[schulken]

While researching another topic, I stumbled across the ongoing discussion by the ACBL Laws Commission on Law 81C3 and whether a director should intervene if he or she observes a violation that is not detected by any of the competitors. As with all my posts, if it was clear or if my small group of correspondents were in agreement, there'd be no need to get feedback from these readers.

My own experience occurred in a club game (STaC, if you think that makes a difference). I was sent to the table by the club manager to hover as unobtrusively as possible over a slow group and move them along when they completed the round. Arriving midway through the last hand, I positioned myself off the left shoulder of declarer. I quickly surmised she was in a ♠ contract. I watched her play a small ♠ to the board, LHO ducking and RHO discarding. After returning to her hand, she led another ♠, to which LHO played the J, dummy played the Q and RHO played the A! Due to the nature of my involvement, I was not in a position to prevent the revoke from either occurring or being established. After one more trick, she claimed and no one made any comment about the revoke, which clearly would have resulted in one trick back to the NOS. I said nothing either, believing my responsibility was to adjudicate matters where I had been summoned to the table by a competitor.

One club manager and our Unit DIC believe I should have taken action. While slow play was the reason I was there, I don't believe rectifying this matter would have taken much time to resolve. Of course, the offender could have complained that my presence made him nervous, causing him to lose concentration and revoke as a result. The Laws Commission's minutes haven't been very enlightening. I can envision other objections from offenders and certain pairs who will want a full-time director at their table to detect and adjudicate violations. What happens if a violation occurs while the director is at the table, he or she doesn't detect it and then is criticized for favoring the offenders? Should bridge be like golf, where participants police themselves, or most other sports, where there is no violation if the impartial officials don't detect it?

I look forward to the discussion.

[gordontd]

If you hadn't watched (as you needn't have done to fulfil your brief to move them on at the end of the hand), you wouldn't have known there had been a revoke. For these sorts of reasons it's best not to watch any more than strictly necessary. However, 81C3 is completely clear that if you become aware of an irregularity you must rectify it.

Interestingly the law says that you must do this "within the correction period". I know of one TD at the very top who has argued that in the case of revokes that allows him to wait until it's too late to award a L64A rectification, but simply to adjust to restore equity under L64C.

[pran]

 schulken, on 2011-December-16, 11:32, said:

While researching another topic, I stumbled across the ongoing discussion by the ACBL Laws Commission on Law 81C3 and whether a director should intervene if he or she observes a violation that is not detected by any of the competitors. As with all my posts, if it was clear or if my small group of correspondents were in agreement, there'd be no need to get feedback from these readers.

My own experience occurred in a club game (STaC, if you think that makes a difference). I was sent to the table by the club manager to hover as unobtrusively as possible over a slow group and move them along when they completed the round. Arriving midway through the last hand, I positioned myself off the left shoulder of declarer. I quickly surmised she was in a ♠ contract. I watched her play a small ♠ to the board, LHO ducking and RHO discarding. After returning to her hand, she led another ♠, to which LHO played the J, dummy played the Q and RHO played the A! Due to the nature of my involvement, I was not in a position to prevent the revoke from either occurring or being established. After one more trick, she claimed and no one made any comment about the revoke, which clearly would have resulted in one trick back to the NOS. I said nothing either, believing my responsibility was to adjudicate matters where I had been summoned to the table by a competitor.

One club manager and our Unit DIC believe I should have taken action. While slow play was the reason I was there, I don't believe rectifying this matter would have taken much time to resolve. Of course, the offender could have complained that my presence made him nervous, causing him to lose concentration and revoke as a result. The Laws Commission's minutes haven't been very enlightening. I can envision other objections from offenders and certain pairs who will want a full-time director at their table to detect and adjudicate violations. What happens if a violation occurs while the director is at the table, he or she doesn't detect it and then is criticized for favoring the offenders? Should bridge be like golf, where participants police themselves, or most other sports, where there is no violation if the impartial officials don't detect it?

I look forward to the discussion.

If you interfere in any way before the expiration of the various time limits in Laws 64B and 79C your interference will deprive either OS or NOS of some of their rights. (The same argument applies if you interfere on a revoke before it becomes established).

So the answer is that the Director must act according to Law 81C3, but never before the infraction in question is "locked" beyond repair by the players.

In the case of revokes the offending side can avoid the revoke from becoming established if they act before playing to the next trick. If the Director acts so that the revoke is not established then NOS may claim damage.

In the case that no attention is called to the (established) revoke but the Director acts before the time to call attention has expired then OS may claim damage on the ground that nobody can tell whether attention to the revoke would otherwise have been called to the revoke before end of the correction period and NOS may claim damage because they will only get "equity" instead of the standard rectification if they had found out and called attention to the revoke in time.

[bluejak]

I consider Gordon's comments in line with the official views in Europe generally, ie you must act in such a case within the Correction Period, but where a revoke is concerned - or anything else with a small time limit - wait until that small time limit is over.

[jallerton]

 bluejak, on 2011-December-17, 10:43, said:

I consider Gordon's comments in line with the official views in Europe generally, ie you must act in such a case within the Correction Period, but where a revoke is concerned - or anything else with a small time limit - wait until that small time limit is over.

What do you have in mind by "anything else with a small time limit"?

Suppose a TD observes that there has been an insufficent bid by the last player to call. Does he say nothing until the next player has called?

