[jillybean]

I am called to a table after the North opens 1C

1♣ 1♠ 1♥. Director!

I explain what options West has Law 27A 27B. Like most players, West's eye's glaze over when the Director reads Law27.
West looks at his more experienced partner for advice to which I say, this decision must be made without input from your partner. (Is this correct?)
West choses to allow the insufficient bid and I return to my table.

2 minutes later West comes back and tells me that he has decided not to allow the insufficient bid.
So I go back to the table , the 1♥ is corrected to 2♥, I advise North he must not take any UI fromt he insufficient bid being corrected etc and the auction continues.

Later in the game, a different EW pair arrive at my table. East, obviously having overheard the Director Call tells me "I think 'you' deliberatley make these rules complex and confusing, it's a power thing'.

I offered the player my copy of the laws, open to Law27. They said they would read it at the break.

[mycroft]

Oh it's more confusing than that.

They think "oh, just make it sufficient" is both an option and an order. The IBer also knows that "I'll just make it sufficient". With no worries about the other call, whether the bid should be 4♠ instead of 4♥ (even though the IB was 2♥), or... They all get very upset if anyone suggests that isn't right, or maybe we should have the director help with it, because "we all know".

I start with the 25A dance. Assuming they didn't pull the wrong card, "if it is to your advantage, you can accept this call and make any legal call 1♠ or higher, pass or double. If not, we will go back here and we'll give him his options."

Obviously, if LHO wants to know what the options are, I'll tell them (in broad terms). But those that are in the "you just do this to be confusing" camp don't care.

If not accepted, then I'll usually take them away to find out what auction they thought they were bidding, and what calls they can make that are "lowest showing same denomination" or "comparable." Then I'll come back and explain what calls will let the auction continue normally and which will bar partner.

Then they can make the call, and we go from there.

You are correct that partner can not assist in the choice to accept (10C2).

Now, even more confusing (but only for you, not the players): the withdrawn call is UI (16C2), but the fact that they might have had to fudge their call to avoid partner passing *is not*. Law 16 does not apply (27B1a) (or b, but "comparable call" is such that there shouldn't *be* any UI). Instead, you get 27D, which boils down to "if they got to a contract they couldn't have got to without the IB...the director should award what would have happened had the IB not occured". Note that is very different from the "carefully avoid" and "Logical Alternative" benchmark of Law 16.

Please note: I have never, in 7 (17, in IB cases) years, adjusted a score via 27D (or its equivalent in 23C). In November I had a hand where I thought about it more than "no, it's okay". This Just Doesn't Happen. But telling them there is more UI than there is will cause them to self-select calls that are not the legal best for their side.

In this specific auction, note that double (if it's negative, promising hearts) is considered comparable and allowed despite 27B3 (see the exception). If they play negative free bids, however, where it's hearts or a strong hand, then it's not.

Confused yet?

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2025-February-08, 16:26, said:

Confused yet?

I completely missed 25A

I think still confused? is more appropriate. It's getting clearer, thanks.

[pescetom]

I think you did ok overall, but am disturbed by:

jillybean, on 2025-February-08, 15:04, said:

West choses to allow the insufficient bid and I return to my table.

No attempt to gain any high ground, but one of the many reasons I have always refused to be a playing Director is to avoid situations like this.
As Director, no way would I ever leave the table at this point.
If I had to do so,and West tried to change his mind 2 minutes later, you can guess what I would say, and it's maybe not what I should say... in any case I would not be happy. It's an interesting legal point though.

[jillybean]

I would not be a playing Director if I had a choice.
I was registered to play with a friend in this small, 8 table game and was asked to Direct when the regular Director abruptly quit the day before the game.
You can bet the players were not thrilled when I turned up with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

[mycroft]

I'm disturbed by "a couple of minutes later". Was she really thinking that long about her call and whether she should accept it? That's a whole other problem.

But yes; "you'll accept? Okay, make your call" and *when they do*, "finish the hand, please. Thank you for calling".

For many reasons (but I wouldn't have thought of "a couple of minutes later, she comes to me and says she doesn't want to accept it". That's a new one on me. A few seconds, sure). Including 1♦-2♥-1♠ (Director, I'll accept) 2♣ "but that's not allowed, her partner bid 2♥", which I have heard more than once, despite my "...can accept, and make any legal call 1NT or higher, pass or double..." line.

[jillybean]

At the stage West said they would accept the IB, I said ok, just bid as normal (or something like that) and left the table. 1-2 minutes later they came to my table and said they had changed their mind.
I don't know what happened. I would hazard to guess that East persuaded West to change the decision. I was not going to make a point here, at this game, my first time as Director but you can be sure I will stay at the table in future.

[pescetom]

I would certainly always stay there at least until they made their call. As a non-playing Director I would hang around longer, because accepting an IB is rare (in my experience at least) and I want to figure out what is going on and whether it evolves legally. I also have the complication that my RA forbids agreements based upon an infraction by opponents, unlike ACBL.

[jillybean]

This game is largely self ruling, I need to tread lightly.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2025-February-09, 07:14, said:

This game is largely self ruling, I need to tread lightly.

I've played in one like that, know what you mean. They never dreamt of asking me to direct, quite possibly related to the occasion when as an opponent I refused to let the organiser change his played card.

