insufficent bid

[gnasher]

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.

This law is perfectly coherent as written, without pretending that is says something different from what it actually says.

 

If you notice that your partner has made an insufficient bid, you're not obliged to draw attention to it, or to call the director. If, however, someone else calls attention to the insufficent bid, you (and everyone else) are now obliged to call the director.

 

If anyone makes an insufficient bid, and then attempts to make it sufficient, they have drawn attention to the insuffcient bid. Now you (and everyone else) are obliged to call the director.

[blackshoe]

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!)

I don't think it matters whether he knew he'd committed an irregularity. The act of changing his call drew attention to the IB. That's enough to invoke Law 9B1{a}.

[Vampyr]

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).

 

It is not really an agreement. It is just common sense that if partner has unexpected options, you give him a chance to have a look and decide.

[blackshoe]

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.

The law is flawed. "The director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." This does not say that the drawing of attention must obvious, or that all four players must have their attention drawn. It says that if any player has his attention drawn, by any means, the director must be called. That is almost certainly not the intention of the lawmakers — among other things it means that if dummy's attention is drawn to an irregularity, he must call the TD at once, even if the other three players don't realize there's been an irregularity. But the fact that the law is flawed does not mean that it says what you claim it says. In fact, it says just the opposite.

[aguahombre]

The law is flawed. "The director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." This does not say that the drawing of attention must obvious, or that all four players must have their attention drawn. It says that if any player has his attention drawn, by any means, the director must be called. That is almost certainly not the intention of the lawmakers — among other things it means that if dummy's attention is drawn to an irregularity, he must call the TD at once, even if the other three players don't realize there's been an irregularity. But the fact that the law is flawed does not mean that it says what you claim it says. In fact, it says just the opposite.

It is clear, and not a flaw, that Dummy can only call for the TD if attention is drawn to an irregularity by someone else.

 

It is just plain looking for flaws to try to aver that an active player in the auction is somehow precluded from calling the TD for an irregularity because "proper attention" hasn't been drawn to it. Law 9 addresses calls for the TD when attention has been drawn. It does not stop a player from calling the TD when he observes an irregularity, unless that player is barred from doing so in another Law.

[blackshoe]

When one provision of law conflicts with another, the law as a whole is flawed.

 

"It is clear, and not a flaw, that Dummy can only call for the TD if attention is drawn to an irregularity by someone else."

 

Certainly. The question is not whether this is the case, but what constitutes "drawing attention to an irregularity" during the play period.

 

"[Law 9] does not stop a player from calling the TD when he observes an irregularity, unless that player is barred from doing so in another Law."

 

A more accurate and more concise phrasing would be "unless that player is dummy". Observing an irregularity neither asserts nor precludes that attention was drawn to it. So if dummy observes an irregularity, he cannot call the TD unless someone else draws attention to that irregularity. The problem is that some irregularities draw attention to themselves, or more precisely that some actions subsequent to an irregularity draw attention to that irregularity, without an explicit statement from a player doing the same.

 

Some people want the law to be administered as if it says "when a player (other than dummy) explicitly and verbally draws attention to an irregularity, the director should be called", but that is not what the law says.

[pran]

I have absolutely no problem with Law 9. To me it is quite clear that "drawing attention to an irregularity" means uttering words to the effect that an irregularity has occurred. Alternatively a player may act in a manner for which the obvious purpose is to draw such attention. He may for instance point specifically to a double preceding a second double or to a bid that makes a later bid insufficient.

 

But I do object to the assertion that for instance a premature correction of an insufficient bid itself automatically draws attention to that bid. Instead I will claim that the second bid is an attempt to change a call to be handled under Law 25.

 

If and when the director is subsequently called because of this irregularity he should, if attentive, discover that the correct Law for the situation is Law 27 even if nobody calls his attention to the fact that there was an IB.

 

With this understanding I cannot see any flaw in Law 9

[blackshoe]

Yeah, well, your problem, Sven, is that "drawing attention to an irregularity" does not mean "uttering words to the effect that an irregularity has occurred" or "acting in a manner for which the obvious purpose is to draw such attention".

