Standard operating procedure

[blackshoe]

If that is the director's personal copy OK. Then management should be urged to purchase a book that would be the club's property and remain on the premises (or with the club's other equipment).

Understand that here, the TD is club management — and the owner of the club.

[Trinidad]

Then management should be urged to purchase a book that would be the club's property and remain on the premises.

Certainly a TD should have the lawbook with him. But there are so many "shoulds": people should wear their seat belt, we should love each other and we should have world peace. We are not talking about how it should be. We are talking about how it is.

 

And if the TD is well liked, and respected, and all the members are happy with him (and there is no one who will do it better) then he is doing a great job, even if he doesn't carry a law book.

 

Now, I don't want a TD like that in my club, since I take bridge too seriously. But in a bridge club that is meant to give LOLs something else to do besides looking out of the window these TDs are just fine.

 

Rik

[jallerton]

Yes, it is what we except of club TDs.

 

TDs (at all levels) can hope that infractions are accepted because it is easy to rule. But we teach TDs that they must explain the consequences (for the offenders) if the non-offender does not accept, before giving the non-offender the option of accepting. When assessed, trainee TDs will be marked down if they give the option to accept without elaboration.

 

Except or expect?!?

[RMB1]

Except or expect?!?

 

"expect" - oops!

[jallerton]

North deals and West opens 1♠ out of turn. You, the Director, are summoned to the table. What do you do?

 

Oh, I don't have a problem with North's being to the left of West. What I do have a problem with is this:

 

If I am North, I know that if I don't accept West's bid East is silenced for the duration. But if someone else is North, he may not know that. Is it part of standard operating procedure to tell him before he selects his option? If not, why not?

 

Yes, it is what we except expect of club TDs.

 

TDs (at all levels) can hope that infractions are accepted because it is easy to rule. But we teach TDs that they must explain the consequences (for the offenders) if the non-offender does not accept, before giving the non-offender the option of accepting. When assessed, trainee TDs will be marked down if they give the option to accept without elaboration.

 

I am pleased to see Robin's (typo corrected) response to how TDs are advised to handle this particular situation. Indeed this is how I was taught many years ago.

 

Now compare to the following situation:

 

South deals and opens 2♦. West (who rarely uses the 'stop' card) bids 2♣, which the TD ascertains not to have been an unintended call. West is invited to a private discussion with the TD and then North has the opportunity to accept, or not accept, the insufficient bid. To make a proper assessment, North might well want to know whether, if he rejects the insufficient bid, West has any call available to him that can be made without silencing East [under Law 27B1(a) and/or Law 27B1(b)]

To repeat David's question in this second situation:

"Is it part of standard operating procedure to tell him before he selects his option? If not, why not?"

[Vampyr]

"Is it part of standard operating procedure to tell him before he selects his option? If not, why not?"

 

I took my county director course soon after the new laws came out, and it was either then or in a subsequent discussion with probably Gordon but it could have been Mike, Robin or Max that I was adamant that this is information the next player had to be given, and I was told that this was not the EBU procedure. Perhaps it has been changed though. One can hope.

 

Naturally West gets the latest in what must be a long string of PPs for not using the Stop card.

[Trinidad]

North will be explained the laws and the consequences of the laws. I would certainly be willing to go as far as to explain that if West (e.g.) didn't see the 2♦ opening and meant to open 2♣ (strong and art.) East will be barred and that if West thought the opening was 1♦ and had a natural 2♣ overcall that he could correct it to 3♣ without barring East.

 

But I will not tell North what kind of a hand West has or what the reason for the infraction was. North is not entitled to this information.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

North will be explained the laws and the consequences of the laws. I would certainly be willing to go as far as to explain that if West (e.g.) didn't see the 2♦ opening and meant to open 2♣ (strong and art.) East will be barred and that if West thought the opening was 1♦ and had a natural 2♣ overcall that he could correct it to 3♣ without barring East.

 

But I will not tell North what kind of a hand West has or what the reason for the infraction was. North is not entitled to this information.

 

Rik

 

I should have thought that the information you gave would consist only of whether West has a penalty-free correction.

[blackshoe]

"not an unintended call" does not mean West thought he was opening 2♣, a jump bid. He may have thought he was overcalling 1♦, where 2♣ would not be a jump bid. That said, if he did think he was opening 2♣, I agree with the PP, particularly if the failure to use it has caused problems before.

[RMB1]

South deals and opens 2♦. West (who rarely uses the 'stop' card) bids 2♣, which the TD ascertains not to have been an unintended call. West is invited to a private discussion with the TD and then North has the opportunity to accept, or not accept, the insufficient bid. To make a proper assessment, North might well want to know whether, if he rejects the insufficient bid, West has any call available to him that can be made without silencing East [under Law 27B1(a) and/or Law 27B1(b)]

To repeat David's question in this second situation:

"Is it part of standard operating procedure to tell him before he selects his option? If not, why not?"

