[Ranmit]

This should be a very common occurrence, but need some clarification:


North mistakenly overcalls 2c over 1nt instead of 2d. Agreement is Majors (Multi-Landy), but N felt 2c showed single-suited. South alerted the bid and when asked, explained it as majors, as per the agreement. South subsequently bid 2H, since he had 3 hearts and 2 spades and therefore preferred hearts over spades. Full bidding:

---

[Edited to add]: N's hand, to the best of my recollection, was something like ♠xx ♥KQJxxxx ♦Kx ♣Kx.

North had 7 hearts and 2 spades. He did not clarify anything during / after the bidding. When his hand was revealed after the opening lead, opponents protested - stating that they missed 4S because the 2c bid was supposed to show N having at least 4 spades.

• Is N supposed to inform opponents about the mistake after the bidding, before the lead?
  
• Are opponents allowed to correct their bids?
  
• If N's mistake is revealed as he puts down dummy, and opponents call director (claiming they had 4S), what is the correct ruling, and what is the relevant law?

[pescetom]

What is the EW agreement about X of 2C showing majors?
Had 2C been single suited, what would have been the meanings of Pass, XX, 2D and 2H after the X?
Did N do anything that might suggest he was uncomfortable with the explanation of 2C or the bid of 2H?
What demonstrates that the agreement was Multilandy?

[Ranmit]

pescetom, on 2024-December-13, 11:33, said:

What is the EW agreement about X of 2C showing majors?

East's partner mentioned it (not very convincingly) as showing more points, which South interpreted to mean the higher end of the NT range.

pescetom, on 2024-December-13, 11:33, said:

Had 2C been single suited, what would have been the meanings of Pass, XX, 2D and 2H after the X?

Not sure how to interpret this question: Are you asking the meanings of S's possible bids if N had bid 2d (single-suited as per agreement) and E had doubled? S would say: "Pass would probably be the default response, since there is now no obligation to relay to 2H (N will anyway get an opportunity to bid his own suit). Other bids are probably natural (though specifically 1NT --2c X responses are undiscussed). Redbl prob shows clubs, but is well into undiscussed territory."

pescetom, on 2024-December-13, 11:33, said:

Did N do anything that might suggest he was uncomfortable with the explanation of 2C?

No

pescetom, on 2024-December-13, 11:33, said:

What demonstrates that the agreement was Multilandy?

Again, not sure I understand this q. There is no written convention card (A casual club event, none of the teams had one). South can offer as evidence the bidding 12 boards ago, on a different table with different opponents, where he had overcalled 2c over 1NT with 5-4 in the majors, and North had correctly alerted it as majors. Whether those opponents remember how the bidding went to corroborate this claim is not known.

[smerriman]

Suppose the agreement was that 2♣ is single suited, and South alerted it as such, then bid 2♥ as in the actual sequence. Might North have bid any differently with his actual hand?

If so, you have a problem, as he's not allowed to. If not, then generally you're allowed to misbid, and nobody gets to find out.

[Ranmit]

smerriman, on 2024-December-13, 12:19, said:

Suppose the agreement was that 2♣ is single suited, and South alerted it as such, then bid 2♥ as in the actual sequence. Might North have bid any differently with his actual hand?

Are you saying that South's explanation of 2♣ as majors was potentially UI and 'alerted' partner that he had misbid - and that this is the only potential problem here?

N claims that he realised the misbid almost immediately after making it - but even if that is dismissed as cheap talk, I am not sure how he would have bid differently if he hadn't heard South's explanation? Do you, as directors, feel the bidding sequence would be different but for the UI?

[smerriman]

Yes, the alert is UI. If South freely bids hearts and North has 7 of them, then raising 2♥ might have been an option. If it is, then North is not allowed to pass whether they immediately remembered or not, since that's definitely indicated by the UI. But this could only be answered by knowing North's hand.

[Ranmit]

smerriman, on 2024-December-13, 12:48, said:

Yes, the alert is UI. If South freely bids hearts and North has 7 of them, then raising 2♥ might have been an option. If it is, then North is not allowed to pass whether they immediately remembered or not, since that's definitely indicated by the UI. But this could only be answered by knowing North's hand.

