[lamford]

pran, on 2013-October-14, 07:25, said:

This implies that the partner to a player who has options available after an irregularity may not in any way convey any kind of information that can possibly suggest an option that might be preferable to their side.

Waiting to see if partner wishes to accept the illegal lead, for example, is not "consulting". Calling the director is not "consulting".

[pran]

gnasher, on 2013-October-14, 08:28, said:

Are you reading the same Laws as me? Law 9A4 doesn't say anything about calling the director.

Law 9A4 tells us that you don't have to draw attention to your own side's infraction. Law 9B1a tells us that if anyone does draw attention to any irregularity, the director should be called.

Yes, we are reading the same Law, but apparently one of us do not understand what it really says.

According to Lamford(?) Fluffy has had his attention been drawn to the irregularity because of some premature corrective action by the offender.

Because of this he claims that it is Fluffy's duty to call the director. This is indisputable if we must agree that attention really has been drawn.

BUT:

My point is that in a hypothetical situation when Fluffy is the only player who has noticed his own partner's irregularity he has no obligation to draw (the other players') attention to this irregularity (Law 9A4) and as a consequence neither can he have any duty to call the director.

The only logical conclusion from this in order to avoid any self contradiction in Law 9 is that it takes some explicit notification of the fact that an irregularity has occurred for attention to having been drawn to this irregularity. For instance a premature corrective action by the offender is itself not sufficient.

[lamford]

pran, on 2013-October-14, 07:25, said:

Your agreement about calling or not calling the director depending on whether you want to have the IB accepted, and your agreement about hesitation when declarer leads from the wrong hand are severe violations of the prohibition against concealed partnership understandings (You don't explicitly declare it in advance do you?) in addition to violations of several other laws.

If asked, we would disclose the agreement. Are you suggesting that we should pre-alert the agreement? If so, we should pre-alert other agreements that are not on our card. For example, we have the agreement that after 1NT-(Pass)-Pass-(1H), we play that
a) 1S is five spades
b) Double is take-out with four spades
c) 1NT is typically 2-3-4-4, non-minimum
d) Pass is minimum or a hand that would pass a takeout double of 1H.
e) not allowing the IB shows any hand that does not want to allow the IB.
And, as gordontd will vouch, this occurred recently in an individual, and my partner and I were, unbelievably, on the same wavelength even though it was only an implicit CPU.

If we spent the (typically) thirty seconds before a round pre-alerting that CPU, we would be chastised by the TD, and there is certainly no room for it on our CC. In the EBU, but not I believe in the ACBL, it is permitted to have an agreement consequent upon an opponent's infraction. Perhaps the calling of the TD or the waiting after the declarer leads from the wrong hand should be alerted? We would certainly alert the repeat of 1NT in the above auction.

And what other Laws do you think such an agreement transgresses? I agree that the BIT is UI when declarer leads from the wrong hand, but the acceptance of the lead is AI.

[pran]

lamford, on 2013-October-14, 09:45, said:

If asked, we would disclose the agreement. Are you suggesting that we should pre-alert the agreement? If so, we should pre-alert other agreements that are not on our card. For example, we have the agreement that after 1NT-(Pass)-Pass-(1H), we play that
a) 1S is five spades
b) Double is take-out with four spades
c) 1NT is typically 2-3-4-4
d) Pass is minimum or a hand that would pass a takeout double of 1H.

If we spent the (typically) thirty seconds before a round pre-alerting that CPU, we would be chastised by the TD, and there is certainly no room for it on our CC. In the EBU it is permitted to have an agreement consequent upon an opponent's infraction. Perhaps the calling of the TD or the waiting after the declarer leads from the wrong hand should be alerted? We would certainly alert the repeat of 1NT in the above auction.

Yes, this agreement is so special and questionable (in fact I expect it to be ruled illegal if tried by any Law Committee) that indeed it should be pre-alerted in a similar fashion as is required for Highly Unusual Methods (HUM).

IMHO your other agreements mentioned are not so special that they require this treatment (unless required by your SO).

I do not share the understanding that EBU opens the door for the players on the non-offending side that they may exchange information on how to handle a particular occurrence of an infraction.

