[bixby]

This occurred in the ACBL.

I was North. The bidding went:

---

After 2S, which was not alerted, my partner inquired about the meaning of 2S and was told it was a strong jump shift. When East passed at his second turn, it seemed to me that we must have been given misinformation, so I called the Director. After I explained the problem, the first thing the Director said was that it was improper for me to call the Director because it was not my turn to bid.

Is this right? Law 9A1 provides, "Unless prohibited by law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call." The Director said that my summoning the Director created unauthorized information for my partner.

I called the Director mainly because it seemed to me that there had been an irregularity, so the Director should be summoned, but also because my partner was about to bid, which would screw things up further -- there was still time to wind the auction back to my second pass.

If it matters, it turned out that E/W's agreement was that 2S was a weak jump shift, and the explanation was incorrect.

If the Director was right, suppose the bidding had gone 1S - P (by me) - 1H. Could I not call attention to the insufficent bid?

[blackshoe]

The first thing the director said to you was wrong. As you point out, Law 9A1 governs, along with 9B, which says that once attention is drawn, the director should be called, anyone (including dummy, during the play) can call him, and nobody should do anything else until the director rules.

The second thing the director said to you is more of a problem. First, what would you have done differently over 3♣ had you known 2♠ was weak? After all, you couldn't take action over 1♣. Second, consider partner. He's heard you call the TD. Maybe he has a clear action over a WJS, maybe not. If his action is not clear (he has one or more logical alternatives) then any action he takes may result in a ruling of illegal use of UI. There's a thread here somewhere which discusses whether calling the TD may provide UI. I can't remember if we've reached a consensus yet, and if we did I'm not sure "yes" is the right answer, but then I'm not sure "no" is the right answer either. Anyway, if there's no consensus here, there's probably no consensus among ACBL directors, particularly at club level.

Add to all that the fact that if you were misinformed, did not call the TD when you first suspected you might have been, and it later turns out that you were damaged by MI, the TD will adjust the score in your favor — which is a better result than no adjustment, or an adjustment in their favor because your partner is deemed to have used UI. Note that the law on MI requires the opponents to call the TD at the appropriate time, and correct the MI in his presence. Of course, in spite of the law, players rarely do that. They just tell you their partner got it wrong, and leave it up to you to call the TD if you feel like it. Frankly, when I call the TD in this situation, I tell the TD "we have established that West's (or whoever's) explanation was incorrect; East said so. However, East did not, obviously, call you before correcting the explanation, as the law requires". Mostly, TD's ignore the last bit, but I can hope that someday one of them will wake up and tell the opponents to do it right.

[aguahombre]

The TD was probably implying what you stated yourself in the OP. You have the right to call the director when there has been an irregularity, but it "seemed" to you there had been one; and only later did you find out there actually had been one.

[1eyedjack]

aguahombre, on 2011-July-25, 21:34, said:

it "seemed" to you there had been one; and only later did you find out there actually had been one.

At what point in the proceedings do you suggest that what initially amounted to mere speculation (that there had been an irregularity) became a likelihood sufficient to justify calling the director?

[pran]

bixby, on 2011-July-25, 20:21, said:

[...]
I called the Director mainly because it seemed to me that there had been an irregularity

What irregularity?
Remember

Law 40A3 said:

A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1).

Can you at the time you called the Director point to any specific law that (probably) has been violated?

bixby, on 2011-July-25, 20:21, said:

[...]
If the Director was right, suppose the bidding had gone 1S - P (by me) - 1H. Could I not call attention to the insufficent bid?

Sure you can. An insufficient bid is a violation of Law 18 and results in the (immediate) application of Law 27.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-25, 21:29, said:

The first thing the director said to you was wrong. As you point out, Law 9A1 governs, along with 9B, which says that once attention is drawn, the director should be called, anyone (including dummy, during the play) can call him, and nobody should do anything else until the director rules.

