[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-02, 13:58, said:

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.

This is the story as presented in OP:

Quote

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.

The facts as I see them from this description are:

1: North bid 1♣ (insufficient) and made no indication that he had intended to bid 2♣ when attention was called to the irregularity. The Director was not called at the time. This excludes the option for North to receive a Law 25A ruling as there is no indication of any attempt to change an unintended call without pause for thought. (If North had attempted this there would have been no option for East to accept the 1♣ bid.)

2: East did not call the Director but required the IB to be rectified. This action by East is a violation of Laws 9, 10 and 11 and may result in forfeiture of the right to rectification.

3: North rectified his IB to 2♣ on demand by East, apparently in ignorance of his other alternative calls available and the consequences of his available alternatives. As the non-offending side may have gained from this rectification (as compared to possible results from other legal rectification alternatives available to North) the Director should have applied law 11A (second clause) and ruled that East/West had forfeited their right to rectification.

4: South subsequently bid 2♠ to which nobody complained at the time. This simply confirms the existing ignorance of provisions in Law 27.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-May-02, 15:14, said:

This is the story as presented in OP:

The facts as I see them from this description are:

1: North bid 1♣ (insufficient) and made no indication that he had intended to bid 2♣ when attention was called to the irregularity. The Director was not called at the time. This excludes the option for North to receive a Law 25A ruling as there is no indication of any attempt to change an unintended call without pause for thought. (If North had attempted this there would have been no option for East to accept the 1♣ bid.)

2: East did not call the Director but required the IB to be rectified. This action by East is a violation of Laws 9, 10 and 11 and may result in forfeiture of the right to rectification.

3: North rectified his IB to 2♣ on demand by East, apparently in ignorance of his other alternative calls available and the consequences of his available alternatives. As the non-offending side may have gained from this rectification (as compared to possible results from other legal rectification alternatives available to North) the Director should have applied law 11A (second clause) and ruled that East/West had forfeited their right to rectification.

4: South subsequently bid 2♠ to which nobody complained at the time. This simply confirms the existing ignorance of provisions in Law 27.

Yeah. I can read, too. For the record, I agree with your ruling. Phil later said:

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.

The first sentence is referring to an anecdote South told Phil at the time (apparently) of this ruling, about a situation that occurred long ago. The second seems to be referring to the ruling in this case, not the anecdotal case (unless the OS in the latter were father and son, which was not mentioned). So the table ruling, apparently, was that NS (the OS wrt the IB) "lost their rights", and that the score was adjusted to 2♣-1. I'm asking Phil for a legal basis for this ruling. I'm not asking how things should have gone.

Phil originally asked three questions:

Quote

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?

My answers: No, everyone's, and yes, EW lose their rights.

[jhenrikj]

pran, on 2011-May-02, 12:47, said:

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

The reason for bidding 2♣ was that he forgot their agreements, the reason for bidding 1♣ was a mechanical error. That is still an unintended call. What he thought 2♣ meant has nothing to do with the fact he picked the wrong bidding card out of the box.

Look at your quote above and apply that to the following hand.

xx
AKxx
Axx
Jxx

On my CC it says that I play a 15-17NT. I forget that and intends to open 1NT 12-14, but I accidently open 1♠. Following your quote above, that is not an unintended call?

[pran]

jhenrikj, on 2011-May-03, 01:03, said:

The reason for bidding 2♣ was that he forgot their agreements, the reason for bidding 1♣ was a mechanical error. That is still an unintended call. What he thought 2♣ meant has nothing to do with the fact he picked the wrong bidding card out of the box.

Look at your quote above and apply that to the following hand.

xx
AKxx
Axx
Jxx

On my CC it says that I play a 15-17NT. I forget that and intends to open 1NT 12-14, but I accidently open 1♠. Following your quote above, that is not an unintended call?

No, this would be a case of an unintended call, eligible for rectification under Law 25A provided you attempt (without any pause for thought) to rectify it immediately when you become aware of your mistake. (And your actual hand is irrelevant for this ruling!)

The way I understand OP North's actions do not satisfy this condition.

[jhenrikj]

pran, on 2011-May-03, 01:20, said:

The way I understand OP North's actions do not satisfy this condition.

That's where we have different opinions. We do not know anything about how north realized his mistake. The only thing we are told about it is that east did not accept 1♣.


