[billw55]

Well, the thread title says "at the club". We all know how well the proprieties are observed in this setting. Jilly has had a few words about it.

Probably, this west is in the group of "experienced at club but does not play tournaments". That is likely why he knows so little of the laws.

[TimG]

My guess would have been that it was inappropriate for North to call the director and tell the table there had been MI during the auction. North likely came to the conclusion based upon his hand and telling this to the table gives his partner information, it seems to me that there would be no danger of NS providing UI to each other if the call waited until the completion of play.

But, I could be wrong about the proper time to call. The director should have made it clear in his ruling whether North had called at an inappropriate time or not. West will either have been informed by the director that North has done nothing unethical or will have witnessed the director explain proper procedure to North. Either way, he should let the matter rest.

Any claim by West that NS have acted unethically should be met with a director call rather than a retort. Let the director take care of it.

[BunnyGo]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-November-14, 08:20, said:

Nitpick:

W should have announced what the bid systemically showed not that he didn't have diamonds (he could be 4540 in theory) and this should be pointed out to him.

I always find this most difficult when I actually incidentally have what partner indicated I had as well as what I showed, and I feel I'm throwing opps off the scent by giving them the correct system info.

I find that many (most?) people in this world do not understand counterfactuals.

[blackshoe]

Hm. Interesting. During the auction period, any player may draw attention to any irregularity that may have occurred, unless prohibited by law (Law 9A1). During the play period, again unless prohibited by law, declarer or either defender may call attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period (Law 9A2, emphasis mine). So it may be illegal to call attention, during the play period, to an irregularity that occurred during the auction period. If this is true, I wonder how many directors are aware of it. It didn't occur to me until I just read those two laws again.

I suspect that the table director did not consider it wrong to call when north did, though perhaps, as someone suggested, ill-advised. It may not have occurred to a club director that North may have been providing UI to South.

Whatever the director did or did not say before he left the table, West had no business going on about North being "unethical". He's made his concerns known to the TD, now he should shut up.

Yes, NS shouldn't argue, they should just call the TD (call him back, since he was there already).

[Bbradley62]

TimG, on 2012-November-14, 14:42, said:

North likely came to the conclusion based upon his hand

We don't know this. It could have been when declarer showed out of trump.

[blackshoe]

Bbradley62, on 2012-November-14, 16:01, said:

We don't know this. It could have been when declarer showed out of trump.

Indeed. In which case there is no UI from N to S. Or rather, any inference from what N said can only confirm what S already knows (or should know, unless he's been asleep).

[BunnyGo]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-14, 15:54, said:

Hm. Interesting. During the auction period, any player may draw attention to any irregularity that may have occurred, unless prohibited by law (Law 9A1). During the play period, again unless prohibited by law, declarer or either defender may call attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period (Law 9A2, emphasis mine). So it may be illegal to call attention, during the play period, to an irregularity that occurred during the auction period. If this is true, I wonder how many directors are aware of it. It didn't occur to me until I just read those two laws again.

I suspect that the table director did not consider it wrong to call when north did, though perhaps, as someone suggested, ill-advised. It may not have occurred to a club director that North may have been providing UI to South.

Whatever the director did or did not say before he left the table, West had no business going on about North being "unethical". He's made his concerns known to the TD, now he should shut up.

Yes, NS shouldn't argue, they should just call the TD (call him back, since he was there already).

Is the irregularity of not correcting the lack of alert part of the auction or play period?

[blackshoe]

BunnyGo, on 2012-November-14, 17:28, said:

Is the irregularity of not correcting the lack of alert part of the auction or play period?

It depends. If the OS are declaring, the correction should occur during the auction period (after the final pass, but before the opening lead is chosen). If the OS are defending, the correction should occur after the play period is completed. If the player who mis-explained subsequently (to his mis-explanation) realizes that he has done so, the correct should occur immediately upon that realization, whenever it occurs. The laws do not say so, but presumably if his partner has already corrected the MI, his own correction is no longer needed. IAC, if the correct time for correction of partner's failure to alert or other MI has not arrived, no irregularity has occurred if no correction has been made.

[Trinidad]

One could argue that:
- declarer should have corrected before the opening lead
- when he did not do that, the opening lead was made and the play period started
- now declarer was aware that MI had been given
- declarer still didn't correct it
- this is an infraction during the play period
- that North noticed and called the TD for at trick 6

Rik

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-14, 15:54, said:

Hm. Interesting. During the auction period, any player may draw attention to any irregularity that may have occurred, unless prohibited by law (Law 9A1). During the play period, again unless prohibited by law, declarer or either defender may call attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period (Law 9A2, emphasis mine). So it may be illegal to call attention, during the play period, to an irregularity that occurred during the auction period. If this is true, I wonder how many directors are aware of it. It didn't occur to me until I just read those two laws again.