It is not clear that there has been an irregularity, as there might instead have been a misbid, which is not an irregularity. So it is not clear that attention can even be drawn to it.

The question, therefore, ought to be, whether one may enquire whether there might have been an irregularity when it is not your turn to call or play, or indeed at all. The law is not very clear on this in the general case. Players have specific rights in order to be able to enquire whether another player has revoked. The fact that they are given these specific rights tends to suggest that it is not always in accordance with proprieties merely to enquire on suspicion of an irregularity that is not evident.

In general a player may not seek an explanation other than at his turn to call. North may not try and prompt South to seek an explanation either, or seek an explanation because he thinks his partner needs it. I suspect that these are the improprieties that the Director was trying to describe. I would tend to suggest that the mere suspicion of a misexplanation, which in any case the director may well not be able to investigate while the auction is in progress, is not sufficient to override these proprieties.

[1eyedjack]

Misinformation is an irregularity. A departure from agreements is not. In the OP case, responder's pass of 3C, as soon as he passes, brings to light, to all at the table, that one or other of misinformation or a departure from agreements has occurred.

The problem with any potential misinformation irregularity is that whether there was misinformation (as opposed to a departure from agreements) may be a contentious issue. Is it seriously suggested in this thread that for as long as the possibility exists that what appears to be misinformation was in fact a legal departure from agreements, we are barred from seeking the director's oversight at the point at which the potential for challenge arises, simply because at that point it has not been established beyond doubt that it was misinformation?

[bixby]

pran, on 2011-July-26, 03:43, said:

What irregularity?

Can you at the time you called the Director point to any specific law that (probably) has been violated?

Sure, at the time I called the Director there was probable cause to believe that the opponents had violated Law 20F by giving misinformation. And in fact, that turned out to be the case.

Yes, there were other possibilities too, including misbid or psych. But that seems irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether I was allowed to call the Director even though it was my partner's turn. After all, suppose my partner had called the Director. The evidence for an irregularity would have been the same. Are you suggesting that neither I nor my partner should call the Director at the time I did? If not then, when would be the appropriate time? When East goes down as dummy? But even then, we wouldn't really know whether there was misinformation or a misbid. There's no time when my partner and I would have any more evidence than we had when I called the Director.

[bluejak]

If you believe that there may be MI then you call the TD. You are drawing attention to a possible irregularity, which is your right.

I think on the actual auction it was not sensible to do so because it has no upside but a potential downside, but it certainly is your right.

No, you do not need proof of an irregularity to call the TD: it is the TD's job to determine whether there has been an irregularity and what to do about it.

[pran]

bixby, on 2011-July-26, 06:24, said:

Sure, at the time I called the Director there was probable cause to believe that the opponents had violated Law 20F by giving misinformation. And in fact, that turned out to be the case.

Yes, there were other possibilities too, including misbid or psych. But that seems irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether I was allowed to call the Director even though it was my partner's turn. After all, suppose my partner had called the Director. The evidence for an irregularity would have been the same. Are you suggesting that neither I nor my partner should call the Director at the time I did? If not then, when would be the appropriate time? When East goes down as dummy? But even then, we wouldn't really know whether there was misinformation or a misbid. There's no time when my partner and I would have any more evidence than we had when I called the Director.

No, at the time you called the Director all you could say is that you suspected something strange going on. You had no specific reason at that time (according to what you have stated here) to believe for instance that it was misinformation rather than misbid.

What you did was to alert your partner at his time to call that you suspected some irregularity, and in fact that your own last call might somehow have been influenced by this. That was illegal communication with your partner!

So then, what are the possible consequences?

Your own irregularitry might (and probably should) have consequences on your possibility to redress for any irregularity eventually revealed.

