Double and "raise"

[lamford]

I disagree. North has a right to draw attention to the irregularity (Law 9A1). Once he has done so (but only then) the TD should be summoned at once (Law 9B1a). But any player may do this (Law 9A1b) and North is no more responsible for doing so than anyone else is.

I accept that everyone is responsible for calling the director, in which case both sides should lose the right to redress when the TD is not called. I assume North said something like "That's not legal", and sat back and said nothing else, expecting East to correct it. If he intended to call the TD if the call was corrected to 4S, then I think he should have said, "That's not legal, and we should call the TD before you change it".

 

Otherwise we have a new gambit whenever someone misses by a level, which is easily the most common type of IB. SB says "That's not legal". Rabbit corrects it to a call a level higher. SB calls the TD and says I would have accepted the original call and the replacement call is now UI to the partner of the offender ... SB has enough opportunities as it is without giving him a new one. I can almost sense one occurring at a North London club next Tuesday.

[WellSpyder]

No it doesn't. It starts when West becomes aware of the fact that she has pulled the wrong (bidding) card - if, indeed, she has.

 

Splitting hairs, are we?

No, I don't think so - though others are, of course, free to think differently. I think there is a very meaningful distinction between realising that a bid is insufficient, and realising that it isn't the bid you thought you making, and either realisation can precede the other - or happen in the absence of the other ever happening. In my experience the vast majority of insufficient bids are not caused by pulling the wrong card, and indeed the majority of 25A bids are not insufficient, either.

[mamos]

I was South

 

There was never any possibility that anyone was going to ask for any sort of adjustment whatever the outcome of the board - it was a Club game with a playing director. As many of you may know I'm a National EBU TD and I train lots of people in directing - one of my most frequent mantras is "When something goes wrong, call the TD". I'm quite amused that a number of people who haven't been nearer to Shropshire than 500 miles are very dogmatic about what happened. It was I who said "We ought to call the TD."

 

This is in a context of a Club where the TDing is pretty variable, some experienced, very experienced TDs, some very inexperienced volunteers who help keep the Club running and do the best. The playing standard is also very variable.

 

After opening 3♦ I'd done my bit and had no intention of becoming further involved. LHO made a takeout double. No great surprise there. Partner passed passed and my RHO bid 3♠. I passed but was certainly not paying a great deal of attention. My LHO made a bid, which I don't think I'd even registered. What happened next was that partner said something like "You can't do that" (I'm pretty deaf in my left ear) and I looked at LHO's bidding cards. Almost instantaneously she plucked 4♠ from her box and I immediately tried to stop her. making the remark about "I really think we should call the TD". The point I'm making is that this was all very quick indeed. North barely had time to finish his sentence or initiate a TD call before West had produced a change of call - in fact i don't think she ever let go of her 4♠ card and did in fact return it to the bidding box.

 

West is a very experienced player, her premature correction by one of the Club's most experienced tournament players is a bad example and we should as a Club be better at ensuring that these minor "hiccups" are treated properly. She wasn't asked about a "misspull", and I didn't interfere because I think that this is unfair to the volunteer TD. The major point that I was interested in was ensuring that the TD was called.

 

I suspect that this wasn't really a misspull, West never suggested that. I agree that the TD might have taken her away from the table and asked her about this. She looked as if she was a bit puzzled. I did at the time think it was her intention to bid 3♠.

 

As someone interested and knowledgeable about the Laws the question of UI struck me as interesting and perhaps a little amusing here and as one scenario I hadn't really thought about before. If this was an insufficient bid, it was probably in North South's interests for it to be accepted - the failing of self-ruling that goes on in this area is that this option of accepting is too often ignored. I'm pleased James has raised it here, because it certainly can't be a unique situation.

 

Mike

[campboy]

I accept that everyone is responsible for calling the director, in which case both sides should lose the right to redress when the TD is not called. I assume North said something like "That's not legal", and sat back and said nothing else, expecting East to correct it. If he intended to call the TD if the call was corrected to 4S, then I think he should have said, "That's not legal, and we should call the TD before you change it".

