A fortunate inadmissable double

[sanst]

I think the ambiguity of Law 11A is in “an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law”. Ignorant in what way? Not a trained and experienced TD? Not a total beginner? What if somewhere in between? I think this law would serve the purpose stated in the commentary when the emphasized part was dropped from it.

In this case, where every EW went off one trick, I would adjust their score to -100 too, nothing as complicated as mycroft proposes. If the score card shows a number of different outcomes, a weighed score might be necessary, but not here.

 

BTW: the 2017 version of this law is more equitable than the older, but that one was much easier to apply for the TD :D. Why do the lawmakers have to complicate life for us poor directors?

[axman]

Interesting. Yes, that sounds like there's something to this. But what are you going to say was East's result if they do the right thing and call the director?

 

The Law actually says two things:

• Law 25B1: a substituted intentional change of call can be accepted by LHO. East corrects his "mistaken bid" to pass, South accepts it, everything's legal. Okay, this may not apply because the "mistaken bid" was an inadmissible double, but still.
  
• Law 36B2: East must replace the double with "a legal call", and partner must pass at every opportunity. We don't have East's hand, but in that auction - the one we're going to have if everybody isn't stupid and they call the director - what is East going to shoot out blind? It won't be 4♠, which they might have found after a 1♠ call. It's probably one of the default 2, 1NT and 3NT. Possibly even pass. Maybe 3♥. But it's blind.

If you treat this as a L25 case (albeit influenced by South), then score stands - the ruling leads to the same auction.

If you treat it as a L36 case, then sure, assign E-W some combination of 1♥+x, 1NT+x, 3NT-x, and anything else that might fly. Depending on the values of x and the percentages you end up giving to the various calls, you might find that that score is *better than* 100% of the table score - in which case, "no damage". But in no circumstances does "the other results" matter - E-W wasn't having a "normal auction" at this table, so what happened at other tables with normal auctions are even less relevant than usual.

 

I have an issue over the characterization 'doing the right thing'

 

My view is that if a remedy is wanted there is a duty to summon the TD in timely fashion (aka before NOS acts). Sometimes when an opponent commits an irregularity it is a bridge mistake and my thought is that by suffering thereby there will be encouragement to avoid irregularities. By counterfactual, if the law prevents infractor from suffering from his mistake it is the law that encourages the player to infract.

[pescetom]

I think the ambiguity of Law 11A is in “an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law”. Ignorant in what way? Not a trained and experienced TD? Not a total beginner? What if somewhere in between? I think this law would serve the purpose stated in the commentary when the emphasized part was dropped from it.

There is also the alternative explanation that the intended meaning is "ignoring the law", which would make a little more sense.

It is also difficult to parse the sentence, one might argue that it is the side that gained (rather than the opponent) that is in ignorance of the law.

It has no clear logic either way.

But I also find the first part "gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent" equally ambiguous.

What is subsequent action taken by an opponent? A sequence of calls and plays? Only by the opponent? Subsequent to what?

Humpty Dumpty would approve this law, but I would not be confident if my ruling was taken to appeal :(

 

In this case, where every EW went off one trick, I would adjust their score to -100 too, nothing as complicated as mycroft proposes. If the score card shows a number of different outcomes, a weighed score might be necessary, but not here.

I think on principle mycroft is right, although in practice many TDs would follow the score card. This is also linked to NBO philosophy and level of tournament, at club level weighted scores are only a little more common than Unicorns.

 

BTW: the 2017 version of this law is more equitable than the older, but that one was much easier to apply for the TD :D. Why do the lawmakers have to complicate life for us poor directors?

I think the intention as exposed in the Commentary is both laudable and easy to apply. The problem is that the law as written does not adequately express those intentions. Maybe there is something wrong with the whole process and not just with writing skills. It seems odd that in ten years of preparation nobody was able to provide the clear intentions and examples that we find in the commentary as input to the lawmakers, rather than just a bandage applied later. And I can't imagine that a poll of TDs would have given this 11A a green light for testing, let alone release.

[pescetom]

Interesting. Yes, that sounds like there's something to this. But what are you going to say was East's result if they do the right thing and call the director?

 

The Law actually says two things:

• Law 25B1: a substituted intentional change of call can be accepted by LHO. East corrects his "mistaken bid" to pass, South accepts it, everything's legal. Okay, this may not apply because the "mistaken bid" was an inadmissible double, but still.
  
• Law 36B2: East must replace the double with "a legal call", and partner must pass at every opportunity. We don't have East's hand, but in that auction - the one we're going to have if everybody isn't stupid and they call the director - what is East going to shoot out blind? It won't be 4♠, which they might have found after a 1♠ call. It's probably one of the default 2, 1NT and 3NT. Possibly even pass. Maybe 3♥. But it's blind.

