[bluejak]

So I have just read a thread for the first time - and it is locked! I cannot even see why, though no doubt Ed will enlighten me.

As a generality, players have a habit of making their own rulings. When something goes wrong later they call the TD.

Ed says that where he is people just rule not played. But many TDs, including some very very senior ones, have always ruled along the lines of "If you did not need me originally, you don't need me now."

What is wrong with this?

In my view, nothing. I reckon it is just an application of Law 11A.

I notice Gordon said something about the word "never" in Law 32. But all that means is that what they did is never legal - but we are not saying the auction is legal, we are just saying under Law 11A that there is no rectification.

The worry to me, is that all this seems so blindingly obvious, that I fear I have missed something: what?

[blackshoe]

Someone suggested the horse was dead and that the nature of that particular thread is that it should be locked. It seemed like a good idea at the time, so I locked it. I don't have any problem with unlocking it if you think we should.

I said early in the other thread that I thought that either ruling "result stands" under 11A or adjusting the score under 12C is acceptable. I did suggest an ArtAS under 12C2, and somebody pointed out that "a result was obtained", so you "can't" use 12C2 — at least in England. I didn't — and don't — think that should apply to a result obtained when there was no legal auction, but I don't know what the EBU would say about that.

I said that TDs around here would likely rule "not played", but this is a hypothetical situation, and I would be very surprised to see it happen, so "not played" probably wouldn't come up.

Isn't "you didn't need me originally, so you don't need me now" an abdication of the TD's duty under Law 81C3 to rectify any error or irregularity of which he becomes aware? Not that I don't have some sympathy for the position.

I remember Hans Bethe saying to my Quantum Mechanics class that the transition from one formula to another was "obvious". Then it took him an hour and a half to explain why it was obvious.

[campboy]

Suppose there was an inadmissible double and the auction continued for another couple of rounds, but had not ended, before someone decided to call the director. Couldn't we make the same argument for allowing the auction to continue? But in that case it is quite clear that we do not rule this way: 36A says that the double and all subsequent calls are cancelled.

[pran]

 campboy, on 2012-December-01, 04:05, said:

Suppose there was an inadmissible double and the auction continued for another couple of rounds, but had not ended, before someone decided to call the director. Couldn't we make the same argument for allowing the auction to continue? But in that case it is quite clear that we do not rule this way: 36A says that the double and all subsequent calls are cancelled.

The critical moment is when you enter the play period. No call made during the auction may be changed (by the Director or any player) after that. (See Law 41C where it says: the play period begins irrevocably)

[campboy]

Sure, I wasn't suggesting that we should go back and fiddle with the auction. But the 11A argument is about whether or not there should be any rectification, not what form that rectification will take. Why doesn't it apply equally well in both cases?

[pran]

 campboy, on 2012-December-01, 06:02, said:

Sure, I wasn't suggesting that we should go back and fiddle with the auction. But the 11A argument is about whether or not there should be any rectification, not what form that rectification will take. Why doesn't it apply equally well in both cases?

Because while still within the auction period you can (and shall) roll back the auction as specified in the laws, but once you have entered the play period the only rectification allowed is awarding an adjusted score (artificial or assigned).

[blackshoe]

The auction is not legal. If the TD becomes aware of this before the play period is started, he must rectify it (Laws 35A, 36A, 81B2, 81C3). I don't think the TD has the option to apply 11A in this case, because the option to apply 35A etc. exists. After the play period starts, the TD cannot apply this rectification — as Sven says, the only thing allowed (other than an 11A ruling) is to adjust the score. The question is whether that circumstance makes 11A available. David thinks it obviously does. I'm not so sure it's obvious, but I do think it's possible.

[mink]

Playing a game requires to obey the rules. If there is an infraction, some rectification, as specified in the rules (Bridge: Laws), should be applied. This is fundamental. Law 11A is an exception ("may be forfeited"). Unfortunately, the conditions for this exception are not defined, only an example is given. IMO the directors's laziness is not a valid condition.

"any action before summoning the director" is not the same as "any action before attention has been drawn to the irregularity", which would have been the more general clause. Therefore I consider it wrong to apply this law to cases where no attention had been drawn to the irregularity at the time when it happened. This is especially true if the non-offending side really did not see that something went wrong and finally gets a bad score.

There is another aspect that has not been mentioned yet. Duplicate Bridge is not played just at one table. The score of all other contestants is influenced by any non-artificial score. Is it really desirable that either side gets a top after messing up the auction beyond rectification?

