[pran]

PeterAlan, on 2012-November-28, 12:10, said:

Removed: hasty reply with flaw I've recognised.

Too late, I already answered.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-28, 12:21, said:

So many irregularities…

1. Inadmissible double…
2. Out of turn.
3. "Accepted" (by the next player, West, bidding over it).
4. A "completed" auction in which East never called. Was East even at the table? Okay, maybe "never" is too much - the OP does say the auction ended "all pass". It just boggles my mind that a player would not notice and object when his LHO "steals" his chance to call.

The basic question in the OP is "do we let the result stand?" having had our TD attention called to the problem after the play was completed. The attitude of most people wrt club games seems to be "get a result, score it, don't worry about the fine points". The attitude of most people wrt to tournament bridge (and more so perhaps at higher levels) seems to be "make sure the laws are followed". I don't particularly like that differentiation — I think the laws should be followed at all levels, and I don't see anything in the laws that suggests we should ignore them to "get a result". Now, we have a result, but it was obtained after an illegal auction. I don't think we should let it stand. If we aren't going to let it stand, we presumably must award an adjusted score. I don't think the result obtained was "normal" (since the auction was illegal) so I have no problem with an ArtAS, considered NS directly at fault. As for EW, are they "in no way at fault"? It doesn't seem so to me, but technically, the thing they didn't do was to call attention to the irregularity when it happened, and that's not illegal. So can we call them "directly at fault" or "partly at fault"? And if the latter, can NS still be "directly at fault" or must they also be called "partly at fault"? I'm tempted to rule both sides "directly at fault", but I'm not sure that's justified. OTOH, I don't want to let NS off the hook, even a little bit (by calling them only "partly at fault"). That leaves "directly" for NS and "partly" (or "not at all", which isn't really true, it seems to me) for EW.

I bet most of the club directors around here would rule "too hard, give 'em 'not played'".

Thanks for your comments, I consider your summary well taken.

But I am a bit concerned with the part that I have enhanced in red:
- Is it your opinion that any result obtained after an illegal auction shall be cancelled and replaced by an ArtAS?
- Should such cancellation depend on the Director's judgement whether the result is "normal"?

As we have several Laws on various types of "illegal auctions" (irregularities) explicitly stating that play shall be completed in a contract that most likely will be anything but "normal" I cannot agree with your suggestion that the mere fact of an illegal auction shall void the board.

The distinction between club play and (higher level) tournament play is irrelevant (sorry) as this is supposed to be (part of) a test for candidates to high level Director authorisation.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-November-28, 13:03, said:

Thanks for your comments, I consider your summary well taken.

Thanks.

pran, on 2012-November-28, 13:03, said:

But I am a bit concerned with the part that I have enhanced in red:
- Is it your opinion that any result obtained after an illegal auction shall be cancelled and replaced by an ArtAS?
- Should such cancellation depend on the Director's judgement whether the result is "normal"?

As we have several Laws on various types of "illegal auctions" (irregularities) explicitly stating that play shall be completed in a contract that most likely will be anything but "normal" I cannot agree with your suggestion that the mere fact of an illegal auction shall void the board.

No, that's not my opinion. As you say, there are cases where the laws tell us that play shall be completed. This case is different, and it involves an inadmissible call. I think that last part's important.

Absent clarification from a relevant authority as to the meaning in the laws of "normal play", I think we have no choice but to rely on TD judgment.

pran, on 2012-November-28, 13:03, said:

The distinction between club play and (higher level) tournament play is irrelevant (sorry) as this is supposed to be (part of) a test for candidates to high level Director authorisation.

I only mentioned it because at least one poster seemed to want to rule on the basis of what I described as the attitude in clubs.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-28, 13:15, said:

[...]This case is different, and it involves an inadmissible call. I think that last part's important.[...]

Except that we have no indication of an unreasonable contract being reached, caused by the irregularities during the auction?

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-November-28, 13:20, said:

Except that we have no indication of an unreasonable contract being reached, caused by the irregularities during the auction?

We have no real indication either way. I think we'd have to see the hands.

