[blackshoe]

What ruling a director makes is up to him. I might not agree with it, but he's at the table. But for club management to instruct a director how to make a ruling? No, that's just not on.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2019-February-01, 23:47, said:

What ruling a director makes is up to him. I might not agree with it, but he's at the table. But for club management to instruct a director how to make a ruling? No, that's just not on.

You don’t seem to understand. Some of the directors would not even know what “comparable call” means. And most of them are not expert players.

Anyway you have seen from this thread that among people who do,know what “comparable call” means, there is little agreement on what constitutes one. I am definitely with Nigel on this one; rulings will be highly subjective and wildly variable.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2019-February-01, 22:44, said:

Maybe easier to understand this way:

An offender informs the director:

Insufficient call A would have had meaning M1 if it had been an opening bid, M2 if it had been an overcall, M3 if it had been a response with no intervening overcall, and M4 if it had been a response with an intervening double. Calls B, C and D would have meanings M5, M6 and M7 in the auction as it stands. Would any of these be comparable to call A?

Maybe the director needn't have reached this point. Look at the auction on the table ask some questions of the offender's partner about their agreements, consider what meanings might be "attributable" to the infracting call, decide which replacement calls will be considered comparable, offer to hear the offender away from the table if they think you have missed anything out.

In practice this is likely to be shorter to do than it was to write. Uncontested auction on the table: 2NT - 2D. "Do you play transfer bids in response to 2NT?" "Yes". "I will consider any call that shows diamonds or any call that shows hearts to be comparable. If you need to discuss this with me further or think I have missed something out, let's go away from the table. If it turns out you have gained from the infraction I can adjust afterwards."

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2019-February-01, 23:15, said:

What do you mean by equivalent provision? L23C or whatever it is now would of course apply.

I mean the same article or one with the same effect.
If that was already present then I can't see what the innocent side should complain about.
If it was the offending side complaining then they get little sympathy from me.

[sanst]

Vampyr, on 2019-February-02, 00:16, said:

You don’t seem to understand. Some of the directors would not even know what “comparable call” means. And most of them are not expert players.

Anyway you have seen from this thread that among people who do,know what “comparable call” means, there is little agreement on what constitutes one. I am definitely with Nigel on this one; rulings will be highly subjective and wildly variable.

I would say that Blackshoe understands it perfectly. Yes, there are quite a few poor directors, although most of them do the job to the best of their knowledge and abilities. And I completely agree with him that the club management should not interfere with his or her decisions. If there are complaints, that management should seek the advice of an experienced director or the RA and, if necessary, relieve that director of his duties. I had once a decision turned back by the president of the club, who wasn’t a director at all and didn’t ask me about it, so a quited directing there immediately. In the end my decision was upheld by the AC.
Actually, I’m in favour of a change of the law always allowing a change call in case of a IB or COOT without restricting the partner, but the TD should always afterwards decide whether the OS gained an advantage by the infraction and award an AS if necessary and give a PP when there was use of the UI from the call.
Rulings will always be variable. If you don’t want that, you should always cancel a board if there’s an infraction and decide A+/A-. That’s the way the law deals with minor traffic infractions over here: so much over the speed limit > that’s €xxx. Please, pay here. Only in highly exceptional circumstances you can go to court and make a successful appeal. I don’t think that’s the way we want to play bridge.

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2019-February-02, 04:22, said:

I mean the same article or one with the same effect.
If that was already present then I can't see what the innocent side should complain about.
If it was the offending side complaining then they get little sympathy from me.

Quite. It seems pretty clear that the change in the law was intended to mitigate the effect on the offending side.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2019-February-02, 10:03, said:

Quite. It seems pretty clear that the change in the law was intended to mitigate the effect on the offending side.

My understanding was that it was intended to reduce the random effects of requiring the offending side to guess their final contract, which not infrequently gave the non-offending side a poor result.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2019-February-02, 10:27, said:

My understanding was that it was intended to reduce the random effects of requiring the offending side to guess their final contract, which not infrequently gave the non-offending side a poor result.

Interesting.