I can not imagine any player who makes an unintended insufficient bid that do not make an attempt to change as soon as he realizes his mistake. But the players probably did not know the difference between a unintended insufficient bid (law 25A) and an intended insufficient bid (law 27). They thought law 27 applied always after an insufficient bid and they tried to apply 27 themselves. This is of course incorrect procedure, but by pure luck they ended up in the same situation they would have if they had called the TD at the correct moment (after the 1♣), that North was allowed to change to 2♣ without any other rectification. So I still see no reason to change any score so table result stands. After that I give a serious lecture to the players about calling the director.

[pran]

jhenrikj, on 2011-May-03, 02:52, said:

That's where we have different opinions. We do not know anything about how north realized his mistake. The only thing we are told about it is that east did not accept 1♣.


I can not imagine any player who makes an unintended insufficient bid that do not make an attempt to change as soon as he realizes his mistake. But the players probably did not know the difference between a unintended insufficient bid (law 25A) and an intended insufficient bid (law 27). They thought law 27 applied always after an insufficient bid and they tried to apply 27 themselves. This is of course incorrect procedure, but by pure luck they ended up in the same situation they would have if they had called the TD at the correct moment (after the 1♣), that North was allowed to change to 2♣ without any other rectification. So I still see no reason to change any score so table result stands. After that I give a serious lecture to the players about calling the director.

And they did not call the Director as they should have done.
The delayed call for the Director is the main reason why Law 25A may no longer be applied on the 1♣ bid; the Director can no longer be able to establish that the 1♣ bid was truly unintended (and not a "slip of the mind") at the time it was made.

I understand you that you would let the table result (2♠=) stand. Thus we obviouosly end up with the same result on the board, but from slightly different approaches. However, you will need to consider the question on UI on this board; that question is immaterial for my ruling.

[jhenrikj]

pran, on 2011-May-03, 04:11, said:

And they did not call the Director as they should have done.
The delayed call for the Director is the main reason why Law 25A may no longer be applied on the 1♣ bid; the Director can no longer be able to establish that the 1♣ bid was truly unintended (and not a "slip of the mind") at the time it was made.

Of course I can establish if it's an unintended call or not.

Please show me the paragraph that says that an unintended call becomes an intended call if director is not called at once....

The only thing that decides if we can apply 25A or not is if partner has bid or not. Actions from the offending side is irrelevant.

Your approach means that every time a player finds out his mistake at once and corrects it, and the director is not called at all (I think we all agree that that happens very often when playing with bidding boxes) we should correct that score since 25A does not apply if director is not called? It's is incorrect not to call the director, but the law is still the same.

[mjj29]

jhenrikj, on 2011-May-03, 05:08, said:

Of course I can establish if it's an unintended call or not.

Please show me the paragraph that says that an unintended call becomes an intended call if director is not called at once....

The only thing that decides if we can apply 25A or not is if partner has bid or not. Actions from the offending side is irrelevant.

And that an attempt was made to change it without pause for thought (or call the director to ask to change it, although that didn't happen here). The OP does not give us enough information to determine whether or not such a change was attempted, so we cannot determine whether or not L25A would have applied.

[jhenrikj]

mjj29, on 2011-May-03, 06:42, said:

And that an attempt was made to change it without pause for thought (or call the director to ask to change it, although that didn't happen here). The OP does not give us enough information to determine whether or not such a change was attempted, so we cannot determine whether or not L25A would have applied.

I agree, the OP does not contain enough information, but as I said earlier, if you make an insufficient unintended call it is most unlikely you will not express in some way that you wish to change your bid as soon as you realize your mistake. Remember that it is pause for thought after you realize your mistake, not after a bid was made. The term "without pause for thought" is no time measurement but an unfortunate way to express that you are not allowed to change your mind. If it was a time measurement we should allow change of minds that happens instantly, but as we all know we do not.

[pran]

jhenrikj, on 2011-May-03, 07:07, said:

I agree, the OP does not contain enough information, but as I said earlier, if you make an insufficient unintended call it is most unlikely you will not express in some way that you wish to change your bid as soon as you realize your mistake. Remember that it is pause for thought after you realize your mistake, not after a bid was made. The term "without pause for thought" is no time measurement but an unfortunate way to express that you are not allowed to change your mind. If it was a time measurement we should allow change of minds that happens instantly, but as we all know we do not.