Suppose a TD observes that a defender has exposed a card which ought to be classified as a penalty card. Does he say nothing? That doesn't sound like rectifying the irregularity to me.

[aguahombre]

 schulken, on 2011-December-16, 11:32, said:

I was sent to the table by the club manager to hover as unobtrusively as possible over a slow group and move them along when they completed the round.

 gordontd, on 2011-December-16, 11:58, said:

If you hadn't watched (as you needn't have done to fulfil your brief to move them on at the end of the hand), you wouldn't have known there had been a revoke. For these sorts of reasons it's best not to watch any more than strictly necessary. However, 81C3 is completely clear that if you become aware of an irregularity you must rectify it.

A whole separate aspect of this thread, and worthy of note. It must be a bad thing for the Club Manager to order the Director ---during a session--- to do something and also tell him how to do it. "Hover" created the issue.

[bluejak]

 jallerton, on 2011-December-17, 16:21, said:

What do you have in mind by "anything else with a small time limit"?

Suppose a TD observes that there has been an insufficent bid by the last player to call. Does he say nothing until the next player has called?

Suppose a TD observes that a defender has exposed a card which ought to be classified as a penalty card. Does he say nothing? That doesn't sound like rectifying the irregularity to me.

No, I did not mean unhelpful things like that which will only cause trouble. Not dealing with a rectifiable situation and having to adjust later is pretty stupid and helps no-one.

But there are one or two other things which are similar to revoke penalties. No, I cannot offhand remember what.

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2011-December-19, 07:00, said:

 jallerton, on 2011-December-17, 16:21, said:

What do you have in mind by "anything else with a small time limit"?

Suppose a TD observes that there has been an insufficent bid by the last player to call. Does he say nothing until the next player has called?

Suppose a TD observes that a defender has exposed a card which ought to be classified as a penalty card. Does he say nothing? That doesn't sound like rectifying the irregularity to me.

No, I did not mean unhelpful things like that which will only cause trouble. Not dealing with a rectifiable situation and having to adjust later is pretty stupid and helps no-one.

But there are one or two other things which are similar to revoke penalties. No, I cannot offhand remember what.

I am fully inline with bluejak here and I think the criterion must be that the Director should never intervene on any irregularity so long as the consequences of that irregularity can still depend on actions taken or not taken by the players at the table (unless the irregularity without intervention makes it impossible to obtain a result that can be compared with other results on the board).

Just to mention a few situations coming to my mind:
TD should not interrupt a lead or call (or an attempted lead or call) out of turn.
TD should not alert a table of a card he notices dropped on the floor if that card may belong to the board just being used at the table. (Nor should he alert a player that he apparently has failed to remove all his 13 cards from the board.)

[LH2650]

Past bulletins from NABCs are easily obtained from the ACBL website under NABCs/Past NABCs. Go to Chicago Bulletin #3 and find Mike Flader's column to see his position on this subject. On the facts presented, the short answer is that you should have done nothing.

[gordontd]

 LH2650, on 2011-December-19, 08:07, said:

On the facts presented, the short answer is that you should have done nothing.

That's not what L81C3 says.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Flader: …but the law is worded in such a way as to suggest the director does not always have to perform such a rectification (The preface to this Law states that the Director’s duties and powers “normally” include the following).

What the law says is that most of the time ("normally") the TD should apply the law when he becomes aware of an infraction, but that there are some rare cases in which one might not. I agree with Sven and David as to in which cases one might not.

Quote

From the OP: While researching another topic, I stumbled across the ongoing discussion by the ACBL Laws Commission on Law 81C3 and whether a director should intervene…

Where, please, did you stumble across this discussion?

[peachy]

 schulken, on 2011-December-16, 11:32, said:

While researching another topic, I stumbled across the ongoing discussion by the ACBL Laws Commission on Law 81C3 and whether a director should intervene if he or she observes a violation that is not detected by any of the competitors.

May I ask where you found this discussion.
Others have answered your main question so I don't need to give opinion on that.

[ddrankin]

 schulken, on 2011-December-16, 11:32, said:

While researching another topic, I stumbled across the ongoing discussion by the ACBL Laws Commission on Law 81C3 and whether a director should intervene if he or she observes a violation that is not detected by any of the competitors.

You can find the last discussion here: ACBLLC

[schulken]

I appreciate all the thoughtful replies. I have continued to discuss this matter with others who are more knowledgeable and there's a reason why the Laws Commission seems loathe to make a definitive call. L9A4 doesn't require self-reporting of an infraction, but a director wandering by the venue would be required to. Plenty of times participants were sure they observed one of their opponents revoke, but when the cards are rolled back, there was in fact no revoke. While directors must by definition be smarter than everyone else, we still make mistakes and the law even provides for resolution of those (see L82C). How do you adjust a score thirty minutes after the session is finished when you could have been wrong? I feel the best guidance I've heard was an early response to this thread - if you're monitoring the progress of a slow pair, don't look at the play and risk putting yourself in the awkward position of having to call attention to an irregularity when you haven't been summoned to the table to begin with. I do believe that helping offenders avoid further irregularities (e.g., ensuring that a penalty card is indeed played at its first legal opportunity) are part of what the director should do. Maybe that's an overly broad interpretation of L82C2 and by extension L81C1, but I feel like that's part of the role we have taken on.

Thanks again for all the thoughts.