[aguahombre]

Yeah, well, your problem, Sven, is that "drawing attention to an irregularity" does not mean "uttering words to the effect that an irregularity has occurred" or "acting in a manner for which the obvious purpose is to draw such attention".

And your problem is in believing the "drawing of attention" has any relevance to anyone except Dummy (or someone else precluded in some law I haven't found) from calling the TD.

[blackshoe]

Nope.

 

1. Anyone (except, for an irregularity during the play to which attention has not been drawn, dummy) can call the director at any time for any reason.

2. No one, except in cases involving Law 20F4 or 20F5, is ever required to call the director for an irregularity to which attention has not been drawn.

3. If attention has been drawn to an irregularity, all four players at the table including, during the play, dummy, are required by law to call the TD.

4. The question here is not who can do what when, but rather what "draw attention to an irregularity" means.

 

BTW, Item #3 above implies that the drawing of attention to an irregularity is relevant to all four players at the table.

[axman]

Nope.

 

1. Anyone (except, for an irregularity during the play to which attention has not been drawn, dummy) can call the director at any time for any reason.

2. No one, except in cases involving Law 20F4 or 20F5, is ever required to call the director for an irregularity to which attention has not been drawn.

3. If attention has been drawn to an irregularity, all four players at the table including, during the play, dummy, are required by law to call the TD.

4. The question here is not who can do what when, but rather what "draw attention to an irregularity" means.

 

BTW, Item #3 above implies that the drawing of attention to an irregularity is relevant to all four players at the table.

 

In an attempt to complete the thought consider the following:

 

W, a defender, has played and quitted the H7 to T3 [a spade trick]. When E distracts South, W removes the H7 from the discards [putting it in his hand] and substitutes a different card. Dummy calls the TD asserting that W called attention to his revoke. Has dummy committed an irregularity? No, dummy was not first to draw attention to the revoke- the withdrawing [by W] of the revoke card from the discards drew attention to the revoke. Was W required to draw attention to his revoke? No. but having done so he commits an infraction if the TD is not called.

 

The example of the 3D IB and then a change of call is exactly analogous. The changing of call draws attention to the IB; and failure to call the TD with regard to the IB is an infraction.

[pran]

Does leading to a trick draw attention to the fact that the player won the last preceding trick?

 

Does leading to a trick draw attention to the fact that it is a lead out of turn when the player did not win the last preceding trick?

 

Does discarding a heart draw attention to the fact that the player has revoked by not following suit with a heart in the last preceding trick? - several tricks ago?

 

Exactly where do you folks draw the line between when an action draws attention to something and when it does not?

[campboy]

IMO the line should be drawn at the point where a player has done something which makes it clear not only that the irregularity has happened, but that everyone is now aware of it. I think you need this extra strength because it does not make sense to require players to call the TD if someone else's attention has been drawn to an irregularity but they themselves are unaware of it, and I don't think it makes sense to say attention has been drawn unless the players know that attention has been drawn. This is also more consistent with other laws: if you become aware of partner's unintentional irregularity you are not required to do anything unless attention has been drawn, so obviously you can become aware of it without attention being drawn.

 

So in the original case I think it is now obvious that there was an irregularity and everyone knows about it, so attention has been drawn. In your second and third case above (in the first there has been no irregularity) even if I notice it is quite possible that others have not, so attention has not been drawn. It is also not clear that it makes sense for an irregularity to draw attention to itself (other than the irregularity of saying "this comment is gratuitous").

[pran]

IMO the line should be drawn at the point where a player has done something which makes it clear not only that the irregularity has happened, but that everyone is now aware of it. I think you need this extra strength because it does not make sense to require players to call the TD if someone else's attention has been drawn to an irregularity but they themselves are unaware of it, and I don't think it makes sense to say attention has been drawn unless the players know that attention has been drawn. This is also more consistent with other laws: if you become aware of partner's unintentional irregularity you are not required to do anything unless attention has been drawn, so obviously you can become aware of it without attention being drawn.