If you treat this as a L25 case (albeit influenced by South), then score stands - the ruling leads to the same auction.

If you treat it as a L36 case, then sure, assign E-W some combination of 1♥+x, 1NT+x, 3NT-x, and anything else that might fly. Depending on the values of x and the percentages you end up giving to the various calls, you might find that that score is *better than* 100% of the table score - in which case, "no damage". But in no circumstances does "the other results" matter - E-W wasn't having a "normal auction" at this table, so what happened at other tables with normal auctions are even less relevant than usual.

 

I assumed that this was automatically a 36B2 case, maybe I'm wrong.

 

I only considered that East would jump to game (more 3NT than 4♥, but both are possible) because that's what I think most players of his level would have done with his cards in that situation, and it happens that both games are down 1 with any reasonable play. But thinking harder about it maybe 1NT and even 2NT or 3♥ might be LAs too. So yes, maybe it's worth a poll. Even a small percentage of 1NT+1 is going to send them flying in MP terms here.

[mycroft]

Sanst, the apparent infraction is "failure to call the director after an inadmissible double has been pointed out, instead accepting the opponents' 'ruling'", not the inadmissible double.

 

If we are repairing that infraction per 11A, then we have to give the result that matches what would have happened if they didn't offend - not that they didn't make the double, but that they called the director.

 

And if they call the director, then the director will give East the "bid what you like, but you're playing it" speech. Which means that the auction will not match *any other table*. Which means that you can't, necessarily, go "everybody else was in 4♠-1 or 4♥-1, so this pair will as well". There's no way they're getting to spades in the legal auction after the double, for instance.

 

Hence the possibly weighted score. It's not fair to E-W to give them a score based on an auction that they can not have. If East's hand could be posted, that might help with the decision (what we have is "4 spades and near-opening values").

 

But if it's KT85 Q74 AQ83 54, say, I can see East blasting the same 4♥ that the room is in; sure, give them 100% of -100. But if it's KT85 54 AQ83 Q74, then I see 1NT (if East is being cautious, or West opens light) or 3NT (if East is aggressive or West is sound). And it might turn out that even with the bad splits, 3NT makes the same 9 tricks as the 4 of either major they'd get to in a real auction.

 

Which is why I said "even more than usual, you can't use the other scores. They won't have anything like the same auction."

[sanst]

Sanst, the apparent infraction is "failure to call the director after an inadmissible double has been pointed out, instead accepting the opponents' 'ruling'", not the inadmissible double.

 

If we are repairing that infraction per 11A, then we have to give the result that matches what would have happened if they didn't offend - not that they didn't make the double, but that they called the director.

 

And if they call the director, then the director will give East the "bid what you like, but you're playing it" speech. Which means that the auction will not match *any other table*. Which means that you can't, necessarily, go "everybody else was in 4♠-1 or 4♥-1, so this pair will as well". There's no way they're getting to spades in the legal auction after the double, for instance.

 

Hence the possibly weighted score. It's not fair to E-W to give them a score based on an auction that they can not have. If East's hand could be posted, that might help with the decision (what we have is "4 spades and near-opening values").

 

But if it's KT85 Q74 AQ83 54, say, I can see East blasting the same 4♥ that the room is in; sure, give them 100% of -100. But if it's KT85 54 AQ83 Q74, then I see 1NT (if East is being cautious, or West opens light) or 3NT (if East is aggressive or West is sound). And it might turn out that even with the bad splits, 3NT makes the same 9 tricks as the 4 of either major they'd get to in a real auction.

 

Which is why I said "even more than usual, you can't use the other scores. They won't have anything like the same auction."

That’s not what I read in the Laws, not to mention the complexity of your solution. The TD should take away ‘any accrued advantage’ (11A). “The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred.” (12C1b). The infraction was the inadmissible double. Had that not occurred EW would in all probability have scored -100. You shouldn’t consider what would have happened had the TD been called in time, because that didn’t happen.

Using your method there’s a not insignificant chance that EW still get a result that’s better than the rest of the field, which certainly is not what the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote 11A if the commentary is a guideline.

[sfi]

That’s not what I read in the Laws, not to mention the complexity of your solution. The TD should take away ‘any accrued advantage’ (11A). “The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred.” (12C1b). The infraction was the inadmissible double. Had that not occurred EW would in all probability have scored -100. You shouldn’t consider what would have happened had the TD been called in time, because that didn’t happen.