You might think he should say that, but what North said is not illegal. The laws expressly permit him to draw attention to the irregularity. I don't see why you think North has done anything wrong -- it was West who breached 9B2 by taking an action (bidding 4♠) before the director arrived.

[Trinidad]

As many of you may know I'm a National EBU TD and I train lots of people in directing

 

She wasn't asked about a "misspull", and I didn't interfere because I think that this is unfair to the volunteer TD.

 

I don't understand that at all. You train TDs. You notice that a volunteer TD is making a mistake at your table by disregarding the possibility that Law 25 might apply. You say nothing.

 

How is that helping the volunteer TD or being fair to him/her? Now this TD thinks that s/he has done everything right because s/he ruled at Mike Amos' table and he agreed with what s/he did. Instead of becoming a better TD s/he has become a worse TD. I don't think that is giving a volunteer a fair treatment. The volunteer TD also aims at improving his/her skills and lost out on a good opportunity.

 

Rik

[lamford]

You might think he should say that, but what North said is not illegal.

I would say that it was not active ethics, especially if said in a way that suggests that no penalty is going to be claimed if it is corrected, and especially if, as at some clubs, making it sufficient (in the same suit and when neither bid is conventional) is usually accepted without the TD. Someone feigning to put dummy down as declarer when there is about to be an opening lead out of turn, triggering the lead to be faced, a common ploy by one person I know, might argue, "I assumed I must be dummy and was not paying attention." The individual in question pays plenty of attention when he "realises" he is declarer.

[campboy]

I don't really see how one can say "that's not legal" in a way that suggests no penalty is going to be claimed if it is corrected. Putting "dummy" down when you are declarer is a different matter, of course, since that is an irregularity in itself, and it is completely illegal to do it deliberately.

 

Personally, I would welcome a change in the law to say "When attention has been drawn to an irregularity, the player who drew attention should immediately summon the Director. If he does not do so, any other player (including dummy) may summon the Director." But we do not have such a law at the moment.

 

The current Law 9B1a is completely ridiculous. A literal reading of it (taking into account the introduction to the laws) is that failure to be summoned immediately is an infraction committed by the Director. Average-plus to both sides, then?

[VixTD]

I don't understand that at all. You train TDs. You notice that a volunteer TD is making a mistake at your table by disregarding the possibility that Law 25 might apply. You say nothing.

 

How is that helping the volunteer TD or being fair to him/her? Now this TD thinks that s/he has done everything right because s/he ruled at Mike Amos' table and he agreed with what s/he did. Instead of becoming a better TD s/he has become a worse TD. I don't think that is giving a volunteer a fair treatment. The volunteer TD also aims at improving his/her skills and lost out on a good opportunity.Rik

I don't agree that all club directors aspire to higher things. They are, as Mike says, willing volunteers who give some time and effort to help organise the game so that everyone else can have an enjoyable evening's bridge. I think they'd find it demoralising if every imperfection in their rulings was pointed out to them by a more senior director.

 

I too would have taken West away from the table and asked how she had come to make an insufficient bid, but the suggestion that it was unintended has to come from the offender herself, and thus far she had made no attempt to do so.

[Trinidad]

I don't agree that all club directors aspire to higher things. They are, as Mike says, willing volunteers who give some time and effort to help organise the game so that everyone else can have an enjoyable evening's bridge. I think they'd find it demoralising if every imperfection in their rulings was pointed out to them by a more senior director.

"higher things" is obviously relative. But most people aspire to be better at what they are doing. That doesn't mean that they aspire to reach the top, but most have an aspiration to be better tomorrow than they were yesterday.

 

I too would have taken West away from the table and asked how she had come to make an insufficient bid, but the suggestion that it was unintended has to come from the offender herself, and thus far she had made no attempt to do so.

?!?