Suppose the players just decided to let West (or whoever) play in a 1NT contract, without any bidding at all. Say it's the likely contract had there actually been an auction. Result stands? What law?

[PeterAlan]

pran, on 2012-November-28, 12:37, said:

The test form has not yet been issued.

I was approached by the author (a senior and very experienced director) who to his surprise had not found any law that seemed applicable so he asked for my opinion.

We discussed the situation and agreed that I should post a poll here. Although not a common situation it could very well occur and thus is a good test for a candidate seeking high level authorisation.

Of course the Director should have been called at the time of the irregularity, but we all know that players simply go on, either because they did not notice that there was an irregularity or because they just did not care at the time.

A qualified director should be able to handle also such cases properly, and in order to do so he must sometimes be able to "see behind the plain words of the laws" and understand what is meant by "objectives".

Pran, I'd prepared quite a lengthy reply, but cut it when the thought in my last sentence occured to me; I quickly posted what you quoted and went to the shower. Then I remembered the words "and all subsequent calls", which meant that if Law 36 was fully applied the route I was suggesting couldn't work, so came back to remove the post.

Where does that leave us? If we apply Law 36 literally then we're left in complete limbo: we have an incomplete auction, waiting for a bid from E that will not now come, and a hand that's nevertheless been fully played out by the participants in a NT contract. As you say, this isn't practical and can't be the right answer. On the other hand, following my earlier hasty suggestion and forgetting about "and all subsequent calls" isn't really satisfactory either.

What I had originally written (and was going to review before posting) was as follows; I've adapted it slightly in view of your remarks.

Since calling the Director and sorting things out at the time didn't happen, there are a number of possibilities.

First, and as the facts are apparently not in dispute:

Law 84 said:

LAW 84: RULINGS ON AGREED FACTS
When the Director is called to rule on a point of law or regulation, and the facts are agreed, he rules as follows:
A. No Rectification
If no rectification is prescribed by law, and there is no occasion for him to exercise his discretionary powers, he directs the players to proceed with the auction or play.
B. Law Provides Rectification
If the case is clearly covered by a Law that prescribes the rectification for the irregularity, he determines that rectification and ensures that it is implemented.
C. Player’s Option
If a Law gives a player a choice of rectification the Director explains the options and sees that the choice is made and implemented.
D. Director’s Option
The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a nonoffending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12).

(Can we agree that this Law applies, without quibbling about the "called to rule" phrase? After all, the Director has the responsibility for rectifying "an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner" (Law 81C).)

It's hard to see that the case is "clear" enough for B to apply, and it's impossible to wind the board back to any point where C might. Nor is A relevant, I think (but if you differ then the table result stands). So we're operating under D, Director's discretion applies and there's no single right answer.

I note also that, if there were some dispute about facts, we have

Law 85B said:

B. Facts Not Determined
If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue.

Second, I think that there is considerable scope for deciding to rule that the result should stand, especially as both sides have materially contributed to the problem. To start with the legal basis there's:

Law 11A said:

LAW 11: FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO RECTIFICATION
A. Action by Non-Offending Side
The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. ...

There's also the practical matter that the players appear to have been happy with the contract and no-one's suggesting there were any other problems (from UI or MI for example). I'd be reluctant to give much weight to comparisons with results at the other tables if the players at this one had arrived where they did in the genuine belief that they were playing where they intended.

If, on the other hand, the Director decides not to leave the table result undisturbed, then it seems to me that (s)he should if possible assign an adjusted score, reflecting the likely outcome(s) had the double and all subsequent calls been cancelled and the auction reverted to E, rather than cancel the board:

Law 12 said:

LAW 12: DIRECTOR’S DISCRETIONARY POWERS
A. Power to Award an Adjusted Score
On ... his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so ... . This includes:
...
3. The Director may award an adjusted score if there has been an incorrect rectification of an irregularity.
...
C. Awarding an Adjusted Score
1. (a) When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play.