N's hand, to the best of my recollection, was something like ♠xx ♥KQJxxxx ♦Kx ♣Kx. The minor Kings might be discounted given that he is sitting under the 1NT (15-17) bidder.
Would you see this hand going above 3♥, without the UI (knowing one opponent has a 1NT opening bid)?

An argument can also be made that he would have been alerted to the mistake by South's 2♥ bid anyway, even without the UI (There are only so many hearts in the deck, and the 1NT opener has also promised some)?

How would you rule?

[blackshoe]

Ranmit, on 2024-December-13, 10:57, said:

• Is N supposed to inform opponents about the mistake after the bidding, before the lead?
  
• Are opponents allowed to correct their bids?
  
• If N's mistake is revealed as he puts down dummy, and opponents call director (claiming they had 4S), what is the correct ruling, and what is the relevant law?

1. When your side declares, if there has been (or you think there has been) a mistaken explanation, you must first call the director, and when the director arrives, correct the explanation. You do this after the final pass of the auction, and before the opening lead is chosen. If the explanation during the auction was correct, you do not correct it. A defender does not correct a mistaken explanation until after the play. Laws 20F5 and 75B.

2. That will be up to the Director. Called at the end of the auction, he might allow the last opponent who called to change his final pass if the director judges that that call was affected by MI and that the player might have chosen a different call. Law 21B.

3. Given that the explanation given by South was correct (both majors) the director will rule "play on, call me when you have a result". Since a misbid is not an infraction of law, the only question here is whether North either failed to carefully avoid using the UI from his partner's explanation (Law 73C) or that the call that he chose (here 3♥) was suggested over some logical alternative by the UI (Law 16B3). In either case, if the TD judges that an infraction resulted in advantage to the offending (declaring) side, he will adjust the score (Law 16B3, Law 12).

FWIW, on the facts as I understand them, I would rule "result stands" per the laws quoted above.

[mycroft]

WARNING: High mycroftese here (i.e. long, complicated, potentially leaving you more confused than before). But also note that *a lot* of digressions have been ignored - this could be pages longer yet. Believe it! and thank your local Director, who has to actually understand this.

You are entitled to (what you can remember of) your system, the bids and plays made at the table, and the *agreed* meaning of calls made by your opponents. Almost anything else you get - from any source - is extraneous, and if it's from partner, it's unauthorized (*).

You may not make calls [ed: demonstrably] suggested by unauthorized information, although you may be required to use it in other cases (**). If North should have taken another call after the "correct" (to his mind) explanation and a 2♥ call from partner (which should say "I don't care what your suit is, I want to play hearts!"), and didn't, then we may adjust the score (12C) based on use of Unauthorized Information (16C). But the OP isn't asking about that - and many players and directors forget to look. One of mycroft's axioms: "All misinformation cases are unauthorized information cases."


Explaining the reasons for pescetom's questions:

• "What is the EW agreement about X of 2C showing majors?" and "Had 2C been single suited, what would have been the meanings of Pass, XX, 2D and 2H after the X?" We need to know their agreement (and if there is significant difference between the double of a Landy 2♣ and a "one-suited" 2♣) to understand how hard it would be to find their spade fit. If after "one-suited", if double is still "cards", double of 2♥ passed is takeout, it might get there; but if it's Stayman, then it might be easier.
  
• "Did N do anything that might suggest he was uncomfortable with the explanation of 2C or the bid of 2H?" If so, then South also has unauthorized information that North might have forgot, which might influence his call(s). It might turn out that 2♠ by E-W would have been doubled by South looking at his 3 spades and partner's 4, and we're awarding +lots70 rather than +x20.
  
• "What demonstrates that the agreement was Multilandy?" This is the big one. The Laws differentiate between forgets and misexplanations, and between deliberately and accidentally violating system. If South's explanation is their correct agreement, and they have evidence pointing to that overcoming any evidence that it's single-suited, then North misbid. If not, then South misexplained their agreement.

