A fortunate inadmissable double

[barmar]

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

I think it's obvious that "the irregularity" here refers to the original irregularity that preceded the cascade of additional irregularities (not calling the TD and committing additional bid/play irregularities due to ignorance of the Law). Otherwise it would be circular logic and/or infinite regress.

[CMOTDib]

Ok I will probably get this all wrong. But here goes

1) The Introduction to the Laws in part says “The purpose of the Laws remains unchanged. They are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy for when something goes wrong. They are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.”

2) The normal accepted definition of Ignorance is “lack of knowledge” and in bridge terms this would be “for correct procedure”.

In the opening post the first irregularity was the inadmissible bid of the Double. This irregularity was spotted by South but then an Infraction occurred because no one called the director. The auction proceeded because South told East what to do based on their Knowledge. That knowledge lacked the full correct procedure that the director would make, so South was “ignorant” when making that statement and East acted on it and South condoned it. They might have bid to game had the first irregularity not occurred, but that point is well gone! So the table result was a gain to East West because of the subsequent action of South (an opponent) as a result of their “ignorance”. So East West get an amended score of -100, to take away their accrued advantage. North South retain the score achieved at the table. You can’t give them a second bite at the cherry. Next time they might call the director as soon as!

In example 4 of the WBFLC commentary. The irregularity was a revoke by East and the director was not called so there was also an infraction. North told East what to do and East complied but North had a lack of knowledge “ignorance” of the laws and as a result they had a bad result. East West gained an advantage due to North’s “ignorance” (and their subsequent action) by not realising that the revoke is not established. So East West lose their accrued advantage and North South retain the table result.

In both cases North South got a bad result due to their own “ignorance” and East West accrued an advantage due to “ignorance” of their opponents, and also their own ignorance. This sort of follows on from Law 72 C, in that Law the Director “determines” if there is known damage but in Law 11 it is made a “directive”. It is the only way to remedy the situation. The director can’t go back to the first irregularity as too much water has gone under the bridge. Again East West might call the director as soon as next time.

Had East in the OP said it’s ok He knows what to do and he replaces the inadmissible double with a legal bid East West reach the unmakeable contract and go one off. There is no damage to North South and if they call the director they might both get a procedural penalty

Note that the director could still give all four Pairs a procedural penalty under Law 90A & B. I would, particularly North South in the OP, as it would appear South has issued a threat “I will call the director if you don’t do as I say” and could have cause embarrassment Law 74 and an adjusted score was the result. Why has no one commented on this?

Dealing with the lastest points raised

- there is no 'side who did not call the TD in time' (both sides failed to do so)—Yes that is the problem so think about what or who caused the board to continue and get the “wrong” result.

- either side could gain an advantage from the sequence of events as compared to what would have happened had the TD been called. It is too late for the director, that boat sailed so now we have to look for the remedy.

- it was the failure to play the first penalty card than caused the second penalty card, not 'ignorance' of the obligation to do so ----There is no first or second penalty card mentioned in example 4 of the commentary. North was ignorant of the laws and thought he could tell East what to do and got it wrong. As stated East/West gain an advantage because of North’s action in telling East what to do and then condoning it.

- it is not clear which side 'committed the irregularity' or indeed which of the many irregularities this refers to. Well see above. Either North or South in the two examples have taken a course of action that has resulted in a bad board. We are concerned with the remedy for not calling the director at the correct time which resulted in the “wrong” result. It is too late to sort the irregularity of the revoke or inadmissible double.

Sorry if this is too long.

[blackshoe]

South committed an infraction (telling East what to do, in effect making his own ruling) in ignorance of the laws, and EW got a better result than they might have, and therefore NS are entitled to redress? I think you have that law completely backwards.

[pescetom]

I think it's obvious that "the irregularity" here refers to the original irregularity that preceded the cascade of additional irregularities (not calling the TD and committing additional bid/play irregularities due to ignorance of the Law). Otherwise it would be circular logic and/or infinite regress.

 

Maybe. That still doesn't help us apply the law as written in the way the commentary suggests.

[CMOTDib]

South committed an infraction (telling East what to do, in effect making his own ruling) in ignorance of the laws, and EW got a better result than they might have, and therefore NS are entitled to redress? I think you have that law completely backwards.

So what redress did North South get? From the OP North South would ended up with the result at the table -140, rather than +100 or +50 at other tables. East west get -100, the result that the director deems they should have reached without any irregularity.

[pescetom]

Sorry if this is too long.

It's not too long, but it does fail to address some points which have already been made here or are clear in the Commentary.

Anyway, here goes.

 

1) The Introduction to the Laws in part says “The purpose of the Laws remains unchanged. They are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy for when something goes wrong. They are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. ”

Sure, but the latter principle is useless when both sides have offended following an initial irregularity and either side may gain from the ensuing illegal situation. This is precisely why and how 11A was changed in 2017, according to the WBF Commentary: "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)."