Quite correct.

And if the bid, whether insufficient or not, was really unintended it is highly probable that the bidder would have shown some sign of surprise at the very moment he discovered what he had bid, and somehow try to change his bid or at least express that the bid was not what he intended. This is the presumption covered by the clause without pause for thought in Law 25A.

Absent such immediate reaction from the bidder the Director is to assume that the bid was not unintended at the time it was made.

OP contains no indication of such surprise. North apparently changed his bid to 2♣ in response to a request by East who at the time failed to call the Director. We have strong indications in OP that North made his rectification of the irregularity in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law. This is sufficient to make Law 11A the predominant law in the situation.

[mycroft]

Having said all of this, it's clear that 1C wasn't the call North intended to make, and (at least after the hand, when I'm allowed to look), anyone who wants to argue that it was intended as an opener is welcome to try. For once, the Strong Club pair get the benefit of their artificial call.

Were I called when the OTD was (though, how does E/W find out "after the bidding" that North bid on xxxx? I assume this means "after dummy was faced". Also, when were you advised about the 1C-2C games? When you were called? Okay, assuming I'm right on both of these), I, too, would have pulled out L10. First, I would have said that were I called at the right time, I would have determined if it was intentional or not (sometimes, Sven, "when first the offender notices" is when the opponents point it out, especially if it's an insufficient Law 25A call); and having found out that "obviously" (as this is nothing like a strong 1C opener, as we can all see) it was inadvertent, would have allowed the change to the intended call - which seems to be 2C. After that, I would say that if you decided to make your own ruling instead of calling me at the time of the irregularity, I don't see why I should overrule it now.

Now, if I were to be playing Natural at MPs, Pass Is Not An Option ("The only people that play 1NT-AP white at MPs are us"), and I'd probably bid 2C, too "hoping that we can scramble to something intelligent". It's my weakest suit, but it's the most likely to survive being doubled, or partner having a better idea (as, it turns out, he does). But if your "tell" is that 2C was intended as Landy (and he forgot), then so be it. North is allowed to forget.

Do we think that 2S was a "just in case"? What evidence do we have that there was anything there, save "they did something wrong and got away with it?" Sure, *if* partner forgot Landy, 2S is a clear winner. But if partner has clubs, as long as it's headed by the A or the J, those tricks aren't going away. South's spades are. At MPs? seems clear - at least reasonable.

Did anyone ask South why he bid 2S?

So, I guess in answer to your questions:
1) No, not really. *Maybe* for N/S, but E/W get what they deserve, which is the table score. Given that I just gave you South's argument for 2S before rereading and seeing that you asked, I guess you know where I sit with it.
2) L9B1: "The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity."
"Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity."
"Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled."
"The fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does not affect the rights of the opponents."
L10B: "The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a rectification made by the players without his instructions."

[bluejak]

Phil, on 2011-April-29, 15:29, said:

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?

#1 No. I have no idea what this lot are up to but they have all agreed on their completely wrong ruling and I see no reason to interfere.

#2 North's and East's and South's and West's. What rights? To have a correct ruling? Sure, everyone, by playing on.

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

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

Bit like saying after an axe murderer has killed three people: "He did nothing wrong except kill three people".

[dburn]

jhenrikj, on 2011-May-03, 01:03, said:

The reason for bidding 2♣ was that he forgot their agreements, the reason for bidding 1♣ was a mechanical error. That is still an unintended call. What he thought 2♣ meant has nothing to do with the fact he picked the wrong bidding card out of the box.

Look at your quote above and apply that to the following hand.

xx
AKxx
Axx
Jxx

On my CC it says that I play a 15-17NT. I forget that and intends to open 1NT 12-14, but I accidently open 1♠. Following your quote above, that is not an unintended call?

Unclear. When a player opens the bidding despite holding only twelve cards, it would be unwise to impute to that player any particular motivation.

I am sure that as a purely practical matter I would be in complete agreement with my learned brother bluejak in concluding that if the players at the table don't see fit to call the Director when they ought to, they deserve each other and whatever results they get. Moreover, as has often been remarked, the Laws are hopeless when it comes to multiple infractions, so anyone who thinks he knows what ought to happen in this case is almost certainly wrong.

