[Trinidad]

VixTD, on 2015-March-10, 08:50, said:

In my experience of ruling in this sort of situation a lot of inexperienced EW players tend to panic and think they have to tell the director immediately if the failure to alert could have affected their action. I certainly don't approve of fining them, but neither do I think that the failure to alert caused them to speak to the director in private, and to rule that West's action is unauthorized to South just gives defenders an incentive to play these kind of tricks.

Though I don't necessarily agree 100%, this is a line of reasoning that I can buy.

But how about the call for the TD? Is that UI or AI for declarer? It makes a big difference whether LHO (the guy who just blew the opening lead) or RHO calls for the TD when the dummy comes down.

I do not want to give declarer the advantage of being able to read from LHO's TD call that he is probably unhappy about picking the wrong opening lead due to MI. He wouldn't have had that advantage if declarer had followed the Laws (by alerting in the first place), nor would he have had that advantage if dummy had followed the Laws (by calling the TD before the opening lead and correcting the explanation).

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2015-March-10, 11:27, said:

But how about the call for the TD? Is that UI or AI for declarer? It makes a big difference whether LHO (the guy who just blew the opening lead) or RHO calls for the TD when the dummy comes down.

This is why the current laws deprecate calling the director when dummy comes down. Wait until then end of the play. Of course, you might run across a director who thinks that you should lose your rights because you didn't call when dummy comes down. He's wrong, but what can you do? Aside from (at a club) voting with your feet, telling the club owner (who was probably also the director, at least in North America) why you're doing so. Or, at a tournament, telling the tournament chair "if this guy comes back to direct here again, I won't be playing, because..." and let the chair deal with that. In either case I expect the same thing will happen, i.e., nothing, but at least you'll have done what you could.

A TD call, btw, is AI. See Law 16A1.

[weejonnie]

Lanor Fow, on 2015-March-09, 16:04, said:

Weejonnie, perhaps I should have advised that speaking with me away from teh table wasn't a good idea, but given I failed to preempt the request, I didn't feel that having the conversation would make the situation worse than it being requested (and might help if I was called back on MI later). I'm not sure what you're suggesting I give E/W a PP for.

Blackshoe, thanks for sorting the diagram for me. Yes it was west I offered the final pass back to, not east. I've edited the post.

I am suggesting that E/W get a PP for an irregularity in procedure. e.g. 90A

The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws,
may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or
obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct
procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table.

Correct procedure is to call the TD at the correct time and explain the misexplanation. the TD, correctly gives the last pass back and offers to come back if EW feel they have been damaged. This procedure minimises the risk of EW giving/ receiving UI. But E 'stuck in his oar'.

TBH I think that once East has been misled then all you can do is to see whether the misleading information has resulted in EW being damaged. Personally I don't think so, since the double of 2D almost forces declarer to take the same line he did take. (I am not sure if the declarers polled were told about the TOD before they planned their play). If you can award split scores then you might give a small award to EW as a result of declarer playing for a correct Diamond guess. But that is a sop to Cerberus. It doesn't excuse the breach of correct procedure by asking to discuss the situation away from the table while the hand was still in play - with all the new UI.

[Lanor Fow]

I think regardless of the ruling, giving a player a PP for asking to speak to the director away from the table is incredibly harsh.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2015-March-10, 14:52, said:

TBH I think that once East has been misled then all you can do is to see whether the misleading information has resulted in EW being damaged. Personally I don't think so, since the double of 2D almost forces declarer to take the same line he did take.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that the damage is caused by the lack of opportunity to double 3D (not 2D). The damage was caused by the failure to alert leading to a TD call. The person who would have doubled 3D was correct to call the TD at that point. The TD call is authorised, but the drawing of the inference that he only called the TD because he wanted to double 3D is unauthorised, as is any guess as to why he asked the TD to speak to him away from the table. Both "arise from" the infraction of the failure to double. We have discussed "arises from" on here before, and the general interpretation of it was "would not have occurred but for" or similar. So, those who rule based one what would have happened had 3D been alerted are missing the point. The adjustment is because of the use of UI to make his contract; not because the play would have been different if 3D had been alerted and doubled. I can buy that this is not UI from partner, but then it is UI from another source, and the same ruling would apply. It still cannot be used by declarer as it did not "arise from" the legal provisions in the Laws.

[Aardv]

I think that unless the TD tells declarer before the play that West's actions are UI, it's unreasonable to rule against declarer for taking an inference from them.

