[Phil]

---

Please help me sort this out. NS are experienced "A" players and EW are club-level "B" players. NS are a father and son and have played together for probably 40-50 years.

Club Game, ACBL

I was called after the bidding was over. East complained about a 'natural' 2♣ call over 1N with xxxx. NS's cc had Landy marked (and crossed out), and recently changed to natural bids over 1N. The table action told me that North had intended 2♣ as Landy.

Before I was called, I was advised that North bid 1♣ / 2♣ over 1N, and East did not accept 1♣. North made the call sufficient to 2♣. I gave my usual lecture about calling the director at the time of the infraction.

NS play an artificial strong club, so I ruled that South was barred over 2♣, so I adjusted to 2♣ -1.

South calls me after the hand and thinks that it is the responsibility of EW to call me at the time of the infraction, because had North known that South was going to be barred because of the artificial nature of 1♣, North might have bid 2♠ on AQ9x.

My questions are:

1. Are you OK with adjusting to 2♣ -1? It seems that 1♣ was a clear mechanical error, and he forgot their agreements. Barring any UI from North, would you accept that South was hedging with 2♠ that his partner forgot, but even if he didn't that spades might play OK opposite a 'real' 2♣ call.

2. Whose responsibility is it to call the director? Does anyone 'lose their rights' in this instance?

Thanks,

[ahydra]

I'm not a TD, but here are my views:

1) If this is MPs then 2S is obvious. I don't think it can count as "hedging" when he has a 6-card suit.. perhaps if he was 3352 and bid 2D/2H, then yes. On the other hand at IMPs, much less reason to move from the known fit and so I think pass is an LA.

2) NS can't say that because EW didn't call the director, they shouldn't get the correct rectification from the insufficient bid. NS could (and should) have called the director themselves when the insufficient bid was made, so this argument doesn't hold up in my opinion.

ahydra

[RMB1]

Although (when called at the end of the auction) you can rule that 2♣ silences South, it does not allow you to cancel South's bids. Law 37A applies to South's 2♠ bid ("... that call and all subsequent calls stand"). So the final contract is 2♠.

[pran]

ahydra, on 2011-April-29, 15:40, said:

I'm not a TD, but here are my views:

1) If this is MPs then 2S is obvious. I don't think it can count as "hedging" when he has a 6-card suit.. perhaps if he was 3352 and bid 2D/2H, then yes. On the other hand at IMPs, much less reason to move from the known fit and so I think pass is an LA.

2) NS can't say that because EW didn't call the director, they shouldn't get the correct rectification from the insufficient bid. NS could (and should) have called the director themselves when the insufficient bid was made, so this argument doesn't hold up in my opinion.

ahydra

First to ahydra: Once North has made his insufficient bid and this is not accepted there is no way (in this situation) that South can bid 2♠. Whatever call North chooses South will be forced to pass for the rest of the auction (see below).

Back to OP: Apparently East did not accept the IB and told North that he had to make his bid sufficient. (I have no count of all the times I have overheard players on their own stating "1♣ is insufficient, you must bid 2♣" or words to similar effect.)

The relevant law here is 11A: 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. 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.

In this case a member of the non-offending side (East) has refused to accept the insufficient bid without calling the Director, and North has changed his bid to 2♣, apparently ignorant of the provisions of Law 27.

Whether East/West has gained through this action by North can indeed be questioned, but as there is a definite possibilty that North might have chanced (or "gambled") a lucky 2♠ bid instead of his 2♣ bid I would have ruled that the table result ( 2♠=? ) stands.

Now what would have been the ruling if the Director had been called to the table at the time of the insufficient bid? (Note that all players at the table, Dummy included) are responsible for calling the Director once attention has been called to an irregularity.)

TD should have explained all relevent provisions in Law 27; I assume East would not have accepted the 1♣ bid and as North would be unable to correct his IB to a natural 2♣ bid or to any legal call with "the same or a more precise meaning as the IB" South would be forced to pass for the rest of the auction. North would be allowed to make any legal call except double in this turn.

So now North would have been on his own . . . . . . .?

