do. Your partner should have had the good grace to be the one who called the TD.

[barmar]

You were North? How do you know from your hand that defending 3♦ is better than declaring 3♥? In fact, It looks to me like you can make 3♥ unless the opening lead is a club, but surely East will lead his singleton in his partner's suit. Then it just comes down to guessing hearts correctly.

[gnasher]

Calling the director is your (as well as the other players') privilege

 

Shouldn't that say "duty"?

[pran]

Shouldn't that say "duty"?

Not until someone has called attention to the irregularity.

 

It is any* player's privilege to draw attention to an irregularity.

Once such attention has been drawn it is everybody's duty to call the director.

 

* except of course that dummy has no such privilege during the play period . But that is not relevant here as we are within the auction period.

Edited October 13, 2013 by pran

[aguahombre]

Not until someone has called attention to the irregularity.

You are confusing the restrictions upon Dummy with this case, where everyone at the table is an active player. No one else had to call attention to this one before South may call the TD.

[ggwhiz]

I think it's up to your partner to ask for the director with any intent to accept the call since anything you do is a red flag.

 

BTW as your partner I would always accept the bid and either pass or repeat my call to show a good or bad 3♥ bid and think this is AI?? It's actually a discussed partnership policy against rookies whether it helps us or not so as to maintain the ambiance and for bids out of turn too if they are rookieish enough.

[blackshoe]

You are confusing the restrictions upon Dummy with this case, where everyone at the table is an active player. No one else had to call attention to this one before South may call the TD.

No he's not. He did not say someone had to call attention to an irregularity before someone calls the director, only that once attention has been drawn, the director must be called.

[aguahombre]

No he's not. He did not say someone had to call attention to an irregularity before someone calls the director, only that once attention has been drawn, the director must be called.

My mistake. When Pran said it was not South's duty to call the TD for an irregularity until someone had drawn attention to it, I read his words and responded. Thanks for clarifying that he didn't say that. I must have dreamed it.

[gnasher]

Not until someone has called attention to the irregularity.

 

It is any* player's privilege to draw attention to an irregularity.

Once such attention has been drawn it is everybody's duty to call the director.

 

* except of course that dummy has no such privilege during the play period . But that is not relevant here as we are within the auction period.

 

When the 3♦ bidder tried to replace his insufficient bid with a pass, he drew attention to the irregularity.

[paua]

The Laws should say "The offender must call the Director."

[pran]

When the 3♦ bidder tried to replace his insufficient bid with a pass, he drew attention to the irregularity.

Did he say anything to indicate that he (knew he) had committed an irregularity or did he just (try to) change his call?

 

There is a difference!

 

(Note that at this time he has committed two different irregularities!)

[gnasher]

Did he say anything to indicate that he (knew he) had committed an irregularity or did he just (try to) change his call?

 

There is a difference!

Writing something in bold italics doesn't make it true. The laws don't say "attention is drawn verbally" or "attention is drawn explicitly" or even "attention is drawn intentionally". They just say "attention is drawn".

 

Changing his call drew Fluffy's attention to the insufficient bid. Therefore "attention was drawn", and the director should have been called.

 

Edit: It's also worth considering the intent of this law. The objective is to prevent players making up their own rulings. The lawmakers thought, reasonably enough, that before you could invent a ruling on an infraction you would first have to know that the infraction existed. You seem to want to interpret the rules in a way that circumvents this intention.

Edited October 14, 2013 by gnasher

[iviehoff]

When the 3♦ bidder tried to replace his insufficient bid with a pass, he drew attention to the irregularity.

Not really. Maybe the first bid wasn't an irregularity and he is attempting to change it anyway. What he is doing isn't even necessarily irregular either: maybe he is exercising his right to correct a mechanical error.

 

Drawing attention to an irregularity needs to be a bit more explicit than that.