Finally (for this post) I note that there seems to be a mild conflict between Law 32:

Law 32 said:

LAW 32: DOUBLE OR REDOUBLE OUT OF ROTATION
A double or redouble out of rotation may be accepted at the option of the opponent next in rotation (see Law 29A), except that an inadmissible double or redouble may never be accepted (if offender’s LHO nevertheless calls see Law 36).

which purports to cover all inadmissible doubles made out of rotation, and Law 37:

Law 37 said:

LAW 37: ACTION VIOLATING OBLIGATION TO PASS
A. Offender’s LHO Calls before Rectification
If the inadmissible call was a bid or a double or redouble by a player required by law to pass (but not an action contrary to Law 19A1 or Law 19B1) and offender’s LHO calls before the Director has ruled on rectification, that call and all subsequent calls stand.

Should the inadmissible (re)doubles referred in Law 32 be limited to those which are inadmissible because of Law 19?

[pran]

PeterAlan, on 2012-November-28, 15:40, said:

[...]
Should the inadmissible (re)doubles referred in Law 32 be limited to those which are inadmissible because of Law 19?

To begin with this question: YES - although law 32 lacks reference to Law 19 it is clear from other laws applicable to doubles and redoubles that the term "inadmissible" refers to the definition implied in Law 19. Thus a double or redouble out of turn is not "inadmissible" if the last call other than pass before the double was a bid made by an opponent or last call other than pass before the redouble was a double made by an opponent.

The main problem in this Director's test situation (as I have already pointed out in a previous post) is the fact that not only has an auction been completed but play on the board has started (and in fact also completed).

Law 36 makes sense only within the auction period, once play has started in an apparently sensible contract we feel that the main objectives of the laws are best met by allowing the play. There is an obvious exception when for instance the "contract" is doubled by the declaring side or redoubled by the defending side due to a double or redouble out of turn, but that is not the case here.

As I suppose is apparent from the poll alternatives we feel that the most relevant alternatives are using Law 11 and let the obtained result stand or using Law 36 to the extreme and rule the board unplayable.

[blackshoe]

PeterAlan, on 2012-November-28, 15:40, said:

Should the inadmissible (re)doubles referred in Law 32 be limited to those which are inadmissible because of Law 19?

Yes. Those referred to in Law 37 might well be legal under Law 19. If they are, then I would not apply Law 32 to those.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2012-November-28, 16:06, said:

As I suppose is apparent from the poll alternatives we feel that the most relevant alternatives are using Law 11 and let the obtained result stand or using Law 36 to the extreme and rule the board unplayable.

What your poll seems to have overlooked is the crucial issue of whether there was damage, which is odd because what we do about many common irregularities that became fait accompli (MI, abuse of UI) come the end of the hand crucially depends upon whether there was damage. I think it is correct that damage should be assessed in relation to what would have happened if the irregularity had not occurred, not in relation to what would have happened if the irregularity had been properly rectified at the time. Though in this case I expect it makes little difference, since W having called following the inadmissible double the auction is simply wound back and proceeds without restriction.

If there was damage, we have Law 23, though Law 23 has a "rub of the green" aspect that S has to be able reasonably to predict that making a double, if unrectified, could well be to his advantage. Some irregularities, if unrectified, are clearly things always likely to work to the player's advantage without regard for the exact situation. But this one would need some regard to the exact situation to make that decision.

It is clear to me that EW are not offenders. They are not required to draw attention to an irregularity. Ultimately it seems to me quite wrong to construe that a player committed an irregularity simply by playing on after the other side's irregularity.

Arguing over whether W committed an irregularity by "accepting" an inadmissible double is just a game with words. "Acceptance" comes in two forms, explicit acceptance when the director gives one the option of it, and implicit acceptance when a player simply ignores an irregularity and carries on, in which case the law sometimes "deems" that one accepted something. If the director offers you an acceptance, and you accept, then we can say you accepted. But "deemed" acceptances are different. Arguably since an inadmissible double may never be accepted, we could say that we can hardly deem that such an impossible acceptance occurred.

[campboy]

pran, on 2012-November-28, 13:03, said:

Thanks for your comments, I consider your summary well taken.

But I am a bit concerned with the part that I have enhanced in red:
- Is it your opinion that any result obtained after an illegal auction shall be cancelled and replaced by an ArtAS?
- Should such cancellation depend on the Director's judgement whether the result is "normal"?