Karl

[pran]

 mink, on 2012-December-02, 02:10, said:

Playing a game requires to obey the rules. If there is an infraction, some rectification, as specified in the rules (Bridge: Laws), should be applied. This is fundamental. Law 11A is an exception ("may be forfeited"). Unfortunately, the conditions for this exception are not defined, only an example is given. IMO the directors's laziness is not a valid condition.

"any action before summoning the director" is not the same as "any action before attention has been drawn to the irregularity", which would have been the more general clause. Therefore I consider it wrong to apply this law to cases where no attention had been drawn to the irregularity at the time when it happened. This is especially true if the non-offending side really did not see that something went wrong and finally gets a bad score.

There is another aspect that has not been mentioned yet. Duplicate Bridge is not played just at one table. The score of all other contestants is influenced by any non-artificial score. Is it really desirable that either side gets a top after messing up the auction beyond rectification?

Karl

As "summoning the Director" neccessarily must be subsequent to "calling attention to the irregularity" "actions" during the former is more including and therefore a more general term.

Law 11 is connected with law 9B2 which says: No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification. Violations of this law by a player on the offending non-offending side has precisely the consequence that the Director may wave all rectifications.

When auction and play on a board has been completed by all four players in confidence that there was no reason to call the Director then the normal consequence is that the result obtained on that board stands. The most typical exception is when it is discovered that the board was not played in exactly the same condition at all tables (See Law 87).

Considerations for the "field" have been raised several times and it is now a well established principle (AFAIK) that rulings on irregularities shall be made without any consideration for the effect on scores at other tables in the field.

Edited: I discover that I had made a typo writing offending instead of non-offending.

[blackshoe]

Originally, I thought Karl's first point was valid. After thinking about it, I'm not so sure. The example in Law 11A does not suggest that a non-offender's awareness or lack of awareness of an irregularity or the legal rectification of that irregularity is relevant at all — it says that if an offender takes an action in ignorance of the law, non-offender's right to rectification may be forfeited. In the case at hand, South committed two infractions, calling out of turn, and doubling his partner's bid. West took an action — he bid, which players generally know is an option in some cases (including most calls out of turn). Now North also bid, presumably not being aware that doing so when his partner's inadmissible double had not been rectified is illegal. So 11A might be applied, denying EW rectification. My only problem with that is that we are left with an auction that "cannot" legally happen. This leads me to question whether any "result" in this case can be considered valid, since a valid result on a board presumes a legal auction and legal play (including any rectifications the laws may require). Before someone mis-reads that, I am not saying that whenever there is an irregularity we should throw the board out. Suppose South had bid instead of doubling. Now West's "acceptance" of the COOT is legal, albeit without the help of the TD. So the end result, whatever it may be, will be a valid bridge result. My problem with applying 11A in this case is that the auction is not valid, since it contains an inadmissible double. I don't see any legal justification for just ignoring that, in 11A or elsewhere.

On the question of the field, I agree with Sven.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2012-December-02, 08:04, said:

Originally, I thought Karl's first point was valid. After thinking about it, I'm not so sure. The example in Law 11A does not suggest that a non-offender's awareness or lack of awareness of an irregularity or the legal rectification of that irregularity is relevant at all — it says that if an offender takes an action in ignorance of the law, non-offender's right to rectification may be forfeited. In the case at hand, South committed two infractions, calling out of turn, and doubling his partner's bid. West took an action — he bid, which players generally know is an option in some cases (including most calls out of turn). Now North also bid, presumably not being aware that doing so when his partner's inadmissible double had not been rectified is illegal. So 11A might be applied, denying EW rectification. My only problem with that is that we are left with an auction that "cannot" legally happen. This leads me to question whether any "result" in this case can be considered valid, since a valid result on a board presumes a legal auction and legal play (including any rectifications the laws may require). Before someone mis-reads that, I am not saying that whenever there is an irregularity we should throw the board out. Suppose South had bid instead of doubling. Now West's "acceptance" of the COOT is legal, albeit without the help of the TD. So the end result, whatever it may be, will be a valid bridge result. My problem with applying 11A in this case is that the auction is not valid, since it contains an inadmissible double. I don't see any legal justification for just ignoring that, in 11A or elsewhere.

On the question of the field, I agree with Sven.

Law 11 A: Action by Non-Offending Side said:

Begins:
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.