[lamford]

I can find nothing in the Laws to indicate that replacing the call oneself before the director has ruled is an irregularity. It should be, of course, but 28C does not state that is. I think the irregularity was the IB, and that this entitles anyone to call the TD. And I don't agree that calling the director for the only possible reason that you want North to Pass is an infraction. The director call is AI, as it arises from the legal procedures in the Laws. I would go further. It is legal to have an agreement that South calls the director if he wants his partner to accept the IB, and does not do so if he wants North not to accept the IB. Except in a jurisdiction where you are not allowed to vary your agreements consequent upon an opponent's irregularity. It is a bit like when declarer leads from the wrong hand. My partner and I pause to see out if the other wants to accept the lead.

 

Here North can also accept the substituted Pass and the only LA for East is a diamond lead, when 3H is cold.

[pran]

Writing something in bold italics doesn't make it true. The laws don't say "attention is drawn verbally" or "attention is drawn explicitly" or even "attention is drawn intentionally". They just say "attention is drawn".

 

Changing his call drew Fluffy's attention to the insufficient bid. Therefore "attention was drawn", and the director should have been called.

 

Edit: It's also worth considering the intent of this law. The objective is to prevent players making up their own rulings. The lawmakers thought, reasonably enough, that before you could invent a ruling on an infraction you would first have to know that the infraction existed. You seem to want to interpret the rules in a way that circumvents this intention.

 

I used bold italics to draw attention to that particularly statement.

 

The fact that Fluffy's attention was drawn to the insufficient bid doesn't imply that the other player's attention was also drawn to it. In fact if it is Fluffy's partner who commits an irregularity to which Fluffy's attention is drawn then Fluffy has no obligation at all to call the Director. Law 9A4 is very specific on this situation.

 

Thus when the laws speaks about drawing attention to an irregularity it must be something more specific than some event causing one or more players to become aware of it. The most obvious example of "drawing attention" is a player calling out "that is an irregularity", "that is illegal", "you are not allowed to do that" or words to similar effects.

 

So, as iviehoff correctly said: "Drawing attention to an irregularity needs to be a bit more explicit [...]".

[pran]

I can find nothing in the Laws to indicate that replacing the call oneself before the director has ruled is an irregularity. It should be, of course, but 28C does not state that is. I think the irregularity was the IB, and that this entitles anyone to call the TD. And I don't agree that calling the director for the only possible reason that you want North to Pass is an infraction. The director call is AI, as it arises from the legal procedures in the Laws.

If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner.

 

This implies that the partner to a player who has options available after an irregularity may not in any way convey any kind of information that can possibly suggest an option that might be preferable to their side.

 

This even includes information from the manner in which the Director is called.

 

I would go further. It is legal to have an agreement that South calls the director if he wants his partner to accept the IB, and does not do so if he wants North not to accept the IB. Except in a jurisdiction where you are not allowed to vary your agreements consequent upon an opponent's irregularity. It is a bit like when declarer leads from the wrong hand. My partner and I pause to see out if the other wants to accept the lead.

 

Here North can also accept the substituted Pass and the only LA for East is a diamond lead, when 3H is cold.

 

I consider this part of your comment to be evidence of a deliberate and serious laws infraction.

 

Your agreement about calling or not calling the director depending on whether you want to have the IB accepted, and your agreement about hesitation when declarer leads from the wrong hand are severe violations of the prohibition against concealed partnership understandings (You don't explicitly declare it in advance do you?) in addition to violations of several other laws.

[gnasher]

The fact that Fluffy's attention was drawn to the insufficient bid doesn't imply that the other player's attention was also drawn to it. In fact if it is Fluffy's partner who commits an irregularity to which Fluffy's attention is drawn then Fluffy has no obligation at all to call the Director. Law 9A4 is very specific on this situation.

Are you reading the same Laws as me? Law 9A4 doesn't say anything about calling the director.

 

Law 9A4 tells us that you don't have to draw attention to your own side's infraction. Law 9B1a tells us that if anyone does draw attention to any irregularity, the director should be called.

[lamford]

This implies that the partner to a player who has options available after an irregularity may not in any way convey any kind of information that can possibly suggest an option that might be preferable to their side.

Waiting to see if partner wishes to accept the illegal lead, for example, is not "consulting". Calling the director is not "consulting".

[pran]

Are you reading the same Laws as me? Law 9A4 doesn't say anything about calling the director.