 

She immediately corrected her potential unintended call. If the 3♠ bid was indeed unintended, correcting it immediately was a pretty strong suggestion that it was unintended.

 

From that point on, she has just followed the TD's instructions, as she is supposed to do. Are you suggesting that she should have interrupted the TD and should have said: "But the 3♠ was unintended!". No, it is up to the TD to investigate and establish the facts. The TD failed to do that, probably because he never thought of Law 25. That can happen, no big deal, people make mistakes all the time. But the TD's oversight doesn't suddenly shift the responsibility for that oversight to the player.

 

Rik

[VixTD]

In addition, the non-offender could have known that advising the second 3S bidder that her call was insufficient, without calling the TD, would lead to her changing it to 4S. The correct action was to call the director at that point. Why did North say that it was not a legal call? It was not his or her turn to bid. He should have called the TD then, and it appears that Law 11A applies.

Actually, it was North's turn to call, but that's not relevant. Any player, unless prohibited by law*, may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period (law 9A2).

 

I'll say again, clubs in which the response to any irregularity is an immediate shout for the director rightly or wrongly get a reputation for being unfriendly. I agree that the correct course is for the director to be called before anyone takes any other action, but the best way to achieve that is not to shorten the time-gap between infraction and director call, but rather to teach players not to take any action until a (calm, timely, friendly) call for the director is issued.

 

Otherwise we have a new gambit whenever someone misses by a level, which is easily the most common type of IB. SB says "That's not legal". Rabbit corrects it to a call a level higher. SB calls the TD and says I would have accepted the original call and the replacement call is now UI to the partner of the offender ...

I agree with this, and anyone trying it on with a beginner would get short shrift from me, but neither player on the offending side in this case could really claim to have been waylaid by the opposition.

 

(*Who is so prohibited by law? My club director class asked me this last Saturday, and I just mumbled something about perhaps players required by law to pass, and that I'd try to look it up when I had a minute.)

[lamford]

The current Law 9B1a is completely ridiculous. A literal reading of it (taking into account the introduction to the laws) is that failure to be summoned immediately is an infraction committed by the Director. Average-plus to both sides, then?

I like it. Not the first bit of gibberish in the Laws, and likely not the last.

[WellSpyder]

Any player, unless prohibited by law*, may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period (law 9A2).

 

(*Who is so prohibited by law? My club director class asked me this last Saturday, and I just mumbled something about perhaps players required by law to pass, and that I'd try to look it up when I had a minute.)

I assume the reference is, for example, to players whose partner gives a wrong explanation of their bid. That is an irregularity, but of course you may not draw attention to it during the auction, and indeed not during the play if you are on the defending side.

[helene_t]

You train TDs. You notice that a volunteer TD is making a mistake at your table by disregarding the possibility that Law 25 might apply. You say nothing.

I think that's ok.

 

Mamos can have a chat with the TD later on about how such irregularites should be dealt with in general.

 

But I don't think he should second guess the TD at the table (or in an appeal for that matter) when he is involved himself.

[blackshoe]

I disagree. North has a right to draw attention to the irregularity (Law 9A1). Once he has done so (but only then) the TD should be summoned at once (Law 9B1a). But any player may do this (Law 9A1b) and North is no more responsible for doing so than anyone else is.

Nor is he any less responsible.

[blackshoe]

You might think he should say that, but what North said is not illegal. The laws expressly permit him to draw attention to the irregularity. I don't see why you think North has done anything wrong -- it was West who breached 9B2 by taking an action (bidding 4♠) before the director arrived.

All four players at the table breached the law by failing to call the director when attention was drawn to the irregularity.

 

IME, many people react to "you made an insufficient bid" by immediately trying to correct it. It's kind of hard to shortstop a reflex, particularly in an environment (the clubs I'm most familiar with, perhaps this club is different) where most often the player changes to a minimum sufficient bid in the same strain, the director is never called, and the attitude is "let's just get on with the game".