Off topic, but is there any reason to prefer a club lead to a heart lead on this hand? (The auction at my table was 2S-4S.) It seemed harsh to me that we lost a vulnerable game swing for guessing the wrong suit (that's not exactly true, but the defence is much easier after a club lead).

[lamford]

Aardv, on 2015-March-10, 19:51, said:

It seemed harsh to me that we lost a vulnerable game swing for guessing the wrong suit (that's not exactly true, but the defence is much easier after a club lead).

It seems harsh to me that one is not allowed to have another bash at an opening lead after the first one fails. But rules is rules. I do agree that a TD should explain any relevant UI laws at the time.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-March-10, 19:38, said:

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that the damage is caused by the lack of opportunity to double 3D (not 2D). The damage was caused by the failure to alert leading to a TD call. The person who would have doubled 3D was correct to call the TD at that point. The TD call is authorised, but the drawing of the inference that he only called the TD because he wanted to double 3D is unauthorised, as is any guess as to why he asked the TD to speak to him away from the table. Both "arise from" the infraction of the failure to double. We have discussed "arises from" on here before, and the general interpretation of it was "would not have occurred but for" or similar. So, those who rule based one what would have happened had 3D been alerted are missing the point. The adjustment is because of the use of UI to make his contract; not because the play would have been different if 3D had been alerted and doubled. I can buy that this is not UI from partner, but then it is UI from another source, and the same ruling would apply. It still cannot be used by declarer as it did not "arise from" the legal provisions in the Laws.

Which law(s) are you applying?

[Lanor Fow]

Would it be relevant if the NOS were those who called the Director?

As Blackshoe often points out when MI is realised the director must be called. The NOS often doesn't do this if there is no damage (otehrwise we would have many more director calls) but if the OS don't call the director, as they are meant to do, and then take inference from the NOS calling to then make the contract is this them not taking advantage of the irregularity not only of their side not alerting, but also not calling the director when they were meant to?

I know that inmost MI cases there is no call from either side, but should the failure to do so from the OS lead to a ruling if it did affect things. We would apply such logic to other infractions not usually penalised such as use of the stop card. Whilst a director call might be authorised under 16a (which we discussed when I consulted on this) there is still 12A1.

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on 2015-March-10, 11:27, said:

I do not want to give declarer the advantage of being able to read from LHO's TD call that he is probably unhappy about picking the wrong opening lead due to MI.

On the other hand, if you say it is UI then declarer would have to chose the wrong line among logical alternatives, which is probably not what you want either.

[Lanor Fow]

ONly 16B talks about LAs, and 16B is UI from partner, which isn't applicable here IMO

[jallerton]

Lanor Fow, on 2015-March-09, 13:06, said:

The first call is made at the end of the auction, where east is asking if 3d should have been alerted. 3d is described as showing the honour outside spades. Firstly do you think this is alertable? At the table I said it was and offered West his final pass back. AT this point he asks (before I can stop him) to speak to me away from the table. Away from the table he says that he would have doubled 3d had it been alerted. Given he didn't want his pass back I instructed play to continue, and asked to be called back at the end if necessary.

At what point did East ask this question? Had West already made a lead face down? Or was it before the opening lead had been selected? Who called the TD?

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2015-March-11, 16:37, said:

At what point did East ask this question? Had West already made a lead face down? Or was it before the opening lead had been selected? Who called the TD?

I think there may have been some confusion over East and West here. I think West with ♦AQxx is more likely to have called the director before he led. It seem unlikely that the person opposite would have wanted to double 3♦. As the OP says, he is not that good with the hand editor, nor, it seems, with compass directions.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-10, 22:16, said:

Which law(s) are you applying?

16A3.

[Lanor Fow]

I do seem to get my east/wests wrong when posting. West called the director, not east

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-March-11, 16:54, said:

16A3.

Just 16A3? I don't think that's good enough.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-10, 10:48, said:

I think these comments are a bit unfair to Grattan, at least, and probably to Kaplan as well.

Is that because you think that:
- The wording of the Laws is generally fine, or
- The Laws are poorly worded, but it's not Grattan's and Kaplan's fault, or
- It is their fault but they had some other motives than those that Vampyr suggested?

[blackshoe]

Are those my only choices?

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-12, 02:29, said:

Are those my only choices?

if you have a different reason then presumably the answer to gnasher's question is "no".

[blackshoe]

WellSpyder, on 2015-March-12, 03:43, said:

if you have a different reason then presumably the answer to gnasher's question is "no".

That's a possibility.