[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-05, 09:46, said:

All four players at the table breached the law by failing to call the director when attention was drawn to the irregularity.

They may have all breached 9B1, but West is the only one who also breached 9B2.

Um.

I was going to say that West had broken three laws -- 9B1, 9B2 and whichever law says it is illegal to make insufficient bids. But I can't actually find one -- anyone know what it is?

[barmar]

campboy, on 2015-March-05, 08:15, said:

Personally, I would welcome a change in the law to say "When attention has been drawn to an irregularity, the player who drew attention should immediately summon the Director. If he does not do so, any other player (including dummy) may summon the Director." But we do not have such a law at the moment.

I'd go a little further: MUST for the player who called attention, SHOULD for the other players. We need to put a stop to reluctance to calling the TD.

[weejonnie]

campboy, on 2015-March-05, 10:06, said:

They may have all breached 9B1, but West is the only one who also breached 9B2.

Um.

I was going to say that West had broken three laws -- 9B1, 9B2 and whichever law says it is illegal to make insufficient bids. But I can't actually find one -- anyone know what it is?

I also looked and as far as I can tell it is not illegal to make an insufficient bid - just consequences. All there is, is a definition of a sufficient bid. Even a call out of rotation is not apparently deemed to be illegal - just consequences.

I think it is basically that in either case the LHO can accept the call out of turn or the insufficient bid. Contrast with, say, a double of your partner's contract (of course many of us at some time or other have wanted to do that!), where the call is cancelled de facto.

[campboy]

weejonnie, on 2015-March-05, 10:49, said:

I also looked and as far as I can tell it is not illegal to make an insufficient bid - just consequences. All there is, is a definition of a sufficient bid. Even a call out of rotation is not apparently deemed to be illegal - just consequences.

We're on firmer ground with a call out of rotation: it's an irregularity because of Law 17C.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2015-March-05, 10:49, said:

I also looked and as far as I can tell it is not illegal to make an insufficient bid - just consequences. All there is, is a definition of a sufficient bid. Even a call out of rotation is not apparently deemed to be illegal - just consequences.

I think it is basically that in either case the LHO can accept the call out of turn or the insufficient bid. Contrast with, say, a double of your partner's contract (of course many of us at some time or other have wanted to do that!), where the call is cancelled de facto.

I think it is legal to make an insufficient bid deliberately. Law 18A designates the proper form of bids, and an insufficient bid still qualifies as the proper form under the wording of that. One is not allowed to commit an infraction deliberately, even if one is prepared to pay a penalty, but it seems that an insufficient bid is not an infraction; at least I can find no place where it is stated to be one!

But I agree with campboy that one is not allowed to make an insufficient bid out of rotation. I wonder if one is allowed to make an inadmissible redouble deliberately?

[campboy]

lamford, on 2015-March-05, 12:11, said:

But I agree with campboy that one is not allowed to make an insufficient bid out of rotation. I wonder if one is allowed to make an inadmissible redouble deliberately?

No: 19A1.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2015-March-05, 12:14, said:

No: 19A1.

19B1 I think.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2015-March-05, 12:16, said:

19B1 I think.

Ah, yes, I misread your question.

[weejonnie]

campboy, on 2015-March-05, 12:10, said:

We're on firmer ground with a call out of rotation: it's an irregularity because of Law 17C.

Probably logic chopping. I agree that it IS an irregularity - but is it illegal? Law 35 deals with inadmissible calls. A call out of rotation (or for that matter an insufficient bid) isn't inadmissible - whereas a double/ redouble not permitted by Law 19 or a bid more than 7 is.

[VixTD]

campboy, on 2015-March-05, 08:15, said:

The current Law 9B1a is completely ridiculous. A literal reading of it (taking into account the introduction to the laws) is that failure to be summoned immediately is an infraction committed by the Director. Average-plus to both sides, then?

It's not ridiculous at all, it's a normal English passive construction avoiding any mention of the "actor" (the agent carrying out the action of the verb "summon") because the identity of that agent is either unknown or unimportant. It does not imply that the obligation to summon falls upon the person who should have been summoned, any more than the bidding box regulation that reads "the Stop card should be left on the table for about ten seconds" implies that failure is an offence committed by the stop card.

[campboy]

VixTD, on 2015-March-05, 13:36, said:

It's not ridiculous at all, it's a normal English passive construction avoiding any mention of the "actor" (the agent carrying out the action of the verb "summon") because the identity of that agent is either unknown or unimportant. It does not imply that the obligation to summon falls upon the person who should have been summoned, any more than the bidding box regulation that reads "the Stop card should be left on the table for about ten seconds" implies that failure is an offence committed by the stop card.