[pran]

♣

RMB1, on 2011-April-29, 16:23, said:

Although (when called at the end of the auction) you can rule that 2♣ silences South, it does not allow you to cancel South's bids. Law 37A applies to South's 2♠ bid ("... that call and all subsequent calls stand"). So the final contract is 2♠.

Nice, but alas incorrect attempt: There has been no ruling (by the Director) that South must pass for the rest of the auction so Law 37A is irrelevant here.

[Phil]

pran, on 2011-April-29, 16:44, said:

Whether East/West has gained through this action by North can indeed be questioned, but as there is a definite possibilty that North might have chanced (or "gambled") a lucky 2♠ bid instead of his 2♣ bid I would have ruled that the table result ( 2♠=? ) stands.

EW did nothing wrong except not call me to the table.

It seemed to me at the time that North could have just as likely bid 2♥, or pass 1N had he known the consequences.

[blackshoe]

Hm. Long experience together as a pair. A recently changed SC, which North clearly forgot. Does South have UI? I would investigate that. If so, then it certainly looks like South has taken advantage of it (Law 73C).

I'm not sure I agree with ahydra that there is no LA for South to 2♠ at MPs, but then I'm probably not a peer of this A pair that's been playing together for 40-50 years (how old are these guys, anyway? ) I'd want to poll. If there is an LA, and South has UI, then clearly a score adjustment is appropriate, probably to 2♣-1 as Phil did.

Both pairs are of course responsible for calling the TD when the irregularity (the IB) was originally pointed out. The relevant law (9B1{a}), however, no longer says "must", only "should", so I would not ordinarily issue a PP for the failure. The law does make clear, though, that NS's theory that EW should be (solely?) responsible for calling the TD is incorrect.

The TD could cancel the players' ruling (Law 10B), but then what? Presumably the 2♠ call would be withdrawn (what Law?) and Law 27B2 applied to the original IB. Now there's a complication, though: North has UI that South had bid 2♠. So if North chooses a spade bid, knowing his partner must pass, that would be disallowed and we're back to score adjustment.

Might there be some other basis for score adjustment? Maybe, but I don't see one.

If we allow the players' rectification to stand, and find no basis for a score adjustment, then I guess this is a lesson learned for EW - if you don't call the TD, you may feel like you got screwed, but you did it to yourself.

[Phil]

North just had his 90th birthday. South is 70 I would guess.

South went out of his way to tell me about a committee ruling at a NABC many years ago that involved a misunderstanding using the Landy convention, and Alvin Landy was on the committee

[pran]

Phil, on 2011-April-29, 17:21, said:

EW did nothing wrong except not call me to the table.

That is precisely the error that triggers Law 11A in this situation!

Phil, on 2011-April-29, 17:21, said:

It seemed to me at the time that North could have just as likely bid 2♥, or pass 1N had he known the consequences.

Quite true. But since there had been no ruling that South must pass after North changed his IB to 2♣ then his 2♠ bid may (and should) stand.

[blackshoe]

Phil, on 2011-April-29, 20:59, said:

South went out of his way to tell me about a committee ruling at a NABC many years ago that involved a misunderstanding using the Landy convention, and Alvin Landy was on the committee

Interesting, but I don't see the relevance.

[jhenrikj]

What am I missing here?. If NS plays 1♣ as strong north can surely never have attended to bid 1♣. If he did believe he was playing landy the 1♣ surely must be a unintended call and we apply 25 not 27. If we apply 25 there is no UI so south can bid whatever he wants.

[pran]

jhenrikj, on 2011-April-30, 10:36, said:

What am I missing here?. If NS plays 1♣ as strong north can surely never have attended to bid 1♣. If he did believe he was playing landy the 1♣ surely must be a unintended call and we apply 25 not 27. If we apply 25 there is no UI so south can bid whatever he wants.

You are missing the fact that no Director was summoned to the table at the time of the 1♣ bid!

If the Director had been called in time he would have had to judge whether Law 25A1 ("Unintended call") was applicable, and if not he would have had to explain all relevant provisions in Law 27. Now a Law 25A1 ruling is definitely no longer possible and we have been presented with the offending side having been given an evidently incomplete explantion of their choices under Law 27.

Therefore because (Law 11A) the non-offending side (East/West may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent (North/South) in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law (mainly L27, but possibly also L25) the Director should rule that "The right to rectification of [the] irregularity [was] forfeited".

