Rate my Ruling: misinformation

[pran]

Hm. When was that written? I'm wondering if the author(s) took into account the current wording (since 2017) of the law, which refers to extremely serious errors (my emphasis).

 

Is not calling the director after an irregularity an extremely serious error?

The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

and

...an extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction)...

How failing to summon the Director can be considered an extremely serious error is beyond me so long as Law 9 B 1 {a} is a "should" law.

[nige1]

In similar cases, David Burn says the Director should ask himself "Without the EW misexplanation, would the NS debacle be less likely? If the answer is yes (as in this case), then the director should rule for the victims.

 

Assuming i'm not misrepresenting David's position, I agree with him.

 

FWIW, IMO, weighted rulings pander to careless offenders and deprive their victims of just redress..

[blackshoe]

Is not your question seriously ambiguous ?

B-)

Okay, let me try again: Is failing to call the director after an irregularity an extremely serious error?

[blackshoe]

How failing to summon the Director can be considered an extremely serious error is beyond me so long as Law 9 B 1 {a} is a "should" law.

That was my thought. Prior to 2007, when the law said the director "must" be called, it might have been considered an extremely serious error, but back then the criterion was only "serious error".

[pran]

How failing to summon the Director can be considered an extremely serious error is beyond me so long as Law 9 B 1 {a} is a "should" law.

That was my thought. Prior to 2007, when the law said the director "must" be called, it might have been considered an extremely serious error, but back then the criterion was only "serious error".

I trust that we both know the difference between "should" and "must" B-)

[blackshoe]

I trust that we both know the difference between "should" and "must" B-)

We do.

[pescetom]

Okay, let me try again: Is failing to call the director after an irregularity an extremely serious error?

 

I agree with others that failure to call when the Law says "must" is serious.

The need for an irregularity to be extremely serious escapes me in either context, maybe someone could explain why this change was made.

[blackshoe]

I wasn't on the drafting committee, so I don't know why the change was made. I speculate that it was an attempt to limit what the committee viewed as excessively stringent rulings under the previous "serious" provision.

 

The current laws do not say that the director must be called after an irregularity. Rather, he should be called. That change was made in the 2007 edition of the laws.

[ahydra]

Hm. When was that written? I'm wondering if the author(s) took into account the current wording (since 2017) of the law, which refers to extremely serious errors (my emphasis).

 

Is not calling the director after an irregularity an extremely serious error?

 

Unfortunately the manual hasn't been updated since 2016. Some of the references to Laws within therefore have the wrong numbers, which has certainly confused me up to now. I'm not sure when it's due for revision, but I hope shortly.

 

In regard to the question about calling the director - I can imagine something like:

 

- NS give misinformation.

- EW play a horrible contract of 4H as a result, rather than 5C.

- NS revoke during the play. The table agrees their own ruling of one trick transfer.

- EW finish down 6, so down 5 after the one trick transfer.

- EW however discover later the revoke messed with entries / etc, and the TD would have restored equity and given EW many more tricks, say down only 2 instead of 5.

- TD will treat the failure to call him at the time of the revoke a "serious error" (and it is unrelated to the MI infraction), and therefore adjust the score for both sides to 5C=, but deduct from EW the difference in matchpoints between 4H-5 and 4H-2.

 

ahydra

[barmar]

and

 

How failing to summon the Director can be considered an extremely serious error is beyond me so long as Law 9 B 1 {a} is a "should" law.

I suspect what they're referring to is making your own, incorrect ruling after an irregularity, rather than calling the director and getting the proper instruction.

 

So it's not really the failure to call the TD itself that's the serious error, but the consequences of the failure.

[pran]

I suspect what they're referring to is making your own, incorrect ruling after an irregularity, rather than calling the director and getting the proper instruction.

 

So it's not really the failure to call the TD itself that's the serious error, but the consequences of the failure.

"consequences of the failure" being an error just doesn't make sense to me.

 

If eventually I am called to an irregularity where the players have sorted out the things themselves (without bothering to call me) my ruling will (almost?) always be that they will have to live with their own ruling. I can no longer establish the actual circumstances and thus am not in any position to rectify the result in a fair way.