If you had kept quiet at the time and acted according to the rules you would afterwards have had a strong case for redress if you could show that what eventually proved to be misinformation possibly(!) had damaged your side.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2011-July-26, 06:46, said:

What you did was to alert your partner at his time to call that you suspected some irregularity, and in fact that your own last call might somehow have been influenced by this. That was illegal communication with your partner!

I think it is more helpful to call this situation unauthorised information, as we would in the case of uneven tempo, explanations provided to the opponents, etc.

[Zelandakh]

There is something very peculiar about this thread. Several posters have said that by calling the director North has given UI that they would have taken action over 3C had they known that 2S was not a SJS. My question is why. Is it not better to call attention to a possible irregularity irrespective of whether you would take action or not? Otherwise not calling the TD also provides UI. Apart from that I think David said pretty much all that needs to be said (as usual).

[blackshoe]

1eyedjack, on 2011-July-26, 06:22, said:

Is it seriously suggested in this thread that for as long as the possibility exists that what appears to be misinformation was in fact a legal departure from agreements, we are barred from seeking the director's oversight at the point at which the potential for challenge arises, simply because at that point it has not been established beyond doubt that it was misinformation?

Not by me.

[aguahombre]

1eyedjack, on 2011-July-26, 06:22, said:

Is it seriously suggested in this thread that for as long as the possibility exists that what appears to be misinformation was in fact a legal departure from agreements, we are barred from seeking the director's oversight at the point at which the potential for challenge arises, simply because at that point it has not been established beyond doubt that it was misinformation?

blackshoe, on 2011-July-26, 08:54, said:

Not by me.

Nor by me; but, that is apparently what the TD was thinking at the table and what the posts on this thread are debating. It might also be what the actual wording is.

Also, at one point the OP uses "it seemed", and later states he had "probable cause". It is not clear which one of those was conveyed to the TD, nor whether it would have mattered.

[bixby]

pran, on 2011-July-26, 06:46, said:

No, at the time you called the Director all you could say is that you suspected something strange going on. You had no specific reason at that time (according to what you have stated here) to believe for instance that it was misinformation rather than misbid.

What you did was to alert your partner at his time to call that you suspected some irregularity, and in fact that your own last call might somehow have been influenced by this. That was illegal communication with your partner!

Pran, it seems to me that there are two separate issues: (1) At the time I called the Director, was there enough evidence that an irregularity had occurred? (2) Was it appropriate for me to call the Director even though it was not my turn in the auction?

As to issue (1), the evidence of an irregularity (however strong or weak it was) was equally available to me and my partner. So if there was enough evidence to justify my partner's calling the Director, there was enough evidence for me too. So I repeat the question, do you think it would have been appropriate for my partner to call the Director? If you say yes, then I think you have to agree that there was enough evidence available to justify my calling the Director too.

Now that still leaves issue (2), the issue on which I sought guidance when starting this thread. If you are saying that calling the Director creates unauthorized information, then you are agreeing with the Director who came to the table, which is fine, although, as other posters have suggested, I don't know how anyone could tell that my calling the Director implies anything about my hand. Maybe I just believe in calling the Director as soon as I'm aware that an irregularity has (probably) occurred, so that the Director can sort things out appropriately. But in any event, I don't think issue (2) is related to issue (1).

[AlexJonson]

I'm definitely with Pran.

If I called the TD whenever I wondered whether an infraction had occurred in the auction, I would expect to get the rough end of the TD's tongue, as they say, - and my partner would get it if he did it instead of me.

Likewise during the play.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2011-July-26, 06:31, said:

If you believe that there may be MI then you call the TD. You are drawing attention to a possible irregularity, which is your right.

I think on the actual auction it was not sensible to do so because it has no upside but a potential downside, but it certainly is your right.

No, you do not need proof of an irregularity to call the TD: it is the TD's job to determine whether there has been an irregularity and what to do about it.