 

That said, mamos tells us this West was experienced enough to know better, so perhaps she's a bit more culpable than the others - or than the usual club obliviot would be.

[campboy]

All four players at the table breached the law by failing to call the director when attention was drawn to the irregularity.

They may have all breached 9B1, but West is the only one who also breached 9B2.

 

Um.

 

I was going to say that West had broken three laws -- 9B1, 9B2 and whichever law says it is illegal to make insufficient bids. But I can't actually find one -- anyone know what it is?

[barmar]

Personally, I would welcome a change in the law to say "When attention has been drawn to an irregularity, the player who drew attention should immediately summon the Director. If he does not do so, any other player (including dummy) may summon the Director." But we do not have such a law at the moment.

I'd go a little further: MUST for the player who called attention, SHOULD for the other players. We need to put a stop to reluctance to calling the TD.

[weejonnie]

They may have all breached 9B1, but West is the only one who also breached 9B2.

 

Um.

 

I was going to say that West had broken three laws -- 9B1, 9B2 and whichever law says it is illegal to make insufficient bids. But I can't actually find one -- anyone know what it is?

 

I also looked and as far as I can tell it is not illegal to make an insufficient bid - just consequences. All there is, is a definition of a sufficient bid. Even a call out of rotation is not apparently deemed to be illegal - just consequences.

 

I think it is basically that in either case the LHO can accept the call out of turn or the insufficient bid. Contrast with, say, a double of your partner's contract (of course many of us at some time or other have wanted to do that!), where the call is cancelled de facto.

[campboy]

I also looked and as far as I can tell it is not illegal to make an insufficient bid - just consequences. All there is, is a definition of a sufficient bid. Even a call out of rotation is not apparently deemed to be illegal - just consequences.

We're on firmer ground with a call out of rotation: it's an irregularity because of Law 17C.

[lamford]

I also looked and as far as I can tell it is not illegal to make an insufficient bid - just consequences. All there is, is a definition of a sufficient bid. Even a call out of rotation is not apparently deemed to be illegal - just consequences.

 

I think it is basically that in either case the LHO can accept the call out of turn or the insufficient bid. Contrast with, say, a double of your partner's contract (of course many of us at some time or other have wanted to do that!), where the call is cancelled de facto.

I think it is legal to make an insufficient bid deliberately. Law 18A designates the proper form of bids, and an insufficient bid still qualifies as the proper form under the wording of that. One is not allowed to commit an infraction deliberately, even if one is prepared to pay a penalty, but it seems that an insufficient bid is not an infraction; at least I can find no place where it is stated to be one!

 

But I agree with campboy that one is not allowed to make an insufficient bid out of rotation. I wonder if one is allowed to make an inadmissible redouble deliberately?

[campboy]

But I agree with campboy that one is not allowed to make an insufficient bid out of rotation. I wonder if one is allowed to make an inadmissible redouble deliberately?

No: 19A1.

[lamford]

No: 19A1.

19B1 I think.

[campboy]

19B1 I think.

Ah, yes, I misread your question.

[weejonnie]

We're on firmer ground with a call out of rotation: it's an irregularity because of Law 17C.

Probably logic chopping. I agree that it IS an irregularity - but is it illegal? Law 35 deals with inadmissible calls. A call out of rotation (or for that matter an insufficient bid) isn't inadmissible - whereas a double/ redouble not permitted by Law 19 or a bid more than 7 is.

[VixTD]

The current Law 9B1a is completely ridiculous. A literal reading of it (taking into account the introduction to the laws) is that failure to be summoned immediately is an infraction committed by the Director. Average-plus to both sides, then?

It's not ridiculous at all, it's a normal English passive construction avoiding any mention of the "actor" (the agent carrying out the action of the verb "summon") because the identity of that agent is either unknown or unimportant. It does not imply that the obligation to summon falls upon the person who should have been summoned, any more than the bidding box regulation that reads "the Stop card should be left on the table for about ten seconds" implies that failure is an offence committed by the stop card.