That would be true, were it not for the introduction to the laws, which specifies how "should" is used.

Quote

Established usage has been retained in regard to [...] “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)

But that is not really my point. Of course I interpret the law as you say when actually ruling. But IMO it is ridiculous to use the passive voice at all; if this is to be an infraction, the law should specify who committed it.

[chrism]

VixTD, on 2015-March-05, 13:36, said:

It's not ridiculous at all, it's a normal English passive construction avoiding any mention of the "actor" (the agent carrying out the action of the verb "summon") because the identity of that agent is either unknown or unimportant. It does not imply that the obligation to summon falls upon the person who should have been summoned, any more than the bidding box regulation that reads "the Stop card should be left on the table for about ten seconds" implies that failure is an offence committed by the stop card.

You've never given a procedural penalty to a Stop card? Or indeed to an entire deck of cards for violating 6B ...

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2015-March-05, 10:06, said:

They may have all breached 9B1, but West is the only one who also breached 9B2.

Um.

I was going to say that West had broken three laws -- 9B1, 9B2 and whichever law says it is illegal to make insufficient bids. But I can't actually find one -- anyone know what it is?

There isn't one.

As for West's two infractions and one additional irregularity, so what? Each of those is handled separately.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-05, 19:54, said:

As for West's two infractions and one additional irregularity, so what? Each of those is handled separately.

My point was simply that it is wrong to penalise North for his one law 9 infraction while ignoring West's two. Which was what lamford seemed to be suggesting we do.

[helene_t]

I have always seen passive voice as responsibility evasion. My nephew was only about six years old when he discovered that he could use constructs like "the rubish bin ought to be taken out" when he didn't want to be kept responsible for asserting who he thinks ought to do it, nor would he like to emphasize the ambiguity by saying that "someone" ought to do it.

My teacher in scientific writing from my first year as a postgrad said that in her opinion scientifc jargon is very sloppy and it would be much better to replace "the animals were sacrificed" with "we killed the mice". I agree very much with that. Sometimes sloppy language sounds more educated than accurate language but that is not a good reason for using sloppy language.

Of course passive voice can be OK in some situations such as when it serves to put the emphasis in the right place, or when the agent is known and passive voice makes the sentence shorter.

[gnasher]

I use the passive voice when it's someone else's fault, and the active voice when it's mine.

[VixTD]

campboy, on 2015-March-05, 16:07, said:

That would be true, were it not for the introduction to the laws, which specifies how "should" is used.

Quote

Established usage has been retained in regard to“may” do (failure to do it is not wrong),“does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized) “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)...

But that is not really my point. Of course I interpret the law as you say when actually ruling. But IMO it is ridiculous to use the passive voice at all; if this is to be an infraction, the law should specify who committed it.

But "be called" is not something that anyone does, it's something that is done to someone. That's the essence of the difference between active and passive voice. The wording of the law, including the use of the passive voice, is correct and sensible. The infraction is failing to summon, and the "infractor" is anyone who is required by law to summon and fails to do so.

I don't disagree that specifying who should call the director would improve matters, but that's a problem with the content of the laws, not the way they are worded.

[VixTD]

WellSpyder, on 2015-March-05, 09:24, said:

I assume the reference is, for example, to players whose partner gives a wrong explanation of their bid. That is an irregularity, but of course you may not draw attention to it during the auction, and indeed not during the play if you are on the defending side.

You've identified an action which is forbidden during the auction, but the law refers to a player who is prohibited.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2015-March-05, 10:49, said:

I also looked and as far as I can tell it is not illegal to make an insufficient bid - just consequences.

27A1 says:

Quote

Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender’s LHO.

The implication of "treated as legal" is that it's not normally legal, it only becomes legal-like if LHO chooses to accept it. Also, calling the player who makes the IB an "offender" suggests that it's an infraction -- how can there be an offender if there's no offense?

[jallerton]

gordontd, on 2015-March-04, 07:30, said:

You have the UI that, faced with a Law 27B ruling, your partner would have chosen to bid 4S rather than pass. I think that suggests bidding on rather than passing.

gnasher, on 2015-March-04, 07:37, said:

That's true, but I don't think it matters.

We have the authorised information that partner raised 3♠ to 3♠. Presumably that's invitational. We have a fifth spade, a singleton diamond, and three honours outside diamonds. I don't think pass is a logical alternative.

In order to assess the logical alternatives, VixTD needs to determine the meaning of his partner's insufficient 3♠ bid. Many players would struggle to work out the meaning of an insuffcient bid, but fortunately VixTD has years of experience in attempting to rule under Law 27B1b.