[axman]

jillybean, on 2025-February-08, 15:04, said:

I am called to a table after the North opens 1C

1♣ 1♠ 1♥. Director!

I explain what options West has Law 27A 27B. Like most players, West's eye's glaze over when the Director reads Law27.
West looks at his more experienced partner for advice to which I say, this decision must be made without input from your partner. (Is this correct?)
West choses to allow the insufficient bid and I return to my table.

2 minutes later West comes back and tells me that he has decided not to allow the insufficient bid.
So I go back to the table , the 1♥ is corrected to 2♥, I advise North he must not take any UI from the insufficient bid being corrected etc and the auction continues.

Later in the game, a different EW pair arrive at my table. East, obviously having overheard the Director Call tells me "I think 'you' deliberatley make these rules complex and confusing, it's a power thing'.

I offered the player my copy of the laws, open to Law27. They said they would read it at the break.

W penalized 1H by accepting it. At this point everyone has one action per turn.

2 minutes of contemplation by W motivates wanting to penalize 1H again. This 2 minutes of information is a communication to partner (which behaves as a turn- now there is' more than one action' per turn) and W still has not called.

the TD is summoned the second time now ruling W gets to penalize 1H a second time which W does. (Having previously condoned 1H there is no (longer an) infraction by S to penalize.) However, compelling** S to withdraw 1S 1H and substitute a call...and when S does so, S has changed a call subject to 25B which now can be penalized.

** in contravention of law

In other words, the retroactive 'canceling of the first penalty' was improper (as well as) miscarriage of justice.

In golf I believe there is a contest called best ball. This is why it ought not be the case for bridge.

This post has been edited by axman: Yesterday, 19:10

[jillybean]

You sound like a lawyer. However, I think I understand what you are saying.

Clearly my mistake, in future I will stay at the table. If they have me back.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-February-09, 13:41, said:

You sound like a lawyer. However, I think I understand what you are saying.

It's more like a low-level dialogue with a computer, and yet I was good at assembler but struggle with axman all the same
I think he is saying that:
1) West cannot change his mind after saying "I accept", but not making any call
2) the huge delay by West suggests punishment.
As I confessed earlier I would probably tell West that he already decided and cannot change his mind, but I can already hear blackshoe asking me where the Laws say that (and mycroft arguing reasonably that 2 minutes are different from 2 seconds).
I agree that the huge delay (which I would never have allowed to occur) transmits UI, but I am always willing to let peers tell me what it suggests.

[mycroft]

pescetom, on 2025-February-09, 03:44, said:

I also have the complication that my RA forbids agreements based upon an infraction by opponents, unlike ACBL.

The ACBL is actually the poster child for "you may not have agreements about actions after an infraction by opponents"(*), which all the BW Eexxperts complain is ludicrous, how dare they restrict us? And how can we not have them, implied at least?

Please note: I do not necessarily disagree with the BW Eexxperts here. But I played in the ACBL for decades during the "you can't have an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton, but we all know there are hands...So as long as you don't notice your partner's or your actions, or heaven help you, ever talk about it, you can use judgement to actually do it" regulation. So I'm used to "legally not knowing anything":-).

(*) As in, the option is in the Law Book because the ACBL members of the WBFLC wouldn't accept the change if the option weren't available...at least, that's the rumour.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2025-February-09, 16:15, said:

As I confessed earlier I would probably tell West that he already decided and cannot change his mind, but I can already hear blackshoe asking me where the Laws say that (and mycroft arguing reasonably that 2 minutes are different from 2 seconds).

It would never have occurred to me to ask that question in this case. On the contrary, I would agree with "you made your choice, you're going to have to live with it", though I do have some sympathy for Jilly's concerns about the culture of this game -- particularly if she wants to continue to play there, much less direct. Though I would personally not worry too much about it. If they don't want the lawbook in their game, I probably don't want to be there anyway.

I also agree that even a playing director should stay at the table until West calls over 1♥.

[jillybean]

I could see using "you made your choice, you're going to live with it" with a few of the local players around here, but not at this club

[mycroft]

As a non-playing director, I will stay until the issue is resolved. They don't want me staring at them during the play, usually, and I should get them to call me back at the end of the hand most cases (like suspected established revokes). I'm happy to stay through the auction to see if there might be a 27D case to look at. I'm happy to stick around for potential 26 lead restrictions. ...

I mean, I might have to leave them in the "90% done" part, explaining that I will be back, because I'm the only director on the floor and I have two other calls to get to, or a change to finish managing, or. But I stick around until I'm not needed.

As a playing director, that is still my goal, and if it means we lose a board, or have to play more quickly than is good for my game, or have to remember the play 3 times as I keep coming back to it, then that's what it means. I will, however, abandon more hands at the "90% done" part - "Call me back if [OS] end up defending" or "Call me back if [partner of MPC] is on lead"; I will also try to avoid learning too much about a hand I haven't played yet (because it's not fair to my opponents, whether it's "I know something, but it won't matter", or "we need to play this hand where I have the North cards", or "we can't play this hand, I know too much. A+, but you get a 1-board sitout"), so there will be calls where I will say "I've heard the issue, I'll look at it for damage. I won't be able to look at it for a few rounds, though, so score it as it played for now."

In time, your feel for when a ruling is "done" will improve. Like in all things, "Good judgement comes from Experience. Experience comes from Bad Judgement."