Now, the answer to that last question (which is something the director must determine) determines the answers to the OP's questions. The main law dealing with this is Law 75, "MISTAKEN EXPLANATION OR MISTAKEN CALL"


If their agreement is actually Multi-Landy, then North misbid, and:

• "Is N supposed to inform opponents about the mistake after the bidding, before the lead?" No (75C). The oppponents are entitled to the N-S agreement, which they have correctly received. As a result:
  
• "Are opponents allowed to correct their bids?" No, there was no infraction. In fact, unless the regulatory authority has disallowed it (40B2a5), there would be no infraction if North looked at his single-suited heart hand and decided, deliberately, to bid it as "both majors". It's a psychic call, and provided South is no less surprised than E-W, psychics are legal (40C1).
  
• "If N's mistake is revealed as he puts down dummy, and opponents call director (claiming they had 4S), what is the correct ruling, and what is the relevant law?" "You were given the correct explanation as to their agreement, score stands." (75C again)

Now, if their agreement is that 2♣ is single-suited, then South misexplained, and:

• "Is N supposed to inform opponents about the mistake after the bidding, before the lead?" Yes, as he is going to be dummy (75B3) (***). Again, the opponents are entitled to the N-S agreement, but this time they have not correctly received it. As a result:
  
• "Are opponents allowed to correct their bids?" No, with the exception of the last pass by their side (21B1a). However, the director should take arguments (in the ACBL, away from the table before play; other RAs have different strategies, but in all cases, no information should be allowed to be passed between defenders until after a result is determined) about differences in the auction with the correct information. Here's where Pescetom's questions about E-W's defences are also asked by the director.
  
  After the hand, the director should explain what they have been told about E-W's agreements and desired actions, and with that and their own judgement (and those of who they consult with), determine the likely contract(s) with the correct explanation. If those would lead to a better score for E-W than that achieved at the table, the director shall award that score instead (21B3 leading to 12C. I'm not going into details of what score to assign, as this is getting way too long already. and that truly is in the weeds of Director Sorcery).
  
• "If N's mistake is revealed as he puts down dummy, and opponents call director (claiming they had 4S), what is the correct ruling, and what is the relevant law?" "You were misinformed, and North failed to correct the explanation before the opening lead. We can't take the auction back, but we will discuss alternative actions, and potentially a different opening lead. Play the hand as is, however, and call me back if you believe you were damaged." Note: the director should use their judgement (and that of those they consult with) independently of the damaged side; if they believe E-W were damaged, they should adjust even if E-W do not call them back. (21B3 again, but more so, 75B3 and other sections, all leading to 12C again)

(There's a third case, which comes up very rarely, but it does come up. If South realizes during the auction that they actually play 2♣ as "one-suit" rather than "majors", then they must call the director and correct the information no later than the end of the auction (immediately on realizing is better) (75B2). The same thing as above happens; the last call by E-W can be replaced, previous calls affected by the misinformation will be analyzed for an adjusted score,...)


Now, not everything can be unambiguously determined on one side of the barrier or the other. The director has to keep several Laws in mind as they determine which of those two categories apply:

• Law 21B1b: "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." This means that if North's card says "one-suited" and South's says "both majors", or somehow otherwise the Director has doubts as to whether their agreement actually is what South said, they should rule Mistaken Explanation.
  
• Law 75D "Director's Determination". Several statements in here apply:
  • 75D2: "It is a condition of any partnership agreement that both players possess the same mutual understanding, and it is an infraction to describe an agreement where the same mutual understanding does not exist." If it's written on page 63 of the notes that were changed Wednesday by South and passed to North Thursday, and this is the Friday game and North didn't notice the change, they don't have the "new" agreement. Same could apply to "yeah, we changed it last week, but I forgot".
    
  • 75D3: "If the Director determines that the call has no agreed meaning, an adjusted score is awarded based upon the likely outcome had the opponents been so informed." This applies to "South said it was Multi-Landy, but they actually didn't discuss it and South (mis-)guessed", and also to "We play M-L, but we switched from Cappelletti last month and partner has forgot more than once" and other "actual agreements". Note that here, the director determines their actual agreement (e.g. "We don't have an agreement against 12-14 NT, but 15-17 it's M-L", or "We switched to M-L last week, but used to play Capp", or...), and rules based on how the auction likely would have gone had that been explained at the time, not automatically "I can't prove it's M-L unambiguously, therefore you should have been told 'one-suit'."