Which makes perfect sense and is crystal clear, but sadly whoever rewrote the actual law does not seem on the same wavelength (or doted with the same writing skills).

 

 

The normal accepted definition of Ignorance is “lack of knowledge” and in bridge terms this would be “for correct procedure”.

In the opening post the first irregularity was the inadmissible bid of the Double. This irregularity was spotted by South but then an Infraction occurred because no one called the director. The auction proceeded because South told East what to do based on their Knowledge. That knowledge lacked the full correct procedure that the director would make, so South was “ignorant” when making that statement and East acted on it and South condoned it.

It seems ingenuous to me to assume that South (at least) was unaware of his obbligation to call TD or that his knowledge might be faulty or that his intimidated opponent was now likely to make poor decisions or that all this might work to his advantage. Even East might have taken the same gamble when he accepted to not call TD, with or without reasoning that he could probably take a double-shot if damaged. The "non-offender" to protect in all this is the poor TD, and the logic described by the Commentary does just this, by removing the issue of blame (or ignorance, or any other asymmetry) from the procedure to assign score (if anyone was going to gain then both sides losing, however sweet they may smell).

Of course if TD retains that someone did infringe a law intentionally then 72B is still there and a severe PP is in order.

 

In both cases North South got a bad result due to their own “ignorance” and East West accrued an advantage due to “ignorance” of their opponents, and also their own ignorance.

This confusion effectively proves my point: the concept of "ignorance" as not knowing procedure is both inapplicable and irrelevant here, except in determining any infraction of 72B.

 

This sort of follows on from Law 72 C, in that Law the Director “determines” if there is known damage but in Law 11 it is made a “directive”. It is the only way to remedy the situation. The director can’t go back to the first irregularity as too much water has gone under the bridge. Again East West might call the director as soon as next time.

The possibility of applying 72C when more precise law can be applied instead is always a sore point, but around here at least it is viewed dimly.

The commentary indicates clearly in example 4 that the Director should go back to the first irregularity: "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.".

 

It is too late to sort the irregularity of the revoke or inadmissible double.

Not at all, see above. No room for "water under the bridge" here.

 

 

- there is no 'side who did not call the TD in time' (both sides failed to do so)—Yes that is the problem so think about what or who caused the board to continue and get the “wrong” result.

To some extent they both caused it, if one of them also wilfully broke the law or intentionally bullied the other then other laws should be applied. But fortunately who caused what is not relevant to assigning the score, see above.

 

- either side could gain an advantage from the sequence of events as compared to what would have happened had the TD been called. It is too late for the director, that boat sailed so now we have to look for the remedy.

I don't understand this comment. The fact that either side could gain an advantage is evident. The remedy is prescribed, neither side will gain an advantage.

 

- it was the failure to play the first penalty card than caused the second penalty card, not 'ignorance' of the obligation to do so ----There is no first or second penalty card mentioned in example 4 of the commentary.

Exactly. I was not referring to example 4 but to the last sentence of the preamble: "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)".

Even if the player was ignorant of his obligation, he committed an irregularity by not playing the card and this is the cause of his second penalty card, not his ignorance of law. One could argue that the root cause is bullying by opponent, which may be what this sentence is trying to say, but the element of bullying is not always present anyway. Often both pairs just have no idea what they are doing, occasionally both are well aware and fishing for an advantage.

[pescetom]

I just found some ACBL guidance to Directors about the current 11A.

 

Note: This Law applies when either side may have gained an advantage

through subsequent action taken by an opponent. The Director removes

the advantage gained by that side and keeps the score for the other side,

creating a split score (both sides losing). The relevant laws are still

applied to the side committing the irregularity.

 

Example: A defender drops an honor on the table. Declarer tells the

defenders: “Don’t worry, it’s just a penalty card,” and the card stays on

the table with no call for the Director. A few tricks later, declarer calls

the Director when the partner of the player with a penalty card ends up

on lead, to enforce the lead restrictions. The defenders now say that if

they knew about lead restrictions, they would have defended differently

and maneuvered to have the penalty card played earlier without any

consequences (which is true). The Director deals with the penalty card,

giving declarer their options, and then applies Law 11A. The defending

side will get the table score, and the declaring side will get an adjusted

score based on what would have happened if the Director had been

summoned when the irregularity occurred.

[sanst]

The ACBL guidance is about the same as the Commentary. If the lawmakers wanted this, why didn’t they put it in the Law? Note that ‘ignorance’ isn’t mentioned here either.

[barmar]

I'd like to point out that there are different procedures that players could be ignorant of, and we generally treat them differently.

 

Except in beginner classes, players are normally assumed to know the basic structure of the game. If someone bids out of turn, makes an insufficient bid, or revokes, we assume it's because they just made a mistake (e.g. they didn't see the previous bid, they didn't notice they had a card of the led suit), not that they didn't know the proper procedure.