Using your method there’s a not insignificant chance that EW still get a result that’s better than the rest of the field, which certainly is not what the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote 11A if the commentary is a guideline.

I don't think you can use 11A in the way you're reading it. If you just consider the inadmissible double, East was the one who took a "subsequent action [...] in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law", so the next clause states that only N-S can have their score adjusted to remove any accrued advantage. E-W retain their table score.

 

A related scenario is also worth mentioning. Let's say that the director was called after the initial double and all the options were explained. Now presume East guesses 3NT and makes 9 tricks, while a "normal" auction would get to 4S-1. There should not be an adjustment under Law 12B even though E-W got a better score after the infraction, since the requirement to guess a contract does not improve the expected score - they are allowed to be lucky in their guess.

[mycroft]

See the note from the commentary (quoted above by pescetom):

 

The commentary also gives an example where South invents his own ruling but then calls TD when East hits lucky because of it.

2017 Laws Commentary said:

 

N/S keep their table result: three out of the last six tricks. E/W do not keep their advantage.

Had the TD been called in time E/W would have won one of the last six tricks and that becomes the

adjusted score for E/W.

 

"had the TD been called in time," [and the revoke corrected] - not "had the revoke not happened".

 

So here, equivalently, "had the TD been called in time", not "had the double not been bid". And had the TD been called in time, then East would have got the "guess well" ruling.

[pescetom]

The preceding posts by mycroft, sanst and sfi confirm and reinforce my perplexity about how this law is written.

Mycroft hit the nail on the head, if the Commentary is to be trusted: the relevant infraction by EW is the failure to call TD, not the inadmissable double. But that is not clear in the law as written, leaving room for opposite interpretations like that of sanst.

And what the stuff about "opponent's subsequent action" and "in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law" is about is anyone's guess, and might even justify sfi's conclusion that "N-S can have their score adjusted to remove any accrued advantage. E-W retain their table score", which is almost the opposite of "E-W will have their score adjusted to remove the accrued advantage. N-S retain their table score" which the commentary indicates.

I would rule the latter way, but as previously commented, would be far from confident if EW took my split score to appeal.

[pescetom]

Hence the possibly weighted score. It's not fair to E-W to give them a score based on an auction that they can not have. If East's hand could be posted, that might help with the decision (what we have is "4 spades and near-opening values").

 

But if it's KT85 Q74 AQ83 54, say, I can see East blasting the same 4♥ that the room is in; sure, give them 100% of -100. But if it's KT85 54 AQ83 Q74, then I see 1NT (if East is being cautious, or West opens light) or 3NT (if East is aggressive or West is sound). And it might turn out that even with the bad splits, 3NT makes the same 9 tricks as the 4 of either major they'd get to in a real auction.

 

Don't have it underhand, but it was much more like the former, say KJ85 Q74 AJ83 54.

Both 4♥ and 3NT were down 1 on any reasonable play.

[sfi]

[...] and might even justify sfi's conclusion that "N-S can have their score adjusted to remove any accrued advantage. E-W retain their table score", which is almost the opposite of "E-W will have their score adjusted to remove the accrued advantage. N-S retain their table score" which the commentary indicates.

To clarify, my recent post was just considering the inadmissible double and ignoring any subsequent actions. It was basically looking at a world where East doubled and changed it to a pass without anybody saying anything. Now South passes without calling the director and later wants redress. I was trying to simplify the application of 11A.

 

In the actual case I'm still ruling as per my conclusion you quoted. But I'm less sure it's actually correct according to the laws.

[axman]

That’s not what I read in the Laws, not to mention the complexity of your solution. The TD should take away ‘any accrued advantage’ (11A). “The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred.” (12C1b). The infraction was the inadmissible double. Had that not occurred EW would in all probability have scored -100. You shouldn’t consider what would have happened had the TD been called in time, because that didn’t happen.

Using your method there’s a not insignificant chance that EW still get a result that’s better than the rest of the field, which certainly is not what the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote 11A if the commentary is a guideline.

An analyis of the case.

 

E made an insufficient call, noticed and made motions to change it (which would be subject to L25). However, S first drew attention to the insufficient call (where L36 prescribes the remedy) and imposes a penalty that includes canceling the X, mandating a pass. While such penalty does not comport with L36 it is circumscribed by L36 (in other words L36 would have provided additional options to E); and what that means is that L36 did not compel E to name a contract (had it been properly applied).

 

As an aside, had S not intervened and E changed his call and S then calls the TD, if the TD finds that the change was not a L25A correction then S has the option to condone or not. If not there now is an insufficient X subject to L36.

 

Regarding L11

 

If the NOS acts after an irregularity and before the director has explained his ruling, such action may condone the irregularity or diminish the available redress.