 

Law 9A4 tells us that you don't have to draw attention to your own side's infraction. Law 9B1a tells us that if anyone does draw attention to any irregularity, the director should be called.

 

Yes, we are reading the same Law, but apparently one of us do not understand what it really says.

 

According to Lamford(?) Fluffy has had his attention been drawn to the irregularity because of some premature corrective action by the offender.

 

Because of this he claims that it is Fluffy's duty to call the director. This is indisputable if we must agree that attention really has been drawn.

 

BUT:

 

My point is that in a hypothetical situation when Fluffy is the only player who has noticed his own partner's irregularity he has no obligation to draw (the other players') attention to this irregularity (Law 9A4) and as a consequence neither can he have any duty to call the director.

 

The only logical conclusion from this in order to avoid any self contradiction in Law 9 is that it takes some explicit notification of the fact that an irregularity has occurred for attention to having been drawn to this irregularity. For instance a premature corrective action by the offender is itself not sufficient.

[lamford]

Your agreement about calling or not calling the director depending on whether you want to have the IB accepted, and your agreement about hesitation when declarer leads from the wrong hand are severe violations of the prohibition against concealed partnership understandings (You don't explicitly declare it in advance do you?) in addition to violations of several other laws.

If asked, we would disclose the agreement. Are you suggesting that we should pre-alert the agreement? If so, we should pre-alert other agreements that are not on our card. For example, we have the agreement that after 1NT-(Pass)-Pass-(1H), we play that

a) 1S is five spades

b) Double is take-out with four spades

c) 1NT is typically 2-3-4-4, non-minimum

d) Pass is minimum or a hand that would pass a takeout double of 1H.

e) not allowing the IB shows any hand that does not want to allow the IB.

And, as gordontd will vouch, this occurred recently in an individual, and my partner and I were, unbelievably, on the same wavelength even though it was only an implicit CPU.

 

If we spent the (typically) thirty seconds before a round pre-alerting that CPU, we would be chastised by the TD, and there is certainly no room for it on our CC. In the EBU, but not I believe in the ACBL, it is permitted to have an agreement consequent upon an opponent's infraction. Perhaps the calling of the TD or the waiting after the declarer leads from the wrong hand should be alerted? We would certainly alert the repeat of 1NT in the above auction.

 

And what other Laws do you think such an agreement transgresses? I agree that the BIT is UI when declarer leads from the wrong hand, but the acceptance of the lead is AI.

[pran]

If asked, we would disclose the agreement. Are you suggesting that we should pre-alert the agreement? If so, we should pre-alert other agreements that are not on our card. For example, we have the agreement that after 1NT-(Pass)-Pass-(1H), we play that

a) 1S is five spades

b) Double is take-out with four spades

c) 1NT is typically 2-3-4-4

d) Pass is minimum or a hand that would pass a takeout double of 1H.

 

If we spent the (typically) thirty seconds before a round pre-alerting that CPU, we would be chastised by the TD, and there is certainly no room for it on our CC. In the EBU it is permitted to have an agreement consequent upon an opponent's infraction. Perhaps the calling of the TD or the waiting after the declarer leads from the wrong hand should be alerted? We would certainly alert the repeat of 1NT in the above auction.

 

Yes, this agreement is so special and questionable (in fact I expect it to be ruled illegal if tried by any Law Committee) that indeed it should be pre-alerted in a similar fashion as is required for Highly Unusual Methods (HUM).

 

IMHO your other agreements mentioned are not so special that they require this treatment (unless required by your SO).

 

I do not share the understanding that EBU opens the door for the players on the non-offending side that they may exchange information on how to handle a particular occurrence of an infraction.

 

However, I consider it fully legal to have an agreement for instance that all insufficient bids shall be accepted

[lamford]

Yes, this agreement is so special and questionable (in fact I expect it to be ruled illegal if tried by any Law Committee) that indeed it should be pre-alerted in a similar fashion as is required for Highly Unusual Methods (HUM).

Nonsense. It would be regarded by anyone as common-sense bridge, an agreement you would expect to have with a strong pick-up partner.

 

And 40B3 states: The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity.

 

The EBU has not issued such an edict, so the agreement is legal.