 

On the other hand, players are not generally expected to know the rectification procedures when mistakes like these are made, other than the basic rule that you call the TD to have him apply the procedure. Even TDs aren't required to have the procedures memorized, it's normal for them to look them up in the law book when making a ruling.

 

When players make their own rulings, I don't generally attribute any nefarious intent to them. They may know that they're technically required to call the TD, I believe they usually think they're expediting because it's a common irregularity and they think they know the rectification. Unfortunatly they are often mistaken -- there are a number of similar situations that have slightly different rectifications (e.g. the procedure after BOOT depends on whose turn it actually was). In any case, I wouldn't consider the player making the self-ruling to be acting "in ignorance of the relevant Laws" -- they know the correct procedure, they just chose to ignore it.

 

But the player acting as the self-ruler directed is probably ignorant -- if they knew the correct procedure, they would know that the self-ruling was incorrect.

[blackshoe]

Well, if they're supposed to know that the director should be called when attention is called to an irregularity, they should know that any self-ruling is incorrect, because it's not calling the director.

[mycroft]

Given that players will take the attitude/actions of their local expert over the repeated explanation of the actual requirements by the director[1], I'm not sure that's either correct or helpful. Note that this particular rabbit hole is well travelled, and you know I agree with you, blackshoe, right?

 

I would like to have (yet again!) more examples/case studies about Law 11A (and the commentary thereto). Because confusing writing becomes clearer with examples and guideposts. I also want to follow the Law as it was intended to be applied, because SB.

 

Ignoring the previous paragraph, though, my solution to this problem - which I still think is the right one, for the reasons already cited - is an effective solution to my first paragraph - because "your opponent bullied you into doing something that was very likely to get you a bad score. It didn't, so we're going to give you a different bad score anyway" doesn't help teach the lesson of "do it right the first time" the same way "You were happy with the ruling when you made it. I don't see why I should change it just because it's wrong and you now feel damaged." does (the non-bullies hear "don't do what they did, call the TD" and the opponents get "don't do that again, call the TD"; and after all, the non-bullies would not have had their bad score from the bullied ruling adjusted if it was worse than the correct one, would they? I mean, how would the TD find out about it to apply 11A the other way?).

 

Of course, things would be better if we just called the bloody director (politely) when the BD should be called. And anything we as BDs can legally do to encourage that (including clamping down on the "call-the-cops" bullying DIE-REC-TOR calls) is a good thing.

 

[1] This especially applies when said local "expert" says "15-17 NTs don't have to be Announced". But that, as they say elsewhere, is a different tragedy.

[blackshoe]

I think we’re in agreement, mycroft. B-)

[pescetom]

As previously promised, I raised this issue with our international directors in Salsomaggiore.

 

Turned out I was breaking down an open door; there was near unamimous agreement that the 2017 addition to 11A is nonsense as written, but that it is well established to follow the guidance of the WBF Commentary (one Director retained that only the 'ignorance' reference was nonsense and that the lawmakers had intended to address only the situation where opponents tried to take advantage of the original infraction by the other side, but acknowledged that the interpretation of the Commentary had prevailed nevertheless).

 

The conclusion was that our national regulations should be updated with an interpretative note about 11A and an example, similar to the guidance of ACBL.

[axman]

As previously promised, I raised this issue with our international directors in Salsomaggiore.

 

Turned out I was breaking down an open door; there was near unamimous agreement that the 2017 addition to 11A is nonsense as written, but that it is well established to follow the guidance of the WBF Commentary (one Director retained that only the 'ignorance' reference was nonsense and that the lawmakers had intended to address only the situation where opponents tried to take advantage of the original infraction by the other side, but acknowledged that the interpretation of the Commentary had prevailed nevertheless).

 

The conclusion was that our national regulations should be updated with an interpretative note about 11A and an example, similar to the guidance of ACBL.

 

"the lawmakers had intended to address only the situation where opponents tried to take advantage of the original infraction by the other side,"

 

I take it that the instructions are for the TDs to break the law so that the bad law won't need to be repealed?

[pescetom]

"the lawmakers had intended to address only the situation where opponents tried to take advantage of the original infraction by the other side,"

 

I take it that the instructions are for the TDs to break the law so that the bad law won't need to be repealed?

 

The interpretation I quoted was a minority opinion and (as you read) even that Director conceded that this interpretation had not prevailed, as was already clear in the 2018 official WBF commentary written by the head of the Laws Committee.

The instructions will be to interpret the law as indicated by the Commentary, in line with ACBL and other NBOs.

There will I hope also be an initiative to obtain a rewrite of the law, but that will probably take time now and depends upon WBF plus other NBOs.

There are more urgent and important rewrites necessary, starting with Law 23 :)