 

However, I am still able to impose a procedure penalty and will certainly do so if I judge that their own ruling had been way out of order. (And they will of course be given a warning.)

[cherdano]

NS bidding looks all rather strange to me.

South's decision to double on that hand is odd, I too would prefer 1♦ or 1NT.

North's decision to bid 2♥ is incomprehensible to me, unless she knew the conventional meaning of the unalerted 1♦ and decided not to ask about it (for some reason) and to treat it as pass (but that would be quite a leap to make unless already agreed with partner).

South's reasoning that 2♥ must be some kind of weak jump is surprising too, as North already had the chance to bid a weak two on the first round of bidding.

 

All in all I find it hard to imagine that NS are up to finding 3NT should EW alert correctly, so maybe you were a bit generous. I think East deserves a penalty for the missing alert of artificial 1♦ however.

You are being very harsh on the non-offenders.

(1) Yes I wouldn't double but bidding 1♦ does miss some games, this is a very good hand and a style where you double on this is very reasonable.

(2) What's wrong with 2♥? Seems completely normal.

(3) I've quite a lot of sympathy for S who can see that E showed 12+, W showed 6+ and a decent diamond suit, hence partner's jump is probably weak (and a weak jump opposite a takeout double is a very different beast than opening 2♥). Since the hand is suddenly not worth a double any more (with good diamond's bid on our left), it seems a good decision to cut your losses and pass out 2♥ - it's what I'd do opposite a weak jump and with a natural positive diamond bid on my left.

 

Obviously NS had a misunderstanding, but that seems directly related to the misinformation. If South had known 1♦ is 0-7 they'd have no reason to abandon their double-and-bid plan. I think only 60% of 3NT is a bit harsh on NS, actually, but that's a minor quibble - the ruling was clearly better than what many posters would have decided, IMO.

[cherdano]

E/W commented they felt not many would bid game on this board, which I felt was surprising, but actually was borne out by the results at other tables with only one other table reaching 3NT+2.

That comment is irrelevant unless the other Souths also started with double, intending to double-and-bid showing 16+.

[blackshoe]

In regard to the question about calling the director - I can imagine something like:

 

- NS give misinformation.

- EW play a horrible contract of 4H as a result, rather than 5C.

- NS revoke during the play. The table agrees their own ruling of one trick transfer.

- EW finish down 6, so down 5 after the one trick transfer.

- EW however discover later the revoke messed with entries / etc, and the TD would have restored equity and given EW many more tricks, say down only 2 instead of 5.

- TD will treat the failure to call him at the time of the revoke a "serious error" (and it is unrelated to the MI infraction), and therefore adjust the score for both sides to 5C=, but deduct from EW the difference in matchpoints between 4H-5 and 4H-2.

It seems to me that since the law says that all four players are responsible to call the director, if anyone committed a serious error in not calling him, they all did. Also, if it's a serious error, is it also an extremely serious error? What makes it so, and why?

 

I suspect what they're referring to is making your own, incorrect ruling after an irregularity, rather than calling the director and getting the proper instruction.

 

So it's not really the failure to call the TD itself that's the serious error, but the consequences of the failure.

Consequences for which side?

 

"consequences of the failure" being an error just doesn't make sense to me.

 

If eventually I am called to an irregularity where the players have sorted out the things themselves (without bothering to call me) my ruling will (almost?) always be that they will have to live with their own ruling. I can no longer establish the actual circumstances and thus am not in any position to rectify the result in a fair way.

 

However, I am still able to impose a procedure penalty and will certainly do so if I judge that their own ruling had been way out of order. (And they will of course be given a warning.)

Indeed. Will you impose a PP on both sides, or only one? If only one, which one, and why?

[pran]

Indeed. Will you impose a PP on both sides, or only one? If only one, which one, and why?

Certainly, and to both sides.

 

The PP will be anything from a warning to inexperienced players (who I always try to treat lenient) up to a very heavy penalty if the irregularity itself was serious, the players experienced and their own ruling at the table was incorrect.

 

So far I cannot remember ever having to penalize really experienced players this way because they do not violate Law 9 without being qualified directors themselves and behaving accordingly.

[blackshoe]

IMO it's worse for a qualified director to make his own ruling at the table than for an ordinary player. After all, the qualified director ought to know better.