However, I consider it fully legal to have an agreement for instance that all insufficient bids shall be accepted

[lamford]

pran, on 2013-October-14, 09:54, said:

Yes, this agreement is so special and questionable (in fact I expect it to be ruled illegal if tried by any Law Committee) that indeed it should be pre-alerted in a similar fashion as is required for Highly Unusual Methods (HUM).

Nonsense. It would be regarded by anyone as common-sense bridge, an agreement you would expect to have with a strong pick-up partner.

And 40B3 states: The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity.

The EBU has not issued such an edict, so the agreement is legal.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2013-October-14, 09:44, said:

Yes, we are reading the same Law, but apparently one of us do not understand what it really says.

According to Lamford(?) Fluffy has had his attention been drawn to the irregularity because of some premature corrective action by the offender.

Because of this he claims that it is Fluffy's duty to call the director. This is indisputable if we must agree that attention really has been drawn.

BUT:

My point is that in a hypothetical situation when Fluffy is the only player who has noticed his own partner's irregularity he has no obligation to draw (the other players') attention to this irregularity (Law 9A4) and as a consequence neither can he have any duty to call the director.

The only logical conclusion from this in order to avoid any self contradiction in Law 9 is that it takes some explicit notification of the fact that an irregularity has occurred for attention to having been drawn to this irregularity. For instance a premature corrective action by the offender is itself not sufficient.

This law is perfectly coherent as written, without pretending that is says something different from what it actually says.

If you notice that your partner has made an insufficient bid, you're not obliged to draw attention to it, or to call the director. If, however, someone else calls attention to the insufficent bid, you (and everyone else) are now obliged to call the director.

If anyone makes an insufficient bid, and then attempts to make it sufficient, they have drawn attention to the insuffcient bid. Now you (and everyone else) are obliged to call the director.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2013-October-14, 01:45, said:

Did he say anything to indicate that he (knew he) had committed an irregularity or did he just (try to) change his call?

There is a difference!

(Note that at this time he has committed two different irregularities!)

I don't think it matters whether he knew he'd committed an irregularity. The act of changing his call drew attention to the IB. That's enough to invoke Law 9B1{a}.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-October-14, 09:54, said:

Yes, this agreement is so special and questionable (in fact I expect it to be ruled illegal if tried by any Law Committee) that indeed it should be pre-alerted in a similar fashion as is required for Highly Unusual Methods (HUM).

It is not really an agreement. It is just common sense that if partner has unexpected options, you give him a chance to have a look and decide.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2013-October-14, 09:44, said:

My point is that in a hypothetical situation when Fluffy is the only player who has noticed his own partner's irregularity he has no obligation to draw (the other players') attention to this irregularity (Law 9A4) and as a consequence neither can he have any duty to call the director.

The only logical conclusion from this in order to avoid any self contradiction in Law 9 is that it takes some explicit notification of the fact that an irregularity has occurred for attention to having been drawn to this irregularity. For instance a premature corrective action by the offender is itself not sufficient.

The law is flawed. "The director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." This does not say that the drawing of attention must obvious, or that all four players must have their attention drawn. It says that if any player has his attention drawn, by any means, the director must be called. That is almost certainly not the intention of the lawmakers — among other things it means that if dummy's attention is drawn to an irregularity, he must call the TD at once, even if the other three players don't realize there's been an irregularity. But the fact that the law is flawed does not mean that it says what you claim it says. In fact, it says just the opposite.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-14, 11:33, said:

The law is flawed. "The director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." This does not say that the drawing of attention must obvious, or that all four players must have their attention drawn. It says that if any player has his attention drawn, by any means, the director must be called. That is almost certainly not the intention of the lawmakers — among other things it means that if dummy's attention is drawn to an irregularity, he must call the TD at once, even if the other three players don't realize there's been an irregularity. But the fact that the law is flawed does not mean that it says what you claim it says. In fact, it says just the opposite.

It is clear, and not a flaw, that Dummy can only call for the TD if attention is drawn to an irregularity by someone else.