Yes, it's a common situation; one of the three most common "judgement rulings" situations in the game (the other two being "equity" revokes and "faulty" claims). None of these (nor any other judgement rulings) are simple; some are top-tier complicated. Some even do not have solutions that are unequivocally correct. Some are too complicated for a regular club director to get even close to right - but they can get 90% there, 90% of the time, with care and interest, and frankly, that's good enough for a director with good social skills to keep the game moving, the players happy(ish), and coming back. But they all boil down to:

• What is their actual agreement? Were the opponents misinformed, or did the player just misbid?
  
• If they were misinformed, can we fix the auction, or do we have to do an adjustment (or both)?
  
• If they were misinformed, was the misinformation corrected at the right time, or does that need to be looked at during the adjustment as well?
  
• IMPORTANT: were the non-offending side damaged? If 3♥x goes for 800, it doesn't matter that 4♠ makes, does it?

(*) One of the rare exceptions is that you can use *any* information you receive, including statements of partner, to realize that the call you put on the table is not the call you intended to make (Law 25A). But that's not a change of mind.
(**) For instance, if you are woken up to your system by partner's Alert or explanation, you must explain partner's calls according to your actual system, even if you must also bid as it would mean in the system you thought you were playing when you made your call.
(***) If they were defending, say 3♠ by East, then North would have to remain silent until the end of the hand, so as to not aid South's defence. This is important to know, and another common source of Unauthorized Information. But this post is too long as it is, so I'm not going to go into it. Just know L73C/L16 leading to L12 if UI was "used".

[Note: I have to go learn about responses to 2♣ and 2♦. Will review this later and there may be minor edits. M]

[Ranmit]

Thanks for the detailed post!

mycroft, on 2024-December-13, 19:07, said:

• Law 21B1b: "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary."
  

This is interesting - what would you consider sufficient evidence for Mistaken Call (ie, that their actual agreement was Multi-Landy)? There was no printed convention card at the table (by any team). N-S can offer:
1. A 10 page google doc systems card, stating Multi-Landy. (Edit history of this doc shows this agreement was neither recently added nor changed from Capellati in the past, to address the other points you raised). Obviously, they cannot prove that this is indeed their final agreement and that no other doc has superseded this subsequently.
2. N-S can point to a board played earlier that very session, but on a different table and with different opponents, where S had overcalled 2♣ over 1NT with 5-4 in the majors, and North had correctly alerted it as majors. But it may be that those opponents do not remember specifically how the bidding went to corroborate this claim.

mycroft, on 2024-December-13, 19:07, said:

The Laws differentiate between ..., and between deliberately and accidentally violating system...

This part is again very interesting (Though a bit off-topic: In the actual case N did not deliberately misbid). If North deliberately misbid - then it becomes a psyche bid right? So as long as N does not do it frequently enough for it to be an implicit partnership agreement, how would the ruling be different if it was established here as deliberate instead of accidental? (And as an aside, how would one ever establish this as deliberate vs accidental, unless N-S have done it multiple times in the past?)

mycroft, on 2024-December-13, 19:07, said:

IMPORTANT: were the non-offending side damaged? If 3♥x goes for 800, it doesn't matter that 4♠ makes, does it?

Yes - All other tables made 4S. 3H X just went down 1.

mycroft, on 2024-December-13, 19:07, said:

If North should have taken another call after the "correct" (to his mind) explanation and a 2♥ call from partner (which should say "I don't care what your suit is, I want to play hearts!"), and didn't, then we may adjust the score (12C) based on use of Unauthorized Information (16C)

This is what SMerriman implied as well. Given the facts of the case here, would you rule that the bidding would be different, but for the UI?