 

Because the last seven years have not enabled us to agree a practical uniform approach to the application of Law 27, which is faithful to the wording of the law and the intent of the law, and which provides both sides with just the information to which the law allows.

[gordontd]

I took my county director course soon after the new laws came out, and it was either then or in a subsequent discussion with probably Gordon but it could have been Mike, Robin or Max that I was adamant that this is information the next player had to be given, and I was told that this was not the EBU procedure.

There is a paper that explains the original EBU position on handling Law 27 cases, which Max wrote when the new Laws came out, and I expect it was this to which you were referred. As time has gone on practice has changed a bit but there is still no unanimity of approach towards this thoroughly unsatisfactory law. I expect we are all waiting for its improvement in the next laws, but I understand that an improved wording may be hard to find and we may end up being disappointed.

[lamford]

I have often wondered if a private discussion is correct, given that the response to the TD is only used to establish whether someone can change their call without penalty, and that information is authorised to the opponents but unauthorised to the partner of the person making the IB. Surely the correct procedure is to ask only the partner of the person making the IB to leave the table.

[Vampyr]

There is a paper that explains the original EBU position on handling Law 27 cases, which Max wrote when the new Laws came out, and I expect it was this to which you were referred. As time has gone on practice has changed a bit but there is still no unanimity of approach towards this thoroughly unsatisfactory law. I expect we are all waiting for its improvement in the next laws, but I understand that an improved wording may be hard to find and we may end up being disappointed.

 

Reverting to the version in the immediately previous Lawbook may be the best we can hope for. That version had a few problems, but mainly worked OK. At least then we can go back to the idea that the only "meaning" of an insufficient bid is 'I thought it was sufficient when I bid it'.

 

I have often wondered if a private discussion is correct, given that the response to the TD is only used to establish whether someone can change their call without penalty, and that information is authorised to the opponents but unauthorised to the partner of the person making the IB. Surely the correct procedure is to ask only the partner of the person making the IB to leave the table.

 

If the player decides to pass or make a bid with no penalty-free correction, are the opponents entitled to know what the player was originally intending? I think the answer is no.

[mycroft]

I think I don't even go that far. I will ascertain what the bid means, away from the table, to determine whether there are calls that will work; I will explain to the opponents that "if not accepted, and the player makes a call that shows the same or more specific information than what he intended to show here, we will continue without penalty, otherwise his partner will be forced to pass throughout." I will not explain what calls that may be, nor whether I believe there is one.

 

Frequently, yes, I will be asked "well, what did he intend to show?" "I'm sorry, you are not entitled to that information. You are allowed to guess."

I will let them know if the correction to the cheapest is acceptable (because everything's natural); but if we're in that Law territory, I think they are just entitled to the Law, and they can decide from there.

[blackshoe]

Looking at the laws, it seems to me that all four players at the table are entitled to know what the relevant laws and regulations are before anyone takes any action (Law 9B2). I don't see anything in the laws that would change that. Am I missing something?

 

Secondly, the opponents of a bidder are entitled to know what his bids mean per the bidder's partnership agreements. No partnership will have an agreement as to the meaning of an insufficient bid, so the correct explanation is "no agreement". This means that Law 27's reference to the "meaning" of an insufficient bid makes no sense. In its defense, the law does refer to "the possible meanings of an insufficient bid", so I suppose that implies the construction of a set of possible meanings which will hopefully include a meaning which fits the bidder's hand (or his intent). But it seems to me that how to determine this set of possible meanings hasn't really been well discussed anywhere. Perhaps that is where we should focus our efforts?

[VixTD]

I have often wondered if a private discussion is correct, given that the response to the TD is only used to establish whether someone can change their call without penalty, and that information is authorised to the opponents but unauthorised to the partner of the person making the IB. Surely the correct procedure is to ask only the partner of the person making the IB to leave the table.

I don't think the opponents have the right to know whether offender has a penalty-free substitute call available.

 

The TD should tell them they can accept the insufficient bid, and if they don't, there's no penalty if offender corrects to the lowest legal bid in the same denomination when both calls are not conventional, or if offender makes a call with much the same or a narrower meaning than the insufficient bid. Other than that, offender may not double or redouble and partner will have to pass for the rest of the auction.

 

One other English TD who doesn't like our current approach argues that the opponents have to know whether a penalty-free call is available in order to work out whether they want to accept the insufficient bid. I can see that they might want to know this, but not that they have a right to know. Why should they have it all their way?