It is just plain looking for flaws to try to aver that an active player in the auction is somehow precluded from calling the TD for an irregularity because "proper attention" hasn't been drawn to it. Law 9 addresses calls for the TD when attention has been drawn. It does not stop a player from calling the TD when he observes an irregularity, unless that player is barred from doing so in another Law.

[blackshoe]

When one provision of law conflicts with another, the law as a whole is flawed.

"It is clear, and not a flaw, that Dummy can only call for the TD if attention is drawn to an irregularity by someone else."

Certainly. The question is not whether this is the case, but what constitutes "drawing attention to an irregularity" during the play period.

"[Law 9] does not stop a player from calling the TD when he observes an irregularity, unless that player is barred from doing so in another Law."

A more accurate and more concise phrasing would be "unless that player is dummy". Observing an irregularity neither asserts nor precludes that attention was drawn to it. So if dummy observes an irregularity, he cannot call the TD unless someone else draws attention to that irregularity. The problem is that some irregularities draw attention to themselves, or more precisely that some actions subsequent to an irregularity draw attention to that irregularity, without an explicit statement from a player doing the same.

Some people want the law to be administered as if it says "when a player (other than dummy) explicitly and verbally draws attention to an irregularity, the director should be called", but that is not what the law says.

[pran]

I have absolutely no problem with Law 9. To me it is quite clear that "drawing attention to an irregularity" means uttering words to the effect that an irregularity has occurred. Alternatively a player may act in a manner for which the obvious purpose is to draw such attention. He may for instance point specifically to a double preceding a second double or to a bid that makes a later bid insufficient.

But I do object to the assertion that for instance a premature correction of an insufficient bid itself automatically draws attention to that bid. Instead I will claim that the second bid is an attempt to change a call to be handled under Law 25.

If and when the director is subsequently called because of this irregularity he should, if attentive, discover that the correct Law for the situation is Law 27 even if nobody calls his attention to the fact that there was an IB.

With this understanding I cannot see any flaw in Law 9

[blackshoe]

Yeah, well, your problem, Sven, is that "drawing attention to an irregularity" does not mean "uttering words to the effect that an irregularity has occurred" or "acting in a manner for which the obvious purpose is to draw such attention".

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-14, 15:37, said:

Yeah, well, your problem, Sven, is that "drawing attention to an irregularity" does not mean "uttering words to the effect that an irregularity has occurred" or "acting in a manner for which the obvious purpose is to draw such attention".

And your problem is in believing the "drawing of attention" has any relevance to anyone except Dummy (or someone else precluded in some law I haven't found) from calling the TD.

[blackshoe]

Nope.

1. Anyone (except, for an irregularity during the play to which attention has not been drawn, dummy) can call the director at any time for any reason.
2. No one, except in cases involving Law 20F4 or 20F5, is ever required to call the director for an irregularity to which attention has not been drawn.
3. If attention has been drawn to an irregularity, all four players at the table including, during the play, dummy, are required by law to call the TD.
4. The question here is not who can do what when, but rather what "draw attention to an irregularity" means.

BTW, Item #3 above implies that the drawing of attention to an irregularity is relevant to all four players at the table.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-14, 18:42, said:

Nope.

1. Anyone (except, for an irregularity during the play to which attention has not been drawn, dummy) can call the director at any time for any reason.
2. No one, except in cases involving Law 20F4 or 20F5, is ever required to call the director for an irregularity to which attention has not been drawn.
3. If attention has been drawn to an irregularity, all four players at the table including, during the play, dummy, are required by law to call the TD.
4. The question here is not who can do what when, but rather what "draw attention to an irregularity" means.

BTW, Item #3 above implies that the drawing of attention to an irregularity is relevant to all four players at the table.

In an attempt to complete the thought consider the following:

W, a defender, has played and quitted the H7 to T3 [a spade trick]. When E distracts South, W removes the H7 from the discards [putting it in his hand] and substitutes a different card. Dummy calls the TD asserting that W called attention to his revoke. Has dummy committed an irregularity? No, dummy was not first to draw attention to the revoke- the withdrawing [by W] of the revoke card from the discards drew attention to the revoke. Was W required to draw attention to his revoke? No. but having done so he commits an infraction if the TD is not called.