 

Which makes it clear that if the NOS doesn't get the TD involved sooner than later, they can screw themselves. But, that is not what the law book says:

 

The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the

non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. If a side has

gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant

provisions of the law, the Director adjusts only that side’s score by taking away any

accrued advantage. The other side retains the score achieved at the table.

 

The above can be replaced by the word gobbledygook and be more useful. This policy of using the word rectification has tied bridge into knots.

 

When someone says 'If a side has gained' just what is it that the gain is against? As for this case, to which irregularity does it refer? The insufficient X, south's improper conduct of adjudicator, something else? After all, the insufficient X was penalized by south wasn't it?

[sanst]

The call was not insufficient, but inadmissible and cannot be condoned.

You may find Law 11 gobbledygook, that doesn’t mean you can ignore it. You’re bound by the Laws, existing jurisprudence, like WBFLC minutes, and the Commentary to the Laws. Nowhere in Law 11 it says that you should reconstruct what would have happened had the TD be called in time. It obliges the TD to take away an accrued advantage. As an aside: Ton Kooijman in the commentary doesn’t mention the ‘ignorance of the relevant provisions‘, which he probably find as mystifying as I do. It’s up to the TD to decide if in this case EW have accrued an advantage and take that away. Law 36 may provide a ground for discussion, but you don’t need to use that law here. You just decide whether there is and advantage - and looking at the score card it’s obvious that there is - and take that away. Both sides have to get a bad score, according to the commentary.

[sanst]

Sanst, the apparent infraction is "failure to call the director after an inadmissible double has been pointed out, instead accepting the opponents' 'ruling'", not the inadmissible double.

 

If we are repairing that infraction per 11A, then we have to give the result that matches what would have happened if they didn't offend - not that they didn't make the double, but that they called the director.

 

…

 

Which is why I said "even more than usual, you can't use the other scores. They won't have anything like the same auction."

Law 11 begins with “The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non‐offending side takes any action before summoning the Director.” So, it’s about the irregularity that happened before the TD was summoned, not about the not summoning of the TD.

In the Commentary to the Laws it says about this law: “ Law 11 deals with players who don’t call the director when there is an irregularity. If the non- offenders act before calling the TD, the Law has said for years they may forfeit their right to rectification of that irregularity. Law 11A is changed in the 2017 code. We are to award a split score (two-way bad) when either side gains”. You should award a score that is the worst possible for, in this case, EW, but within reason. Their result was 1♥+2, all the others score one off, so -100 is the probable outcome had the infraction - the inadmissible call - not occurred. Had their result been 1♥+1, the adjusted score would be -2, -200.

[axman]

The call was not insufficient, but inadmissible and cannot be condoned.

You may find Law 11 gobbledygook, that doesn’t mean you can ignore it. You’re bound by the Laws, existing jurisprudence, like WBFLC minutes, and the Commentary to the Laws. Nowhere in Law 11 it says that you should reconstruct what would have happened had the TD be called in time. It obliges the TD to take away an accrued advantage. As an aside: Ton Kooijman in the commentary doesn’t mention the ‘ignorance of the relevant provisions‘, which he probably find as mystifying as I do. It’s up to the TD to decide if in this case EW have accrued an advantage and take that away. Law 36 may provide a ground for discussion, but you don’t need to use that law here. You just decide whether there is and advantage - and looking at the score card it’s obvious that there is - and take that away. Both sides have to get a bad score, according to the commentary.

Well. If we believe L11A consider this. The first sentence is advice and nothing else. The second sentence says if one side gets a bigger score than an opponent because of what the opponent did- the side is penalized when no infraction of law had occurred… as well as when an infraction of law has occurred.

 

Now. You say that is not what L11 means. And I remind you "You may find Law 11 gobbledygook, that doesn’t mean you can ignore it." And I do not ignore what it says (since what it says is basis for what it means)- after all I did call it gobbledygook which in itself suggested I do not ignore it… even though all TDs indeed do ignore what it says every time a player gains from an opponent's action (that is not penalized via L11A).

[barmar]

I could be wrong, but this is how I've always interpreted the "ignorance of the relevant law":

 

An irregularity occurs (e.g. an inadmissable double), and then an opponent makes their own ruling ("the doubler must now pass"). The side that caused the original irregularity "innocently" believes this ruling. This is quite likely if they're much less experienced than the player who made the ruling.

 

But I admit that this could be reading too much into it, interpreting it as what I think it should be, rather than what they actually wrote (the aforementioned "gobbledygook").