 

So in the original case I think it is now obvious that there was an irregularity and everyone knows about it, so attention has been drawn. In your second and third case above (in the first there has been no irregularity) even if I notice it is quite possible that others have not, so attention has not been drawn. It is also not clear that it makes sense for an irregularity to draw attention to itself (other than the irregularity of saying "this comment is gratuitous").

 

My first example is of course no irregularity, I deliberately included it because it is still an event to be aware of.

 

I believe that we essentially do agree: Attention to some event has not been drawn unless all four players at the table apparently (and obviously) has become aware of it.

 

Actually I read Law 9A1 to say that attention to an irregularity can only be drawn by a player specifically addressing that irregularity, not implicitly by some action taken without explicit reference to the irregularity.

 

If the latter were the case law 9A3 would be superfluous and effectively suspended because attention to irregularities could be argued implicitly having been drawn by a subsequent action regardless of how explicitly this action referred to the irregularity.

 

Now when a player changes (or tries to change) his call : Is it (automatically) clear to all the other players that he does so because of a previous irregularity (e.g. IB)? To me it is not unless there is also some utterance to that effect. What is clear is that there is a Law 25 case in progress, but so far no attention has yet been drawn to the previous Law 27 case.

 

This is highly technical, but watching technicalities is very important in all legal cases.

[bixby]

On the question of whether changing an IB necessarily draws attention to the irregularity:

 

I would agree with Pran that in theory a player could change an IB to another call in a way that would not constitute drawing attention to the irregularity, but would, rather, constitute a second irregularity. However, in practice, at least in my experience, a player who notices his own IB and attempts to change it without calling the Director almost invariably begins by gasping or saying "oh!" or making some gesture of surprise, which calls attention to the irregularity. So I think this discussion is about a very unlikely occurrence.

 

If, somehow, a player, in perfect silence and with no change of expression, made an IB and then replaced it with a different call, I would say that that does not by itself call attention to the IB, because, as Pran pointed out earlier, a player might do the same thing if his first call had been legal.

 

But as I say, that almost never happens. Players who notice their own insufficient bids generally can't help but show surprise in a way that calls attention to the irregularity. There is no requirement that the "calling attention" be done using words.

[blackshoe]

What is clear is that there is a Law 25 case in progress, but so far no attention has yet been drawn to the previous Law 27 case.

Changing a call is an irregularity. It doesn't matter why the change is made (or attempted) or whether anyone has explicitly called attention to it. Anyone can call the director once the change is made or attempted. IMO a change of call is an obvious irregularity — so much so that it automatically draws attention to itself. In such a case, not only can anyone call the director, everyone should call the director (Law 9B1{a}).

 

The TD must investigate the reason for the change, and the first step in that is to find out what the original call was. So the TD will become aware there was an IB even if no one mentions it when he arrives at the table. Still, I do not think it wrong to mention the IB when the director arrives — during the auction, there are no restrictions on who may call attention to an irregularity, or on how he may do so.

[pran]

On the question of whether changing an IB necessarily draws attention to the irregularity:

 

I would agree with Pran that in theory a player could change an IB to another call in a way that would not constitute drawing attention to the irregularity, but would, rather, constitute a second irregularity. However, in practice, at least in my experience, a player who notices his own IB and attempts to change it without calling the Director almost invariably begins by gasping or saying "oh!" or making some gesture of surprise, which calls attention to the irregularity. So I think this discussion is about a very unlikely occurrence.

 

If, somehow, a player, in perfect silence and with no change of expression, made an IB and then replaced it with a different call, I would say that that does not by itself call attention to the IB, because, as Pran pointed out earlier, a player might do the same thing if his first call had been legal.

 

But as I say, that almost never happens. Players who notice their own insufficient bids generally can't help but show surprise in a way that calls attention to the irregularity. There is no requirement that the "calling attention" be done using words.

[...]

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

[...]

Nothing in OP said that anybody drew attention to the IB, the offender simply changed his Call after a brief hesitation.

 

This discussion has from the beginning been whether the change itself "drew attention" to the IB.