The example of the 3D IB and then a change of call is exactly analogous. The changing of call draws attention to the IB; and failure to call the TD with regard to the IB is an infraction.

[pran]

Does leading to a trick draw attention to the fact that the player won the last preceding trick?

Does leading to a trick draw attention to the fact that it is a lead out of turn when the player did not win the last preceding trick?

Does discarding a heart draw attention to the fact that the player has revoked by not following suit with a heart in the last preceding trick? - several tricks ago?

Exactly where do you folks draw the line between when an action draws attention to something and when it does not?

[campboy]

IMO the line should be drawn at the point where a player has done something which makes it clear not only that the irregularity has happened, but that everyone is now aware of it. I think you need this extra strength because it does not make sense to require players to call the TD if someone else's attention has been drawn to an irregularity but they themselves are unaware of it, and I don't think it makes sense to say attention has been drawn unless the players know that attention has been drawn. This is also more consistent with other laws: if you become aware of partner's unintentional irregularity you are not required to do anything unless attention has been drawn, so obviously you can become aware of it without attention being drawn.

So in the original case I think it is now obvious that there was an irregularity and everyone knows about it, so attention has been drawn. In your second and third case above (in the first there has been no irregularity) even if I notice it is quite possible that others have not, so attention has not been drawn. It is also not clear that it makes sense for an irregularity to draw attention to itself (other than the irregularity of saying "this comment is gratuitous").

[pran]

campboy, on 2013-October-15, 03:58, said:

IMO the line should be drawn at the point where a player has done something which makes it clear not only that the irregularity has happened, but that everyone is now aware of it. I think you need this extra strength because it does not make sense to require players to call the TD if someone else's attention has been drawn to an irregularity but they themselves are unaware of it, and I don't think it makes sense to say attention has been drawn unless the players know that attention has been drawn. This is also more consistent with other laws: if you become aware of partner's unintentional irregularity you are not required to do anything unless attention has been drawn, so obviously you can become aware of it without attention being drawn.

So in the original case I think it is now obvious that there was an irregularity and everyone knows about it, so attention has been drawn. In your second and third case above (in the first there has been no irregularity) even if I notice it is quite possible that others have not, so attention has not been drawn. It is also not clear that it makes sense for an irregularity to draw attention to itself (other than the irregularity of saying "this comment is gratuitous").

My first example is of course no irregularity, I deliberately included it because it is still an event to be aware of.

I believe that we essentially do agree: Attention to some event has not been drawn unless all four players at the table apparently (and obviously) has become aware of it.

Actually I read Law 9A1 to say that attention to an irregularity can only be drawn by a player specifically addressing that irregularity, not implicitly by some action taken without explicit reference to the irregularity.

If the latter were the case law 9A3 would be superfluous and effectively suspended because attention to irregularities could be argued implicitly having been drawn by a subsequent action regardless of how explicitly this action referred to the irregularity.

Now when a player changes (or tries to change) his call : Is it (automatically) clear to all the other players that he does so because of a previous irregularity (e.g. IB)? To me it is not unless there is also some utterance to that effect. What is clear is that there is a Law 25 case in progress, but so far no attention has yet been drawn to the previous Law 27 case.

This is highly technical, but watching technicalities is very important in all legal cases.

[bixby]

On the question of whether changing an IB necessarily draws attention to the irregularity:

I would agree with Pran that in theory a player could change an IB to another call in a way that would not constitute drawing attention to the irregularity, but would, rather, constitute a second irregularity. However, in practice, at least in my experience, a player who notices his own IB and attempts to change it without calling the Director almost invariably begins by gasping or saying "oh!" or making some gesture of surprise, which calls attention to the irregularity. So I think this discussion is about a very unlikely occurrence.

If, somehow, a player, in perfect silence and with no change of expression, made an IB and then replaced it with a different call, I would say that that does not by itself call attention to the IB, because, as Pran pointed out earlier, a player might do the same thing if his first call had been legal.

But as I say, that almost never happens. Players who notice their own insufficient bids generally can't help but show surprise in a way that calls attention to the irregularity. There is no requirement that the "calling attention" be done using words.