As we have several Laws on various types of "illegal auctions" (irregularities) explicitly stating that play shall be completed in a contract that most likely will be anything but "normal" I cannot agree with your suggestion that the mere fact of an illegal auction shall void the board.

If we are using this argument then an "illegal auction" is not merely one which contains an irregularity. Most illegal calls may be accepted and once accepted they are treated as legal (see 27A1). But auctions which contain inadmissible doubles can never be treated as legal.

[Zelandakh]

campboy, on 2012-November-29, 05:08, said:

If we are using this argument then an "illegal auction" is not merely one which contains an irregularity. Most illegal calls may be accepted and once accepted they are treated as legal (see 27A1). But auctions which contain inadmissible doubles can never be treated as legal.

Nor redoubles - and yet there are examples of these being accepted in high level competition. It seems we have 2 potential rulings - either the hand is spoiled and we award an adjusted score; or we rule that both sides waived their right to rectification by not calling the Director at the proper time and the result stands. So perhaps we should consider under which circumstances one ruling (perhaps all) might be preferable over the other. For one thing, I would certainly like to ask East how they failed to notice the auction bypassed them!

[campboy]

We have two potential rulings, yes, but they are mutually exclusive. If it is legal to rule that 11A means the subsequent play was normal then we must do so: there is a ruling which permits normal play so 12A2 does not apply. If the 11A ruling is not legal then 12A2 does apply and we award an artificial adjusted score of some sort.

The problem is that the arguments put forward for the two positions both have merit and it is not clear which is correct. I don't think it is helpful to talk about when we prefer one or the other; in the absence of clarification from the RA or WBF each TD needs to decide which ruling he or she thinks is legal and then consistently rule in that way.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-28, 12:21, said:

The basic question in the OP is "do we let the result stand?" having had our TD attention called to the problem after the play was completed. The attitude of most people wrt club games seems to be "get a result, score it, don't worry about the fine points". The attitude of most people wrt to tournament bridge (and more so perhaps at higher levels) seems to be "make sure the laws are followed". I don't particularly like that differentiation — I think the laws should be followed at all levels, and I don't see anything in the laws that suggests we should ignore them to "get a result". Now, we have a result, but it was obtained after an illegal auction. I don't think we should let it stand. If we aren't going to let it stand, we presumably must award an adjusted score. I don't think the result obtained was "normal" (since the auction was illegal) so I have no problem with an ArtAS, considered NS directly at fault. As for EW, are they "in no way at fault"? It doesn't seem so to me, but technically, the thing they didn't do was to call attention to the irregularity when it happened, and that's not illegal. So can we call them "directly at fault" or "partly at fault"? And if the latter, can NS still be "directly at fault" or must they also be called "partly at fault"? I'm tempted to rule both sides "directly at fault", but I'm not sure that's justified. OTOH, I don't want to let NS off the hook, even a little bit (by calling them only "partly at fault"). That leaves "directly" for NS and "partly" (or "not at all", which isn't really true, it seems to me) for EW.

There was a bridge result. An "abnormal" one? Well, maybe, but I think that any result that was achieved as a consequence of arriving at an agreed contract and playing it to an agreed number of tricks is "normal" for the purposes of L12.

In England the (correct) interpretation of L12 is that an artificial adjusted score is not permitted when a result has been obtained. At all levels of the game.

Quote

I bet most of the club directors around here would rule "too hard, give 'em 'not played'".

Also considered illegal in England.

[billw55]

iviehoff, on 2012-November-27, 05:39, said:

One possibility is to rule under Law 11A, in which case result stands. The director has discretion to rule that the right to rectification may be forfeited when the non-offending side takes action subsequent to the irregularity. The rectification that has been lost is the undoing of the inadmissible bids and the subsequent auction. Thus the auction stands.

mink, on 2012-November-27, 10:53, said:

"May never be accepted" means all what follows is not an auction, no contract can be established, the card play is pointless and no result can be achieved. So I adjust according to Law 12C2a. N/S get A-. I would ask E/W what had been going on in their minds and award some artificial score depending on their answers and their experience with the Laws.

Either of these approaches sounds reasonable to me.