 

My opion has all the time been that the change was the irregularity of changing a call (to be ruled under Law 25), but that of course if somebody then drew attention to the preceding IB (or TD after being called himself noticed this) then it would be a Law 27 case instead of a Law 25 case.

 

But again of course, when as in your description the offender shows surprise over his IB then that will usually suffice as "drawing attention" to the irregularity.

 

This discussion is not really important during the auction, but it is very important during the play period when dummy is prohibited from drawing attention to any irregularity and thus may only call the director after some other player at the table has drawn such attention. {Law 43A1a}

[bixby]

I think we are in agreement. You are correct that the OP doesn't mention that the player expressed surprise at his own IB, but neither does it expressly state that he didn't. You have chosen to give your opinion based on the assumption that he didn't, which is fine. I would still guess, though, that he probably did.

 

It's a Bayesian thing. In my experience, the a priori probability that a player noticing his own IB would express surprise is high. Adding in the additional information that the OP doesn't say that he did reduces the probability, but not so much as to make it probable that he failed to express surprise.

 

But as I say, I think we agree.

[mycroft]

Yes, even if the player is exercising their L25A rights to correct their bid, it is still an irregularity and the TD "should" be summonned - obviously in the EBU, where a bid is "made" with boxes a lot earlier than in the ACBL, this happens a lot and the "everybody knows" after knocking off the extra 2♠ card that was attached to the meant 2♥ card what happened, so they just go on, happens a lot as well.

 

Note that in the ACBL, there are a lot of "Law 25A" corrections that "may not be", and it's important to have the TD there on those to determine if it really was inadvertent or whether thinking was involved.

 

But I have a question about draws attention. I played last night, and the player with Jx opposite AQ with the K offside got two tricks in the suit. I was very surprised that partner didn't play the A when declarer showed out on the J...so much so that when the A got played later, it screamingly drew attention. I, however, waited until the end of the hand (as there wasn't anything to do before the end of the hand) to call the TD.

 

Is that wrong, if correcting a bid is "drawing attention to an irregularity"?

[barmar]

Do we have to have this argument about what "draw attention to" means every time something like this comes up? Obviously the wording is not as clear as it should be, which leads to confusion and disagreement. But we're obviously not going to come to an agreement, for the same reason we haven't in the past. It can only be resolved by the Law Commission, not here.

 

This forum needs a list of frequent areas of contention. When a thread gets into one of those topics, we might as well just give up. And perhaps we could forward the list to the WBFLC as a suggestion that they clear up the wording in the next revision.

[pran]

Do we have to have this argument about what "draw attention to" means every time something like this comes up? Obviously the wording is not as clear as it should be, which leads to confusion and disagreement. But we're obviously not going to come to an agreement, for the same reason we haven't in the past. It can only be resolved by the Law Commission, not here.

 

This forum needs a list of frequent areas of contention. When a thread gets into one of those topics, we might as well just give up. And perhaps we could forward the list to the WBFLC as a suggestion that they clear up the wording in the next revision.

 

They will probably state that

1 Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

 

2. Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may draw attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period. For incorrectly pointed card see Law 65B3.

 

3. When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another players committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

 

4. There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by ones own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partners apparently mistaken explanation).

is unambiguous and clear to the effect that attention to an irregularity can (legally) only be drawn by a player at the table.

 

 

During the play a defender plays two cards to a trick and then takes back one of them. Nobody says anything. May dummy call the director or say anything? No - attention has not been drawn to the irregularity.

Edited October 16, 2013 by pran

[barmar]

During the play a defender plays two cards to a trick and then takes back one of them. Nobody says anything. May dummy call the director or say anything? No - attention has not been drawn to the irregularity.

Yet if he did the same thing, but said "Oops" as he was taking back one of the cards, we would presumably judge that the interjection constitutes "drawing attention to the irregularity". Seems like a very fine line there.

[blackshoe]

There are several "fine lines" in the rules of this game or, I suspect, any game. B-)

[aguahombre]

Sorry, I don't see a fine line when an irregularity is followed by an "oops".

[pran]

Sorry, I don't see a fine line when an irregularity is followed by an "oops".

No "oops" in my post