[blackshoe]

I was going to do a "multiquote" but I decided quoting every message since my last is a waste of electrons, so I'll just ask one question: which law(s) specifically has North breached by calling the TD when he did?

[mycroft]

If he knows that 2♦ is a transfer, then probably none, at least until the TD arrived; then there was a lot of UI transmitted - and reasonable, but unwarranted assumptions about what partner was doing.
If he doesn't know, but is "almost certain", then also probably none, but when it turns out that 2♦ was not a transfer, now there's even more UI transmitted.

Having said that, what *legal* advantage does he have over doing it "right"? Especially given the legal advantage of doing it "right" I mentioned above. I can see the advantages he got at the table.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2013-May-30, 10:36, said:

I was going to do a "multiquote" but I decided quoting every message since my last is a waste of electrons, so I'll just ask one question: which law(s) specifically has North breached by calling the TD when he did?

 mycroft, on 2013-May-30, 10:58, said:

If he knows that 2♦ is a transfer, then probably none,

May I direct both of you to post #10.

[campboy]

 Vampyr, on 2013-May-30, 11:20, said:

May I direct both of you to post #10.

Both of them? Mycroft is certainly correct that if North knows 2♦ should have been alerted he is entitled to draw attention to the irregularity. You say in post 10 that North may not ask about opponents' calls at this point, which is true but irrelevant since according to the OP he did not ask, but just called the TD. Of course had he waited, asked at his turn to call, and found out about the failure to alert, then it would still be in time for South to change 2♥.

[blackshoe]

What Campboy said - and I was aware of post #10.

[gnasher]

When North asked that South be allowed to change his bid, he implied that he thought it might be sensible for South to do so - if South had overcalled 2♠, I doubt if North would have made the same request. I think that's communication, in breach of Laws 73A1 and 73B1.

If North had merely called the director and stated that he believed there had been a failure to alert, I think that would have been legal.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-May-30, 12:03

[Trinidad]

Given that this is a jurisdiction where it seems that the Laws are not important enough to follow, I can easily imagine that the TD came to the table not knowing what to do with the case. North just helped her suggesting that she should start by looking at Law 21B.

Rik

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2013-May-30, 12:01, said:

When North asked that South be allowed to change his bid, he implied that he thought it might be sensible for South to do so - if South had overcalled 2♠, I doubt if North would have made the same request. I think that's communication, in breach of Laws 73A1 and 73B1.

If North had merely called the director and stated that he believed there had been a failure to alert, I think that would have been legal.

This argument makes sense, and North may well rate a PP for breach of 73A1 and 73B1 - but I don't think the UI suggests anything in particular to South, unless I'm missing something. OTOH, it may be that any change in South's call is a breach of Law 73C.

I would like to point out, although it's nothing to do with Andy's post here, that applying Law 9, which Chris suggested, does not make sense, since there is nothing in that law to apply to this case. In fact, there are no sanctions in that law at all.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2013-May-30, 08:51, said:

Why does he have to learn it "definitely"? Can't he call attention to a suspected irregularity? Sometimes the only way to find out if an irregularity has actually occurred is to raise the question due to a suspicion.

And 9A1 says that he can call attention to an irregularity at any time during the auction, not only at his own turn to call.

A suspected irregularity is not the same as an irregularity.

Calling the Director because of a suspected irregularity can easily bring the player in conflict with Laws 73 and 74.

A player should never forfeit any rights by delaying drawing attention to a suspected irregularity (and calling the Director) until the suspicion is confirmed.

[Chris3875]

I wasn't suggesting Law 9 - simply querying your reference to it in an earlier reply. If West waited until it was her turn to call, then asked about a possible failure to alert, called the director, surely the 2H bid could be changed under Law 21B - call based on misinformation from an opponent (failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation). Vampyr says the call cannot be changed because it's not the final call but that is not how I read it. This incident happened at another club and it's true that CC's are not commonly used here (although as a director, I try)

[mycroft]

Law 21B1a states:

Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent (see Law 17E). Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation.

It says nothing about whether the opponents have called over the call based on misinformation. For a very good reason; this isn't something people should be able to fast-pass lock you on (viz. also "unintended call", Law 25A1.) So, yes, if North asks at his turn, and calls the TD when he finds out, the TD, should she believe that this is in fact real "misinformation" and not "we all know it's a transfer, that's getting two shots at something they shouldn't" - which it will be for the novice, I assume, and away we go. Both South and West's original calls are UI to E (and South's call to West as well); authorized to N/S.

[Trinidad]

 pran, on 2013-May-30, 16:21, said:

A suspected irregularity is not the same as an irregularity.

Calling the Director because of a suspected irregularity can easily bring the player in conflict with Laws 73 and 74.

A player should never forfeit any rights by delaying drawing attention to a suspected irregularity (and calling the Director) until the suspicion is confirmed.

So, a player has to decide by himself whether an "unusual event" is an irregularity before he decides to call the TD?

Isn't it the job of the TD to determine whether the unusual event actually is an irregularity (and then rule accordingly)?

And when the player doesn't call for a "suspected irregularity" and the TD is called later, what does the TD do to the player? He gets the grumpy treatment (or as it seemed recently at some places is even denied redress for calling late).

