[pran]

 Fluffy, on 2011-November-20, 08:08, said:

not at all, I think he saw ♥A and he was happy to see it coming and accepted it inmediatelly thinking it was his right to choose, perhaps he has unprotected ♥K or whatever, but when someone accepts something like this so quick it is normally to his advantage.

For example, I often accept insufficient calls to my advantage to gain space, this might sound ridicoulous to you, but I accept them as quickly as I can or else I will see the inssufficent call raised one level before I can say a word. Pros bringing TD to the table is something very badly taken by the crowd, and even if I bring it, our TDs quality is such that 50% of the time they don´t even ask me if I want to accept it!

There is no need to "accept an insufficient bid as quickly as you can", you just call attention to "this bid is insufficient" and then have the director called.

Law 9B1c said:

Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled.

Law 9B2 said:

No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

Law 9C said:

Any premature correction of an irregularity by the offender may subject him to a further rectification (see the lead restrictions in Law 26).

[Fluffy]

do I speak that bad english? I think I made it very clear that a: directors will missrule badly enough, and b: opponents and other players in the room will feel badly about me calling director. What is the point of telling me the rules I know?

Do you not believe me or do you not understand my english?

[mjj29]

 Fluffy, on 2011-November-20, 15:34, said:

do I speak that bad english? I think I made it very clear that a: directors will missrule badly enough, and b: opponents and other players in the room will feel badly about me calling director. What is the point of telling me the rules I know?

Do you not believe me or do you not understand my english?

Then you need better directors and more tolerent opponents (I understand it's not that easy - but it's true. People shouldn't feel bad - calling the director is not an offense to anyone - it's just pointing out that something has gone wrong and this is how you fix that.)

Certainly if you don't call the director then you can't be surprised if it gets fixed wrongly... That's the trade-off you make if you'd rather sort it at the table though.

Matt

[Fluffy]

 mjj29, on 2011-November-20, 16:02, said:

Then you need better directors and more tolerent opponents (

I think we had better directors, the problem is the players will protest and ask club managers to not hire them any more for being intolerant (awarding PP), so they either turned what the crowd asked for or stopped directing.


Upon reading TD´s views on these forums I am thinking about going one evening to play and call director for every irregularity, I think I should prealert the opponents that it is nothing personal and I am just making a test because players turning a trick that is done to review it is something that will happen 1/3 boards or more. And calling director for showing already played cards to partner (or touching mines!) every round will not have a lot of support.

[mjj29]

 Fluffy, on 2011-November-21, 03:58, said:

I think we had better directors, the problem is the players will protest and ask club managers to not hire them any more for being intolerant (awarding PP), so they either turned what the crowd asked for or stopped directing.

Upon reading TD´s views on these forums I am thinking about going one evening to play and call director for every irregularity, I think I should prealert the opponents that it is nothing personal and I am just making a test because players turning a trick that is done to review it is something that will happen 1/3 boards or more. And calling director for showing already played cards to partner (or touching mines!) every round will not have a lot of support.

Calling the director does not mean the director will always penalise them with points!

As a TD, even a playing club one, I would much rather I was called all the time, so that I can ensure that the right thing happens - that's only fair to everyone. Where that's not a lead out of turn or similar, but instead something where the only penalty would be a PP (touching cards, etc), remember that penalties are not just given in points. Part of the TD's job is player education. It's perfectly reasonable (and often correct) for the majority of your PPs to be in the form of a warning and explanation of why they shouldn't do what they are doing and what they should do instead. The TD should be able to give this in a manner that doesn't cause offence.

Plus, I don't direct because I enjoy shuffling boards around the room. I direct because I enjoy sorting out problems according to the laws. If you never call me - I'll have a pretty boring evening!

[mycroft]

If you call for *every* irregularity, you'll be finished by tomorrow midnight, possibly. We all know this - which is why the wording of Law 9 has been softened.

But if you "immediately accept" an IB *deliberately*, you are making your own ruling and that is illegal. If you call, and the TD gives you the option, and you accept it, fine. The TD *should* also be explaining what options you have to the table, so that the non-pro players know what options you decided *not* to take.

I believe that they take pros calling the TD badly - people do. Given what I saw in Toronto, pros take non-pros calling the TD badly too (in the two cases I'm thinking of, they did have a point, it was sheer rules-lawyering, and I believe they were being extra-ethical in their illegality; but they were still lazy, they were still wrong, and they were still putting up an example that their lesser followers would follow (without the extra-ethicality) and that is bad for the game in general). There are, in my experience, ways and ways to call the TD; and it is possible to get some opponents on your side with a "look, let's just see what should happen here" (some, I agree, are a Lost Cause; but those are almost certainly the ones that are going to call the TD when you accept the IB!) I guess I'm just upset because there are "helpful experts" in my world who also don't call the TD, and apply the Law as it is written in their memory, but which is either flat-out wrong, or was changed in 1973 if not 1997.

The real answer, as we all (here) know, is to educate the players about the referee nature (as opposed to the police nature) of the TD; and that having the TD at the table when something goes wrong is in the best interest of everybody, including the side who's responsible for the irregularity. Also, of course, to educate the TDs so that they actually rule according to Law.

[campboy]

 mycroft, on 2011-November-21, 14:44, said:

But if you "immediately accept" an IB *deliberately*, you are making your own ruling and that is illegal. If you call, and the TD gives you the option, and you accept it, fine. The TD *should* also be explaining what options you have to the table, so that the non-pro players know what options you decided *not* to take.

If he accepts it verbally, fair enough. If he accepts it by making his own call in turn, though, no-one has drawn attention to the irregularity so the TD need not be summoned.

[mycroft]

I would suggest that *deliberately* not pointing this out and *deliberately* making a bid that accepts the IB is close enough to Law 11A to be an issue.

I would accept as a counterargument that Law 27A1 says nothing about rectification, and that this is just "proper procedure." I would still believe that doing so deliberately, rather than pointing it out, summoning the TD "just to see what should happen", and then taking the option to accept, is the less proper, if not improper, route.

[campboy]

 mycroft, on 2011-November-21, 19:01, said:

I would suggest that *deliberately* not pointing this out and *deliberately* making a bid that accepts the IB is close enough to Law 11A to be an issue.

11A says that Fluffy may forfeit his right to rectification by doing this, which I imagine he accepts, but it doesn't say he shouldn't do it. Indeed, since you are not obliged to draw attention to your own irregularity (9A4) it would be strange to rule that you are obliged to draw attention to your opponent's irregularity. This is the IB equivalent of 29A for a BOOT.

[pran]

 mycroft, on 2011-November-21, 14:44, said:

[...]
But if you "immediately accept" an IB *deliberately*, you are making your own ruling and that is illegal.
[...]

Law 27A1 ("It is accepted if that player calls.") explicitly allows offender's LHO to accept the IB by calling without summoning the Director if he does so before attention is drawn to the insufficient bid.

[barmar]

I think the assumption behind 27A1 is that LHO probably didn't notice that the bid was insufficient, not that he's deliberately making his own ruling. If you don't pay enough attention in this situation you may lose the right to rectification.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2011-November-22, 23:48, said:

I think the assumption behind 27A1 is that LHO probably didn't notice that the bid was insufficient, not that he's deliberately making his own ruling. If you don't pay enough attention in this situation you may lose the right to rectification.

Yes, and Law 27A1 is an option that is available to him also after summoning the Director, so he is in no "hurry" to face his cards in order to become Dummy.