What North is certainly allowed to do half way through the play is obtain an explanation of the opponent's calls in the auction, whenever it is his turn to play (L20F). If he is saying "there has been MI" as a rather crude way of saying "I'd now like a correct explanation of 2D please", that's perfectly OK, if unfortunately phrased. If he's not really interested in a correct explanation of 2D, and wishes only to point out an irregularity by the opponent, he could have left that, and would have done better to leave that, to the end of the play.

[bluejak]

iviehoff, on 2012-November-15, 03:39, said:

What North is certainly allowed to do half way through the play is obtain an explanation of the opponent's calls in the auction, whenever it is his turn to play (L20F). If he is saying "there has been MI" as a rather crude way of saying "I'd now like a correct explanation of 2D please", that's perfectly OK, if unfortunately phrased. If he's not really interested in a correct explanation of 2D, and wishes only to point out an irregularity by the opponent, he could have left that, and would have done better to leave that, to the end of the play.

Maybe. But how is he to know that, in the face of advice to call the TD immediately he becomes aware of MI?

[barmar]

billw55, on 2012-November-14, 11:46, said:

Probably this is accurate, although it was not clear (to me, at least) from the wording in the OP.

In this circumstance, I would say that west asked for information, rather than a ruling, because (seemingly) no score adjustment was at issue.

I think we're getting into semantics here. What I think West effectively asked for was for the TD to make a ruling. While South may have been happy with the table result, West thinks he was damaged by the UI exchanged between North and South. If he referred to this request as an "appeal", he may have been interpreting the TD's walking away without doing anything as equivalent to a ruling of "result stands". And I don't think this is unreasonable: someone must have called him back to the table because they felt rectification was required, and presumably it wasn't South. If it was West, he should have been given a chance to request a ruling before the TD walked away because South was happy.

[blackshoe]

Generally, when I am called to a table, the first thing I find out is who called. Then I ask that person why he called. If somebody else sticks his oar in, I tell him he'll get his chance later.

I've seen TDs walk away from the table prematurely for all kinds of reasons. Most often, those reasons are just wrong.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2012-November-15, 11:45, said:

I think we're getting into semantics here. What I think West effectively asked for was for the TD to make a ruling. While South may have been happy with the table result, West thinks he was damaged by the UI exchanged between North and South. If he referred to this request as an "appeal", he may have been interpreting the TD's walking away without doing anything as equivalent to a ruling of "result stands". And I don't think this is unreasonable: someone must have called him back to the table because they felt rectification was required, and presumably it wasn't South. If it was West, he should have been given a chance to request a ruling before the TD walked away because South was happy.

Yes, this is a plausible explanation of the events. It may have happened that way. Or it may not have; the OP was vague in regard to several of these points. I guess it is hard to give a correct answer when the circumstances are in doubt.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2012-November-15, 08:04, said:

Maybe. But how is he to know that, in the face of advice to call the TD immediately he becomes aware of MI?

The advice would appear to be good about 99.999% of the time. I don't think we need lose sleep over it.

[Fluffy]

Maybe its my latin nature, but I don't find any of south's words to be worth even a lecture about his choice of words, he had just been ofended at the time he said them.

[blackshoe]

Fluffy, on 2012-November-16, 06:49, said:

Maybe its my latin nature, but I don't find any of south's words to be worth even a lecture about his choice of words, he had just been ofended at the time he said them.

The fact that he was offended does not give him carte blanche to give offense himself.

[barmar]

Depends on whether you're Jewish or Christian.

Old Testament: An eye for an eye
New Testament: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Also, turn the other cheek.

[Sjoerds]

hmmm.... a little focus on North. What about this ruling?


The fact that north asks for the TD looks like MI for me. Saying something like: "partner they don't have a ♦-fit; let's get them down for a number"
The table result was 2♦-3. I would like to know the sequence of playing to see if -2 or -1 is LA.
And thus consider a AS.

All talking about unethical I would ignore for the moment and rule accordingly to my findings from above.

[ahydra]

Sjoerds, on 2012-November-16, 12:24, said:

The fact that north asks for the TD looks like MI for me. Saying something like: "partner they don't have a ♦-fit; let's get them down for a number"
The table result was 2♦-3. I would like to know the sequence of playing to see if -2 or -1 is LA.
And thus consider a AS.

You mean North is passing UI to South? This was my opinion also - he should wait until the end of the hand - but can an experienced TD tell us whether a TD call and the ensuing discussion legally constitutes UI? My guess is that it doesn't, but that does open up a few possibilities for using TD calls to pass information...

ahydra