[mycroft]

Ranmit, on 2024-December-13, 20:31, said:

This is interesting - what would you consider sufficient evidence for Mistaken Call (ie, that their actual agreement was Multi-Landy)? There was no printed convention card at the table (by any team). N-S can offer:
1. A 10 page google doc systems card, stating Multi-Landy. (Edit history of this doc shows this agreement was neither recently added nor changed from Capellati in the past, to address the other points you raised). Obviously, they cannot prove that this is indeed their final agreement and that no other doc has superseded this subsequently.
2. N-S can point to a board played earlier that very session, but on a different table and with different opponents, where S had overcalled 2♣ over 1NT with 5-4 in the majors, and North had correctly alerted it as majors. But it may be that those opponents do not remember specifically how the bidding went to corroborate this claim.

I would say that is sufficient evidence that it was a forget. I'd be happy with the "got it right earlier", frankly.

But 10 pages of google docs and no CC? Even in ACBL clubs that are - lax - with requiring cards, that is uncomfortable to me. If you do enough work on your system that you have 10 pages of notes, the stuff that is "not normal" should be on a card for the opponents to look at. Additional advantage: the director can look at it when you claim you misbid!

Quote

This part is again very interesting (Though a bit off-topic: In the actual case N did not deliberately misbid). If North deliberately misbid - then it becomes a psyche bid right? So as long as N does not do it frequently enough for it to be an implicit partnership agreement, how would the ruling be different if it was established here as deliberate instead of accidental?

Well, some RAs exercise their right to disallow psyching artificial overcalls. If you play in one of those, and the director determines it was deliberate, then it's a violation of the Law, and adjusted however the RA decides playing an illegal system should be adjusted. The ACBL is one such; our regulations say that use of a disallowed agreement is adjusted *if there was damage that would not have existed with an allowed agreement*, and a penalty is assigned to the offender if they are experienced enough to know better (and a warning and a good explanation as to why if they are not). But note: the ACBL devolves many regulatory rights (including the right to regulate conventions) to their clubs, and the clubs are allowed to do what they see fit when faced with a psychic Artificial Overcall.

If the RA doesn't have an issue with this psychic, then there is no difference between deliberately and accidentally misbidding. But yes, these kinds of psychics (especially if they are successful) *rapidly* become "implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods" (to quote the Law) and, not only do we now have a disclosure issue (because their agreement is "both majors, unless he decided to psych with only one again", but they'll never *say it*) but also a potential system regulation issue (in the ACBL, *any* meaning for 2♣ over 1NT is allowed. Other RAs, or other overcalls, might not be allowed with "this or that").

Quote

(And as an aside, how would one ever establish this as deliberate vs accidental, unless N-S have done it multiple times in the past?)

Frankly, usually by asking the bidder. In spite of what many believe (of their fellow players, *never* of themselves, of course), most players, when asked a question, do not deliberately lie (and most directors get good at noticing the kind of equivocation or BS that players use when they don't lie, but don't want to tell the truth). Some, in fact, are quite proud of psyching, especially when it works (my last-but-one straight up psych was definitely one such. When the director asked me what 1♥ was, I said "psych. We're about 20 down in this match, and RHO decided to make fun of my partner's name after taking her for 800." My last psych, I would also have been equally honest about, had anyone asked (it was against the best pair in the room and my good friends, and they took it completely in stride. It also was a wash)). It's also how we start trying to determine "over 1NT, did you intend to bid 1♥ (thinking it was sufficient) or 2♥ (and pulled the wrong card)?"

Quote

Yes - All other tables made 4S. 3H X just went down 1.

Sure. But the director always has to check. We don't (usually) *penalize* in bridge (and when we do, it does not accrue to the non-offending side); we only adjust the score when there was damage. Just because someone did something wrong doesn't automatically lead to an adjustment.

Quote

This is what SMerriman implied as well. Given the facts of the case here, would you rule that the bidding would be different, but for the UI?

Without the hands, and the knowledge of the players and their skill levels, that's not a judgement I can or will make. But it is something I would look at, and possibly poll peers of North about if I could. Note that one of the reasons I won't pass judgement on this question is that the Law does reference "peers of the player"; and even if they played at my level (and not significantly below *or above* it), I am not a peer of a player who isn't a director, because I know the Laws and the restrictions under UI (and, frankly, alternatives that might be made without UI) more thoroughly than most.