This is a general privision.

Law 11 A said:

Continues:
The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law.

This is one example covering the special case when the offending side has taken an unfortunate action in ignorance of the law (usually in the absense of a director).

So sure, the Director is at liberty (preferably for cause) to rule that rectifications have been forfeited by not calling him in time.

[blackshoe]

I thought that's what I said.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2012-December-02, 08:42, said:

I thought that's what I said.

Either just part of it or I misunderstood.

To summarize: The Director may waive rectification(s) if:
either a: Non-offending side takes any action before...
and/or b: Offending side takes any action in ignorance of the laws before ...

I have a strong feeling that bottom line is: We agree

regards

[iviehoff]

 blackshoe, on 2012-November-30, 18:14, said:

I said early in the other thread that I thought that either ruling "result stands" under 11A or adjusting the score under 12C is acceptable. I did suggest an ArtAS under 12C2, and somebody pointed out that "a result was obtained", so you "can't" use 12C2 — at least in England. I didn't — and don't — think that should apply to a result obtained when there was no legal auction, but I don't know what the EBU would say about that.

For those who had a problem with 11A, this seems to have been their sticking point: "the auction was illegal, how can you say that the contract was sufficiently robustly identified to say there was a result?"

I would answer to that, that there is no concept in law of the auction as a whole being illegal, just irregularities along the way. All sorts of irregularities happen in auctions, some of them unrectified, and at the end of it, if we have a final bid and a proper conclusion, we know what the contract is, and can play to a result, as indeed the players did here, having no doubt what contract they were playing.

Blackshoe suggested that if that was my attitude, the players may as well conspire to use some entirely different method of determining the final contract, so long as they agree what the contract is. They could indeed do that. But that would be a considerably greater perversion of the game of bridge than an inadmissible double. An inadmissible double, provided it is followed by a bid to make it irrelevant to the final contract, is not in principle any greater perversion of the course of the auction than an unrectified call out of turn, apart from the fact that the laws tell us more completely what to do in the latter case.

We could have a law that says "Once the play period has started, any inadmissible double or redouble that has not been rectified shall be disregarded." Such a law would be entirely unproblematic in its application, and is really no different to applying Law 11A in the present case. The only difference of such an explicit law is that it would make it possible to say what the contract is if the inadmissible (re)double had been after the final bid of the auction, but I'm not sure we really want to do that.

[PeterAlan]

 iviehoff, on 2012-December-03, 04:50, said:

We could have a law that says "Once the play period has started, any inadmissible double or redouble that has not been rectified shall be disregarded." Such a law would be entirely unproblematic in its application, and is really no different to applying Law 11A in the present case. The only difference of such an explicit law is that it would make it possible to say what the contract is if the inadmissible (re)double had been after the final bid of the auction, but I'm not sure we really want to do that.

There are two sorts of inadmissible doubles / redoubles: those that wouldn't leave a sensible contract if they were passed out (this is the purpose of Law 19; they violate the Side A bids, Side B doubles, Side A redoubles structure), and those that would be meaningful but aren't allowed because they conflict with another obligation (typically to Pass). I think that this is a useful distinction to maintain, and that the present Laws would be OK if the details were tidied up - in particular (1) to deal with the conflict that arises between Laws 32 & 37 in a limited number of cases, and (2) to deal more clearly and sensibly with the type of situation that was the subject of the other thread. Your suggestion, like 11(A), essentially ignores the UI consequences of an inadmissible (re)double under (2), but seems practical. It can be very disruptive to events when situations arise that lead to lengthy attempts to resolve them at the table, and I'm all for straightforward resolution where possible and reasonably fair.

[mjj29]

 iviehoff, on 2012-December-03, 04:50, said:

For those who had a problem with 11A, this seems to have been their sticking point: "the auction was illegal, how can you say that the contract was sufficiently robustly identified to say there was a result?"

I would answer to that, that there is no concept in law of the auction as a whole being illegal, just irregularities along the way. All sorts of irregularities happen in auctions, some of them unrectified, and at the end of it, if we have a final bid and a proper conclusion, we know what the contract is, and can play to a result, as indeed the players did here, having no doubt what contract they were playing.

Blackshoe suggested that if that was my attitude, the players may as well conspire to use some entirely different method of determining the final contract, so long as they agree what the contract is. They could indeed do that. But that would be a considerably greater perversion of the game of bridge than an inadmissible double. An inadmissible double, provided it is followed by a bid to make it irrelevant to the final contract, is not in principle any greater perversion of the course of the auction than an unrectified call out of turn, apart from the fact that the laws tell us more completely what to do in the latter case.