Here is Phil, who has decided that if he had been summoned when North bid 1♣ followed by 2♣, Phil would have ruled that because an opening 1♣ would have been conventional, South would under Law 27B2 have been compelled to pass 2♣. This seems to me correct in Law, and a possible justification for awarding a result of 2♣ down one. However, West might claim that had the auction gone 1NT-pass-pass-2♣-pass-[forced pass] to him, he might have bid 2♦ or doubled 2♣, either of which could have led to a better result for his side than plus 50. There is no indication from the OP that Phil considered this question; all one can say about this is that he probably should have done, but there is a limit to what is expected of even the most assiduous Directors when confronted with complexities such as this.

Here is pran, who has decided that this is a case for Law 11A. As far as I can tell, he bases this on the assumption that if the Director had been summoned at some point or other and explained the legal position to North, he might have bid 2♠. All I can say about this is that he might not, and even if he did, West might have bid 3♦ when the putative 2♠ came round to him (or doubled for takeout, when East would have bid 3♦ - recall now that South is barred and cannot bid 3♠). Again, Directors have a tendency to rule on what one side might have done without considering what the other side might then have done; perhaps that is why they are directing and not playing.

You might reply, with some justification, that here is West who didn't bid anything when his opponents were about to settle in 2♠ following sundry illegalities - why should he be assumed to bid anything if his opponents were to settle in 2♣ or 2♠ on some quasi-legal auction? Here again I am inclined to follow my learned brother bluejak - average club players tend to get flustered when the constabulary appears at the table, and tend not to perk up with "hang on a minute - don't I get a bid?" when the focus is entirely on what the opponents are or are not allowed to do. Still, the poor fellow would have been confronted with 1NT-pass-pass-2♣-pass-pass in Phil's scenario - why in the name of mercy shouldn't he be allowed to bid two diamonds? I mean, wouldn't you - especially if you knew that at least one of your opponents was barred from bidding spades, or anything else?

And here is mycroft, who tells us that he never passes his opponents out in 1NT. As if that had anything to do with it.

[jhenrikj]

dburn, on 2011-May-03, 19:03, said:

Here is Phil, who has decided that if he had been summoned when North bid 1♣ followed by 2♣, Phil would have ruled that because an opening 1♣ would have been conventional, South would under Law 27B2 have been compelled to pass 2♣. This seems to me correct in Law, and a possible justification for awarding a result of 2♣ down one. However, West might claim that had the auction gone 1NT-pass-pass-2♣-pass-[forced pass] to him, he might have bid 2♦ or doubled 2♣, either of which could have led to a better result for his side than plus 50. There is no indication from the OP that Phil considered this question; all one can say about this is that he probably should have done, but there is a limit to what is expected of even the most assiduous Directors when confronted with complexities such as this.

You seem to miss that Phil also established that 1♣ was a mechanical error. But he still wants to apply law 27 because its an insufficient bid. I don't know Phil so I can say nothing about his director skills, but I know it's a common mistake by directors whenever you have an insufficient bid to directly apply law 27, not finding out whether the bid was intended or not.

[mycroft]

I think there's a big difference between "I don't (for bridge values of don't) let the opponents play 1NT-out NV at MPs" and "I don't let them play 1NT". I also said that my agreements aren't theirs, but with my agreements, playing natural, I'd bid 2♣ just like North probably wanted to, and it would have been "natural on xxxx". That's East's argument shot - but since unlike my statement, that truly *is* irrelevant (we look at everything anyway, including "we used to play Landy"), true, no matter.

Having said that, looking at North's hand (which I assume we can, given that East knew the club suit before calling the TD, so it was probably down in dummy), if anyone thinks that North wanted to bid a strictly strong club on that hand, in the ACBL where it's actually illegal to do so, fine, rule that way. It would take a lot of evidence for me to overrule that and say it was intended.
Now, one can't do that over any other call but 1♣, as you can't overcall anything but a Strong Pass with it (also illegal in the ACBL), so it's not a 2NT-2♣ situation "I thought he bid 1NT" - but of course you can ask and see if IBer thought he was opening.

You also can't do that with a "standard" 1♣ or even a Polish 1♣, but a strictly strong 1♣?