Rik

[Vampyr]

 Chris3875, on 2013-May-30, 16:26, said:

I wasn't suggesting Law 9 - simply querying your reference to it in an earlier reply. If West waited until it was her turn to call, then asked about a possible failure to alert, called the director, surely the 2H bid could be changed under Law 21B - call based on misinformation from an opponent (failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation). Vampyr says the call cannot be changed because it's not the final call but that is not how I read it. This incident happened at another club and it's true that CC's are not commonly used here (although as a director, I try)

I was wrong about the last call, and agree that the auction could have been changed IF North had asked at his turn. In the OP of course, 20F1, 20G1 and 73 have been violated. But what is the penalty for those?

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2013-May-30, 20:59, said:

I was wrong about the last call, and agree that the auction could have been changed IF North had asked at his turn. In the OP of course, 20F1, 20G1 and 73 have been violated. But what is the penalty for those?

For violation of any of these laws a PP may be deemed appropriate. For 73, 73F may lead to score adjustment.

[campboy]

 Vampyr, on 2013-May-30, 20:59, said:

I was wrong about the last call, and agree that the auction could have been changed IF North had asked at his turn. In the OP of course, 20F1, 20G1 and 73 have been violated. But what is the penalty for those?

20F1 and 20G1 have not been violated, since North did not ask anything at all. He called the TD.

[Vampyr]

 campboy, on 2013-May-31, 02:01, said:

20F1 and 20G1 have not been violated, since North did not ask anything at all. He called the TD.

Yes, and when the TD arrived North violated L20. 73 obviously before.

[campboy]

 Vampyr, on 2013-May-31, 03:18, said:

Yes, and when the TD arrived North violated L20. 73 obviously before.

No, read the OP again. North did not ask any questions at all, before the TD arrived or after. He stated that there had been a failure to alert.

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2013-May-31, 03:18, said:

Yes, and when the TD arrived North violated L20.

What makes you say that?

 Vampyr, on 2013-May-31, 03:18, said:

73 obviously before.

And what makes you say that?

I think you are jumping to conclusions. The following scenario seems perfectly plausible to me given that North is a TD and that there doesn't seem to be a particular urge to follow the rules at this club.

North: "Director please"
TD: "How may I help?"
North: "I suspect that there was a failure to alert."
West: "Oh yeah, sorry." (West circles the 2♦ bid.) "It was a transfer to hearts." (South' face shows a whiter shade of pale.)
TD: "Yeah, that is misinformation. Please play on and call me after the hand is over."
North: "Err. Director."
TD: "Yes?"
North: "Aren't you forgetting about Law 21B?"
TD: "Law 21B? What's in Law 21B?"
North: "It basically says that my partner would be allowed to change his call if it was based on the MI, as long as I haven't called yet. Well, I haven't, so..."
TD: "Oh yeah, I've heard about that. Wait a second. North has not called yet." (Looks in the South hand) "Yes, the call was clearly based on the MI. You are allowed to change your call. Please play on."
North: "Err. Director?"
TD: "Yes?"
North: "How about Law 16D?"
TD: "What is Law 16D about?"
North: "Well, it basically says that if my partner withdraws his call, that is UI to EW and AI to me. But you are the TD, so you should inform us about that."
TD: "Yes, North is correct. The 2♥ is UI to you two. You are supposed to bend over backwards not to use the information that South bid 2♥. North, however, is allowed to use this information to his advantage."
East: "Is that fair?"
TD: "I don't know whether it is fair, but that is what the rule book says and that is how the game is played. Anything else?"
NESW: "No, thank you."
TD: "Please, play on..." (Thinking: "What a life...")

Rik

[ahydra]

 Trinidad, on 2013-May-31, 03:48, said:

I think you are jumping to conclusions. The following scenario seems perfectly plausible to me given that North is a TD and that there doesn't seem to be a particular urge to follow the rules at this club.

North: "Director please"
TD: "How may I help?"
North: "I suspect that there was a failure to alert."
West: "Oh yeah, sorry." (West circles the 2♦ bid.) "It was a transfer to hearts." (South' face shows a whiter shade of pale.)
TD: "Yeah, that is misinformation. Please play on and call me after the hand is over."
North: "Err. Director."
TD: "Yes?"
North: "Aren't you forgetting about Law 21B?"
TD: "Law 21B? What's in Law 21B?"
North: "It basically says that my partner would be allowed to change his call if it was based on the MI, as long as I haven't called yet. Well, I haven't, so..."
TD: "Oh yeah, I've heard about that. Wait a second. North has not called yet." (Looks in the South hand) "Yes, the call was clearly based on the MI. You are allowed to change your call. Please play on."
North: "Err. Director?"
TD: "Yes?"
North: "How about Law 16D?"
TD: "What is Law 16D about?"
North: "Well, it basically says that if my partner withdraws his call, that is UI to EW and AI to me. But you are the TD, so you should inform us about that."
TD: "Yes, North is correct. The 2♥ is UI to you two. You are supposed to bend over backwards not to use the information that South bid 2♥. North, however, is allowed to use this information to his advantage."
East: "Is that fair?"
TD: "I don't know whether it is fair, but that is what the rule book says and that is how the game is played. Anything else?"
NESW: "No, thank you."
TD: "Please, play on..." (Thinking: "What a life...")

Rik

An Oscar-winning script right there! If only it wasn't so realistic. :/

ahydra

[pran]

 ahydra, on 2013-May-31, 04:31, said:

An Oscar-winning script right there! If only it wasn't so realistic. :/

ahydra

Indeed!

And if North instead of:

North: "Director please"
TD: "How may I help?"
North: "I suspect that there was a failure to alert."

had first (at his turn to call) requested an explanation of opponents' auction so far and gotten his suspicion confirmed and then called the Director (following the script above), his actions had been absolutely impeccable.