Are you saying that a player has an automatic right to call the TD whenever he wants? Or just when he suspects an irregularity may have occurred? Under which Law?

bixby, on 2011-July-26, 11:06, said:

Pran, it seems to me that there are two separate issues: (1) At the time I called the Director, was there enough evidence that an irregularity had occurred? (2) Was it appropriate for me to call the Director even though it was not my turn in the auction?

As to issue (1), the evidence of an irregularity (however strong or weak it was) was equally available to me and my partner. So if there was enough evidence to justify my partner's calling the Director, there was enough evidence for me too. So I repeat the question, do you think it would have been appropriate for my partner to call the Director? If you say yes, then I think you have to agree that there was enough evidence available to justify my calling the Director too.

Now that still leaves issue (2), the issue on which I sought guidance when starting this thread. If you are saying that calling the Director creates unauthorized information, then you are agreeing with the Director who came to the table, which is fine, although, as other posters have suggested, I don't know how anyone could tell that my calling the Director implies anything about my hand. Maybe I just believe in calling the Director as soon as I'm aware that an irregularity has (probably) occurred, so that the Director can sort things out appropriately. But in any event, I don't think issue (2) is related to issue (1).

Immediately after your LHO's pass, you had as much (or as little) right as your partner did to call the TD. However, my preferred solution would have been for you to say nothing, then for your partner (whose turn it is now to call) to ask LHO a supplementary question, e.g. "Are you sure that your agreement is to play 2♠ is a strong jump shift?".

1. If the reply is yes, no-one calls the TD at this stage because no irregularity has come to light so you just continue with the auction (if the 2♠ bidder corrects the explanation at the end of the auction/play, the TD should be called at that point, of course).

2. If Opener admits that the original explanation was incorrect, then attention has been drawn to an irregularity and now either of you may call the TD (Opener "must" do so in any case according to Law 20F4).

[pran]

bixby, on 2011-July-26, 11:06, said:

Pran, it seems to me that there are two separate issues: (1) At the time I called the Director, was there enough evidence that an irregularity had occurred? (2) Was it appropriate for me to call the Director even though it was not my turn in the auction?

As to issue (1), the evidence of an irregularity (however strong or weak it was) was equally available to me and my partner. So if there was enough evidence to justify my partner's calling the Director, there was enough evidence for me too. So I repeat the question, do you think it would have been appropriate for my partner to call the Director? If you say yes, then I think you have to agree that there was enough evidence available to justify my calling the Director too.

Now that still leaves issue (2), the issue on which I sought guidance when starting this thread. If you are saying that calling the Director creates unauthorized information, then you are agreeing with the Director who came to the table, which is fine, although, as other posters have suggested, I don't know how anyone could tell that my calling the Director implies anything about my hand. Maybe I just believe in calling the Director as soon as I'm aware that an irregularity has (probably) occurred, so that the Director can sort things out appropriately. But in any event, I don't think issue (2) is related to issue (1).

What worries me is the fact that a player interrupts the normal progress of the auction at his partner's turn to call in a situation where he has no acceptable bridge reason for his interrupt. The only reason I can see for his action is to alert his partner of a possible abnormal situation so that his partner can be alert and take whatever action he might be interested in with his call.

I don't buy the assertion that the player by taking action at this time (before his partner calls) would become able to have his own last call changed because of misinformation if that really was the desire. He would not have forfeited any right to have redress for any damage if he had kept silent and let the auction continue in the regular manner. At his next turn to call he is of course entitled to ask if the players maintain their description of their auction and to call the Director if any irregularity is now revealed.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2011-July-26, 14:51, said:

Are you saying that a player has an automatic right to call the TD whenever he wants? Or just when he suspects an irregularity may have occurred? Under which Law?

Law 9A1 gives a player a right to draw attention to an irregularity during the auction. Now, while the Law book does not say so, it is clearly understood that players will draw attention to what they perceive to be an irregularity since at the end of the day the decision as to whether it is an irregularity is taken by the TD and not by the player.

Once a player has drawn attention Law 9B1A requires a TD call.