[barmar]

Consequences for which side?

The context we're discussing is when the non-offenders cause their own damage through an ESE. So only consequences to the NOS.

[pran]

IMO it's worse for a qualified director to make his own ruling at the table than for an ordinary player. After all, the qualified director ought to know better.

Quite true.

But in ordinary club events we frequently have a playing Director who prefers to play bridge rather than be bothered with every trivial case.

And we have several players who are fairly competent with at least the most trivial cases. They do of course consult and seek advice when they feel unsure.

 

Serious events with non-playing directors are of course different.

[blackshoe]

Quite true.

But in ordinary club events we frequently have a playing Director who prefers to play bridge rather than be bothered with every trivial case.

And we have several players who are fairly competent with at least the most trivial cases. They do of course consult and seek advice when they feel unsure.

 

Serious events with non-playing directors are of course different.

Whoa! I've been a playing director. It never occurred to me to take that attitude. IMO someone who "prefers to play bridge" rather than do the job should not sign up for the job.

[pran]

Whoa! I've been a playing director. It never occurred to me to take that attitude. IMO someone who "prefers to play bridge" rather than do the job should not sign up for the job.

I wonder if you got this wrong?

The Director of course responds if/when called, but he sees no reason to react for not having been called when a correct ruling has been made by another player who knows his things.

 

My experience is that most average or better Norwegian players are fully competent to handle trivial irregularities correctly and can be trusted to seek advice in more difficult situations.

Do you have a different experience in your clubs?

[weejonnie]

I wonder if you got this wrong?

The Director of course responds if/when called, but he sees no reason to react for not having been called when a correct ruling has been made by another player who knows his things.

 

My experience is that most average or better Norwegian players are fully competent to handle trivial irregularities correctly and can be trusted to seek advice in more difficult situations.

Do you have a different experience in your clubs?

I am sure there is a law about players not applying the laws. Somewhere around 81C. Although this seems to mean that the director can let the players make rectification and apply damages but he'll correct them at the end.

[pran]

I am sure there is a law about players not applying the laws. Somewhere around 81C. Although this seems to mean that the director can let the players make rectification and apply damages but he'll correct them at the end.

For technicality see

The Director may delegate any of his duties to assistants, but he is not thereby relieved of responsibility for their correct performance.

and consider (as a technicality) that the Director delegates his duties (within limits) to fellow players who he concerns capable to help him.

 

Satisfied?

[blackshoe]

I wonder if you got this wrong?

The Director of course responds if/when called, but he sees no reason to react for not having been called when a correct ruling has been made by another player who knows his things.

 

My experience is that most average or better Norwegian players are fully competent to handle trivial irregularities correctly and can be trusted to seek advice in more difficult situations.

Do you have a different experience in your clubs?

There are a lot of players here, including a few who still have a director's card, but haven't directed in a couple of decades, who think they know the rules, but are wrong. There are players here (I'm one) who do know the rules, including the one that says that rulings are in the purview of the director, not the players. I admit that lately I haven't seen a playing director, so that's a difference.

[pran]

I wonder if you got this wrong?

The Director of course responds if/when called, but he sees no reason to react for not having been called when a correct ruling has been made by another player who knows his things.

 

My experience is that most average or better Norwegian players are fully competent to handle trivial irregularities correctly and can be trusted to seek advice in more difficult situations.

Do you have a different experience in your clubs?

 

There are a lot of players here, including a few who still have a director's card, but haven't directed in a couple of decades, who think they know the rules, but are wrong. There are players here (I'm one) who do know the rules, including the one that says that rulings are in the purview of the director, not the players. I admit that lately I haven't seen a playing director, so that's a difference.

After almost 40 years experience as Director I have a pretty good knowledge of which players I can trust and which not. And playing directors are common here except at the highest tournament levels.

[Vampyr]

Whoa! I've been a playing director. It never occurred to me to take that attitude. IMO someone who "prefers to play bridge" rather than do the job should not sign up for the job.

 

That is a bit unfair. Restricting the pool of playing directors to those who love making rulings would reduce the pool of volunteers, and see the same half-dozen people having all of the responsibility.