 

I don't see what's unsatisfactory with the current EBU approach, other than the problem of teaching it to new directors.

[pran]

Looking at the laws, it seems to me that all four players at the table are entitled to know what the relevant laws and regulations are before anyone takes any action (Law 9B2). I don't see anything in the laws that would change that. Am I missing something?

No - of course they are.

 

Secondly, the opponents of a bidder are entitled to know what his bids mean per the bidder's partnership agreements.

Again - yes, of course.

 

No partnership will have an agreement as to the meaning of an insufficient bid, so the correct explanation is "no agreement". This means that Law 27's reference to the "meaning" of an insufficient bid makes no sense. In its defense, the law does refer to "the possible meanings of an insufficient bid", so I suppose that implies the construction of a set of possible meanings which will hopefully include a meaning which fits the bidder's hand (or his intent). But it seems to me that how to determine this set of possible meanings hasn't really been well discussed anywhere. Perhaps that is where we should focus our efforts?

But from here on we must be careful. The laws do not say anything about the agreed meaning of an insufficient bid, they leave it for the Director to judge if the substituted call in his opinion meets certain criteria as specified in the relevant law.

[lamford]

I don't think the opponents have the right to know whether offender has a penalty-free substitute call available.

That is a point of view, but it seems to me that "it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations". Whether an offender has to lead a card at the first opportunity is authorised; whether an offender has a penalty-free substitute call seems to me to "arise from the legal procedures authorized in these laws". Note that it only says "arising from".

[aguahombre]

That is a point of view, but it seems to me that "it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations". Whether an offender has to lead a card at the first opportunity is authorised; whether an offender has a penalty-free substitute call seems to me to "arise from the legal procedures authorized in these laws". Note that it only says "arising from".

More important, IMO, in opposition to your idea that the PARTNER of the IB'r should be the one called away from the table --- is this:

 

Only the guy who did it truly knows what he thought when it happened. We should not be encouraging his partner to speculate on something which might have the same or more precise meaning than the IB when we really don't want him considering it at all.

[lamford]

Only the guy who did it truly knows what he thought when it happened. We should not be encouraging his partner to speculate on something which might have the same or more precise meaning than the IB when we really don't want him considering it at all.

I fail to see how it makes any difference. The player is just as likely to speculate on what his partner originally thought while the offender is away from the table.

[blackshoe]

But from here on we must be careful. The laws do not say anything about the agreed meaning of an insufficient bid, they leave it for the Director to judge if the substituted call in his opinion meets certain criteria as specified in the relevant law.

Which is precisely why some guidance for TDs on how to form this opinion is — IMO at least — a good idea. I'm talking about process here, not "this is what your opinion should be".

[blackshoe]

That is a point of view, but it seems to me that "it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations". Whether an offender has to lead a card at the first opportunity is authorised; whether an offender has a penalty-free substitute call seems to me to "arise from the legal procedures authorized in these laws". Note that it only says "arising from".

That information is authorized does not mean that the player to whom it is authorized is entitled to it.

[lamford]

That information is authorized does not mean that the player to whom it is authorized is entitled to it.

I think it is implied by 9B2:

2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

 

Note that it says "all matters". That must include whether someone will have a penalty-free correction, before deciding whether to accept the IB. I agree with Vampyr, however, that the opponent has no right to know what the offender originally thought the auction was, although the Laws expert will be able to work it out from the TD's ruling (with a few supplementary questions about the opponents' methods).

[Vampyr]

But it seems to me that how to determine this set of possible meanings hasn't really been well discussed anywhere. Perhaps that is where we should focus our efforts?

 

No, because it has become established that you have to find out what the bidder thought was going on when he made his bid. Hilariously, this can result in different rulings for players who made the exact same bid in the exact same auction.

 

Then to determine whether the player can have a penalty-free correction, you have to have a thorough knowledge of the players' system. Someone in our club has been waiting four years for a ruling, because the director is still not a sufficiently strong or experienced player to understand all of the implications of the system involved.

[blackshoe]

I think it is implied by 9B2:

2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

 

Note that it says "all matters". That must include whether someone will have a penalty-free correction, before deciding whether to accept the IB. I agree with Vampyr, however, that the opponent has no right to know what the offender originally thought the auction was, although the Laws expert will be able to work it out from the TD's ruling (with a few supplementary questions about the opponents' methods).

Must it? Certainly it includes that there is a possibility in the law for such a correction, but I do not see how that leads to a right to know whether the player actually has one in his bidding system (other than natural bids in the same denomination).

 

There is nothing in the laws, it seems to me, that gives players the right to know now what their opponents' future bids might mean.