I am also interested in who called the director and why, and if anyone is claiming damage.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2012-November-29, 07:25, said:

I am also interested in who called the director and why, and if anyone is claiming damage.

I was wondering the same thing. Then I remembered that this is just a hypothetical from a director test.

I guess it could be something like at the end of the hand, one of the players realizes that the auction was messed up, and decides to call the director to clear things up. There's also the law that says that the director should resolve irregularities that he becomes aware of by any means -- maybe he overheard the post mortem.

[iviehoff]

campboy, on 2012-November-29, 05:08, said:

If we are using this argument then an "illegal auction" is not merely one which contains an irregularity. Most illegal calls may be accepted and once accepted they are treated as legal (see 27A1). But auctions which contain inadmissible doubles can never be treated as legal.

I don't think "illegal auction" is a concept in the laws, and I don't think it is a very helpful idea. Let's stick to auctions which contain irregularities. Not every illegal call in an auctions that stands is being "treated as legal". Some illegal calls cannot be offered to the opposition for acceptance, yet they will routinely bid on after them, and are not deemed to be accepting them by doing so. This applies in particular to calls made with the illegal assistance of UI. Such calls stands as illegal calls that were part of the auction that occurred, and we look to adjust if they caused damage. Of course you have the formal appearance of a procedurally correct auction, but the call was still illegal.

By saying it is "an illegal auction", I don't think you mean any different from saying that the rectification for an auction that contains an inadmissible is to undo everything up to and including the irregularity. But we can't undo any part of an auction when we get into the play period, so there is a point at which this rectification can no longer apply. Law 11A admits the possibility that rectifications may be forfeited, so I don't think this is really such an intractible problem.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2012-November-28, 12:37, said:

A qualified director should be able to handle also such cases properly, and in order to do so he must sometimes be able to "see behind the plain words of the laws" and understand what is meant by "objectives".

The problem is that the word "never" in Law 32 is rather difficult to see past.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2012-November-29, 10:41, said:

The problem is that the word "never" in Law 32 is rather difficult to see past.

Right, but that ship has sailed, so the question now is how to move forward.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2012-November-29, 05:56, said:

We have two potential rulings, yes, but they are mutually exclusive. If it is legal to rule that 11A means the subsequent play was normal then we must do so: there is a ruling which permits normal play so 12A2 does not apply. If the 11A ruling is not legal then 12A2 does apply and we award an artificial adjusted score of some sort.

The problem is that the arguments put forward for the two positions both have merit and it is not clear which is correct. I don't think it is helpful to talk about when we prefer one or the other; in the absence of clarification from the RA or WBF each TD needs to decide which ruling he or she thinks is legal and then consistently rule in that way.

In the 11A case, ruling that "the play was normal" is all well and good — and I suspect in this hypothetical case the play was by definition perfectly normal — but it ignores the fact that the auction was not normal. It wasn't even legal. That said, I agree that in the end it's a matter of TD judgment — and for purposes of the TD test on which this question appears, that is the correct answer. I wonder - will test takers receive full credit only if they mention both possibilities and mention TD judgment? Or will the test makers pick one of the two and decide that's the only correct answer?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-29, 06:24, said:

There was a bridge result. An "abnormal" one? Well, maybe, but I think that any result that was achieved as a consequence of arriving at an agreed contract and playing it to an agreed number of tricks is "normal" for the purposes of L12.

Really? Why have an auction then? Just sit down, pull out your cards, and agree amongst the four players that "North will declare in 1NT".

Vampyr, on 2012-November-29, 06:24, said:

In England the (correct) interpretation of L12 is that an artificial adjusted score is not permitted when a result has been obtained. At all levels of the game.

I've heard that. I've always interpreted "result" as "normal result", not "any result at all". Can you provide evidence from your RA that the latter is their position?

Vampyr, on 2012-November-29, 06:24, said:

['Not played' is] Also considered illegal in England.

Far as I'm concerned it's illegal everywhere except when a board is removed from the movement for all players in the event. That won't stop club TDs around here from using it when they shouldn't - especially when they call ACBL HQ and talk to Butch Campbell, who tells them "that's what it's for!"