[blackshoe]

Mostly agree with Mycroft, though I have a couple of minor nits.

"You may not make calls suggested by unauthorized information"

What law 16 actually says is that if you have UI and that UI demonstrably (IOW it should be pretty obvious) suggests a call you might want to make over some other call, and that other call is one that might be made by some of your peers, then you can't make the call suggested. Better, IMO, for players is Law 73C, which says you must carefully avoid taking advantage of any UI you might have. So if you have any thought that maybe your chosen call is influenced by UI, don't make that call

(Quoting Law 21B1b) "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

What this means is that if there is any evidence that it was a mistaken call, the director can't just "presume Mistaken Explanation" he has to investigate and, in the end, use his judgement to decide which it was. Which I guess is what Mycroft said. I think. :-)

Mycroft is right that this isn't a simple ruling. I should have moved it to the other forum already. I'll do so now.

[johnu]

Ranmit, on 2024-December-13, 10:57, said:

opponents protested - stating that they missed 4S because the 2c bid was supposed to show N having at least 4 spades.

Really? The opponents were willing to play 1NT passed out if North didn't balance? Really, how do they expect to get to 4♠ after that start? And then East bid spades without hearing a peep from West, and West never supports spades?

[Ranmit]

Thanks everyone for your responses! I understand the relevant laws for this situation now. We were N-S on this board (Though I have tried my best to be objective while presenting the facts).

For those curious - the director was called after the opening lead. Our opponents were perhaps more - vocal - in presenting their case. I (as S) did mention though that I bid clearly based on my understanding that 2♣ was majors, and I had a valid 2H bid (more hearts than spades). However, the director decided to rule 60-40 in their favor. This was the second-to-last board of the event, so after we played out the final board we appealed to the club organizer, who asked another player X to weigh in (X is a very experienced player).

X heard both sides and then - politely - asked the director on what basis he had awarded 60-40. She then said that the board should definitely have been played out and (since it wasn't) looked at the hands and ruled 3♥X - 1. I felt it was easier for her to make the ruling than the next 5 minutes which she had to spend explaining to our rather disgruntled opponents why she did so (to her great credit, she very patiently did).

[sanst]

Ranmit, on 2024-December-14, 22:54, said:

Thanks everyone for your responses! I understand the relevant laws for this situation now. We were N-S on this board (Though I have tried my best to be objective while presenting the facts).

For those curious - the director was called after the opening lead. Our opponents were perhaps more - vocal - in presenting their case. I (as S) did mention though that I bid clearly based on my understanding that 2♣ was majors, and I had a valid 2H bid (more hearts than spades). However, the director decided to rule 60-40 in their favor. This was the second-to-last board of the event, so after we played out the final board we appealed to the club organizer, who asked another player X to weigh in (X is a very experienced player).

X heard both sides and then - politely - asked the director on what basis he had awarded 60-40. She then said that the board should definitely have been played out and (since it wasn't) looked at the hands and ruled 3♥X - 1. I felt it was easier for her to make the ruling than the next 5 minutes which she had to spend explaining to our rather disgruntled opponents why she did so (to her great credit, she very patiently did).

This 'director' - it's obvious that he is not familiar with the Laws - belongs to the 46/60 school. If you don't know what to decide, give 40/60%, 60% for the pair that makes most noise, is most outspoken in it's indignation or is the oldest/most experienced pair.
Next time, have your CC on you, though don't expect this director to know what to do with it .

[mycroft]

Directors of the Wolff "convention disruption" school would treat this trivially as "your lack of remembering your disruptive convention made a 'normal' result on the hand impossible" and award A+/A- as the director did.

There's a reason "convention disruption" is a problem, but not in the Lawbook as an infraction of itself.

Directors of the "I don't understand Law 16 at a professional level, because frankly it comes about 86th in my 'skills to improve to ensure my 8 table game doesn't go down to 5'" school, will say "your side caused the problem, I can't tell if it's Mistaken Call or Mistaken Explanation, I'm to rule misexplanation, too many possibilities after that, award A+/A-" as well. They may not know what they're doing; they may not be able to quote their logic the way I did to make it Lawful; they may not worry about it much either.