[jhenrikj]

pran, on 2011-April-30, 11:43, said:

You are missing the fact that no Director was summoned to the table at the time of the 1♣ bid!

If the Director had been called in time he would have had to judge whether Law 25A1 ("Unintended call") was applicable, and if not he would have had to explain all relevant provisions in Law 27. Now a Law 25A1 ruling is definitely no longer possible and we have been presented with the offending side having been given an evidently incomplete explantion of their choices under Law 27.

Therefore because (Law 11A) the non-offending side (East/West may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent (North/South) in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law (mainly L27, but possibly also L25) the Director should rule that "The right to rectification of [the] irregularity [was] forfeited".

Law 10B. The director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a rectification made by the players without his instructions. Since the players have made a correct rectification from 25A themselves I see no reason to change this. So score stands.

[pran]

jhenrikj, on 2011-May-01, 23:30, said:

Law 10B. The director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a rectification made by the players without his instructions. Since the players have made a correct rectification from 25A themselves I see no reason to change this. So score stands.

Except that OP did definitely not describe a Law 25A rectification

(And the rectificationn actually described was an incorrect Law 27 rectification as North was not told his options)

[jhenrikj]

pran, on 2011-May-02, 01:15, said:

Except that OP did definitely not describe a Law 25A rectification

(And the rectificationn actually described was an incorrect Law 27 rectification as North was not told his options)

The OP said this...

Quote

It seems that 1♣ was a clear mechanical error,

When do we apply 25A if not after mechanical errors?

[pran]

jhenrikj, on 2011-May-02, 11:07, said:

The OP said this...

Quote

It seems that 1♣ was a clear mechanical error,

When do we apply 25A if not after mechanical errors?

No, OP said:

Quote

It seems that 1♣ was a clear mechanical error, and he forgot their agreements.

An action is never unintended when the real reason for the action is that he forgot their agreements.

[Phil]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-30, 06:21, said:

Interesting, but I don't see the relevance.

The Landy call was alerted, and responder fielded a misbid and passed - naturally opener held 7 clubs.

The father and son were told that their rights were forfeited due to not calling the director. The committee upheld the table ruling - 4 to 3.

This is why it is relevant.

[blackshoe]

Phil, on 2011-May-02, 13:08, said:

The Landy call was alerted, and responder fielded a misbid and passed - naturally opener held 7 clubs.

The father and son were told that their rights were forfeited due to not calling the director. The committee upheld the table ruling - 4 to 3.

This is why it is relevant.

Uh, huh. Sounds to me like it was a completely different situation, and so not relevant to the current one.

What rights did NS (the offending side, it seems to me) forfeit? Did EW forfeit any rights? What Law(s)?

What is the legal basis for your retroactive cancellation of a call that, as far as the players at the table were aware, was legal at the time it was made? In particular, South thought it was legal because nobody told him it wasn't.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-02, 13:33, said:

Uh, huh. Sounds to me like it was a completely different situation, and so not relevant to the current one.

What rights did NS (the offending side, it seems to me) forfeit? Did EW forfeit any rights? What Law(s)?

What is the legal basis for your retroactive cancellation of a call that, as far as the players at the table were aware, was legal at the time it was made? In particular, South thought it was legal because nobody told him it wasn't.

NS did not forfeit any rights.
EW forfeited their rights to rectification because they apparently requested a rectification to an irregularity by North without calling the Director.
North selected his rectification in apparent ignorance of the provisions of Law 27 and thereby selected an unfavourable alternative among the alternatives available to him.
The relevant Law is 11A.

(There is no legal basis for treating the bid made by South as illegal unless a Director has so ruled.)

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-May-02, 13:43, said:

NS did not forfeit any rights.
EW forfeited their rights to rectification because they apparently requested a rectification to an irregularity by North without calling the Director.
North selected his rectification in apparent ignorance of the provisions of Law 27 and thereby selected an unfavourable alternative among the alternatives available to him.
The relevant Law is 11A.

(There is no legal basis for treating the bid made by South as illegal unless a Director has so ruled.)

That's not what the table director ruled. Unless Phil was talking about the case in which Al Landy was on the committee. Which I still do not see as relevant to this case.