We could have a law that says "Once the play period has started, any inadmissible double or redouble that has not been rectified shall be disregarded." Such a law would be entirely unproblematic in its application, and is really no different to applying Law 11A in the present case. The only difference of such an explicit law is that it would make it possible to say what the contract is if the inadmissible (re)double had been after the final bid of the auction, but I'm not sure we really want to do that.

After some thought, my point of view would be this: say you have the auction 1♥ - Pass - X - Pass - Pass - Pass. They play and make a certain number of tricks, after which the director is called. Do you score the result in 1H, 1HX or award an artificial score of some kind. I feel uncomfortable about applying a different result to this situation and the one in the OP. I don't think you can allow it to stand in 1H, doubled or not, since it clearly shouldn't be doubled and the play could easily have been different if they were playing without it doubled. Hence, I think we should award an artificial score in both cases

[axman]

 mjj29, on 2012-December-03, 06:55, said:

After some thought, my point of view would be this: say you have the auction 1♥ - Pass - X - Pass - Pass - Pass. They play and make a certain number of tricks, after which the director is called. Do you score the result in 1H, 1HX or award an artificial score of some kind. I feel uncomfortable about applying a different result to this situation and the one in the OP. I don't think you can allow it to stand in 1H, doubled or not, since it clearly shouldn't be doubled and the play could easily have been different if they were playing without it doubled. Hence, I think we should award an artificial score in both cases

Once it is realized that an ‘insufficient double’ has the characteristics of an insufficient call then a host of problems are solved without bad after taste by treating them all the same. It then remains to provide appropriate remedies as when such call is not condoned as legal.

[iviehoff]

 mjj29, on 2012-December-03, 06:55, said:

After some thought, my point of view would be this: say you have the auction 1♥ - Pass - X - Pass - Pass - Pass. They play and make a certain number of tricks, after which the director is called. Do you score the result in 1H, 1HX or award an artificial score of some kind. I feel uncomfortable about applying a different result to this situation and the one in the OP. I don't think you can allow it to stand in 1H, doubled or not, since it clearly shouldn't be doubled and the play could easily have been different if they were playing without it doubled. Hence, I think we should award an artificial score in both cases

Certainly we all suffer the obvious discomfort in the case you mention. But in having discomfort about the OP (in the other thread) case, you confirm precisely what I said in my post, ie some people suffer this discomfort, but it doesn't seem justified to me.

Compare
1H - pass - double - pass - 1N // all pass
and
1H - pass - 1H - pass - 1N // all pass (insufficient bid accepted)
and
1H - pass - no call - pass - 1N // all pass (pass out of turn accepted)

We don't worry about whether the contract is well-defined in the latter two cases, so why do we worry about the first, apart from the fact that law explicitly tells us not to worry about the latter two?

Peter Alan worries about UI, but we don't worry about UI in the second case once offender's LHO calls without drawing attention, so why the first?

[pran]

 iviehoff, on 2012-December-03, 09:07, said:

Certainly we all suffer the obvious discomfort in the case you mention. But in having discomfort about the OP (in the other thread) case, you confirm precisely what I said in my post, ie some people suffer this discomfort, but it doesn't seem justified to me.

Compare
1H - pass - double - pass - 1N // all pass
and
1H - pass - 1H - pass - 1N // all pass (insufficient bid accepted)
and
1H - pass - no call - pass - 1N // all pass (pass out of turn accepted)

We don't worry about whether the contract is well-defined in the latter two cases, so why do we worry about the first, apart from the fact that law explicitly tells us not to worry about the latter two?

Peter Alan worries about UI, but we don't worry about UI in the second case once offender's LHO calls without drawing attention, so why the first?

I think this is well said; in all cases the contract played should be 1N.

But how do you treat: 1H - pass - double - all pass and then played as 1H? I suppose the only reasonable solution is to consider the contract played as 1H undoubled?

[gordontd]

 iviehoff, on 2012-December-03, 09:07, said:

We don't worry about whether the contract is well-defined in the latter two cases, so why do we worry about the first, apart from the fact that law explicitly tells us not to worry about the latter two?

That seems sufficient reason: we have two instances where the law says an infraction may be accepted, and another where it says it may never be accepted. I think that's reason to treat them differently.