The answer to those directors (*) is my standard 3: "become a better director than they are, offer to run games, and show how it's done", "find another game; possibly including one you run yourself, which collapses to the previous joke answer", or "suck up non-tournament-level directing at non-tournaments: accept the ruling, thank the director, and play the next hand." The first and last of which, as a (low, but not lowest by any means) tournament-level director, who doesn't get to play in many tournaments (and most often when he does, is playing fill-in on his sessions off), I get to do *a lot* if I actually want to play bridge. So I sympathize.

As North, I'd be accepting A- on this hand (especially if the auction is correct and you talked them out of their +120 into a +100 that "should have been" +420!) just to avoid any discussion on "so, I showed a 1-suited hand, and partner said 'don't care, want to play [your 6-card suit]'. How many tricks can the 1NT-on-stiff-honour opposite void take, and how high should I bid now?" Even if it turns out there was no use of UI for a player "at your level", or the AI from the auction made it "obvious" that partner doesn't have a mittful of hearts, or "oh, but we play Paradox Responses to partner's 'one-suit', she is happy in 3♦ if I have those", or...

More sympathize though - "he said he had spades, so we didn't look for our 8-card fit with a known 4-1 break. We've never made game when that happens." That is one of the reasons that more aggressive overcall systems against 1NT work!

(*) Besides "well, I didn't complain when he awarded me A+ on that other hand, and it was the same 'flawed' logic".
(**) Okay, *I* wouldn't usually; I don't want to win because rulings against me *are both not legal and better for me than the legal one* either. I have at least 3 hands as evidence of that, none of which (I think) I've posted here.

[blackshoe]

There's a fourth option to your three, Mycroft: appeal the incorrect/illegal ruling. It probably won't get you anywhere at a club, and maybe not at a sectional or regional, but at least you go on record as disagreeing with the director without arguing with him/her at the table.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2024-December-16, 11:12, said:

There's a fourth option to your three, Mycroft: appeal the incorrect/illegal ruling. It probably won't get you anywhere at a club, and maybe not at a sectional or regional, but at least you go on record as disagreeing with the director without arguing with him/her at the table.

And without the Organiser publicly casting doubt upon the Director he appointed, which I find unacceptable.

[mycroft]

At a tournament, obviously you request a review from the DIC (or if the DIC gave the ruling/is the only TD, maybe immediate appeal) and appeal if necessary.

In a club, especially a club where "everyone should just Play Bridge and leave the Lawyering to those nasty tournament players", that's a great way of getting A Reputation (and everyone from your opponents to the ownership on one side. Yours? Go ahead, guess), and after a few of them, a quiet request to Find Another Game, as this one is clearly Not For You. Even if it doesn't get that drastic, you will be very lonely in your righteousness.

Which, again, reduces to the previous joke.

If the owner is the director is one of the "A+/A- solves all ills" people (who go hand in hand with the "since everyone got to 4♠, you weren't damaged when they did" ones, another one where We get to Suck It Up. Here, you don't get the "letter of the Law wrong" protection, it's a judgement ruling, and that's her judgement...), then there's nowhere to appeal *to*. Just know there are those out there who are still ruling 1997 revoke law and 2007 BooT law, for whatever reason...

Do I like this fact? Look to the left of this post and guess. Is it a fact? No, just my opinion, man. Go ahead and ignore it if you want.

[mycroft]

Note: I am speaking from a strange place, at least in the ACBL. I Do Not Want to Own a Club. I hate the accounting nonsense, the promotion game (as an introvert, that's almost torture), the "remember to do this every year in November", and all the little things that makes owning a club so much fun. So my experience club directing is almost completely "one of several directors for a large club". I have a lot of experience being One Of The Directors calling the TD when I'm playing; I have a lot of experience playing in Owner-directed clubs (almost always they know who I am, playing in my sectionals as they do); I do not have much experience being and owner-director. So, as always, ICBW, I don't see it like others do.