[pescetom]

You may find Law 11 gobbledygook, that doesn’t mean you can ignore it. You’re bound by the Laws, existing jurisprudence, like WBFLC minutes, and the Commentary to the Laws. Nowhere in Law 11 it says that you should reconstruct what would have happened had the TD be called in time. It obliges the TD to take away an accrued advantage.

Nowhere in that awful second sentence of Law 11a does it say that you should reconstruct what would have happened had the TD been called in time, but the Commentary by the WBFLC chairman implies that it is necessary:

 

Now the Director takes away whatever

advantage was gained by the side who did not call the TD in time (such as by causing a player to

get a second penalty card through ignorance of the obligation to play the first one), but the TD

still applies the Law to the side who committed the irregularity.

 

and actually does reconstruct in the example:

Had the TD been called in time E/W would have won one of the last six tricks and that becomes the

adjusted score for E/W.

 

 

(my highlighting in all quotes)

[sanst]

You’re right. Why the WBFLC didn’t put that in the law, is a mystery to me. I think we can agree that this law is in dire need of rephrasing.

[pran]

You’re right. Why the WBFLC didn’t put that in the law, is a mystery to me. I think we can agree that this law is in dire need of rephrasing.

 

As far as I am aware of:

WBFLC never change any part of the laws between official releases.

Instead they issue an official commentary if they discover any (urgent) need for clarification.

[sanst]

As far as I am aware of:

WBFLC never change any part of the laws between official releases.

Instead they issue an official commentary if they discover any (urgent) need for clarification.

As far as I’m aware: nobody here states that there should be an immediate change. But that a change is necessary, is more than obvious. Note that Ton Kooijman in the Commentary doesn’t mention “in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law”, although it would be quite interesting to know what this means. To me, it’s something the Oracle of Delphi might have said.

[pran]

As far as I am aware of:

WBFLC never change any part of the laws between official releases.

Instead they issue an official commentary if they discover any (urgent) need for clarification.

 

As far as I’m aware: nobody here states that there should be an immediate change. But that a change is necessary, is more than obvious. Note that Ton Kooijman in the Commentary doesn’t mention “in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law”, although it would be quite interesting to know what this means. To me, it’s something the Oracle of Delphi might have said.

 

Law 11 deals with players who don’t call the Director when there is an irregularity. If the nonoffenders act before calling the TD, the Law has said for years they may forfeit their right to

rectification of that irregularity. Law 11A has been changed in the 2017 code. The Director is

now empowered to award a split score (both sides losing) when either side gains (previously he

would only remove the advantage from non-offenders). Now the Director takes away whatever

advantage was gained by the side who did not call the TD in time (such as by causing a player to

get a second penalty card through ignorance of the obligation to play the first one), but the TD

still applies the Law to the side who committed the irregularity.

 

(My enhancement)

[pescetom]

Pran pointed out the phrase about 'ignorance' here:

 

Law 11 deals with players who don’t call the Director when there is an irregularity. If the nonoffenders act before calling the TD, the Law has said for years they may forfeit their right to

rectification of that irregularity. Law 11A has been changed in the 2017 code. The Director is

now empowered to award a split score (both sides losing) when either side gains (previously he

would only remove the advantage from non-offenders). Now the Director takes away whatever

advantage was gained by the side who did not call the TD in time (such as by causing a player to

get a second penalty card through ignorance of the obligation to play the first one), but the TD

still applies the Law to the side who committed the irregularity.

 

 

Yes that is worthy of note, and helps explain what the lawmakers were thinking about. The sentence I coloured blue is not as clear as the other sentences and I suspect it is partially a cut and paste from some other document that was given to the lawmakers in input. I find it illogical for several reasons:

- there is no 'side who did not call the TD in time' (both sides failed to do so)

- either side could gain an advantage from the sequence of events as compared to what would have happened had the TD been called

- it was the failure to play the first penalty card than caused the second penalty card, not 'ignorance' of the obligation to do so

- it is not clear which side 'committed the irregularity' or indeed which of the many irregularities this refers to.

 

 

It looks to me as if Ton had a clearer vision of the objectives of revision of Law 11 and attempted to communicate it by adding the different and much clearer example 4.

 

The problem remains, I cannot see how either example 4 of the Commentary or my case in this post can be clearly ruled under 11A as currently written.

[sanst]

Actually, Law 11 is useless in this form. You can’t expect a director at the table not only to look up that law, but also the Commentary. Quite a few have no idea of its existence, I guess. So you decide something, based on a cryptic text. I find that unacceptable.

[pescetom]

Next month I will be in Salsomaggiore and will bring this to attention of our WBF directors.

[blackshoe]

Let us know how they respond.