[Cyberyeti]

weejonnie, on 2019-May-30, 09:22, said:

Two points

1) It is NOT what you do when you play with the misinformation, it is what you would do when you have the right information.

2) Misplaying 2♥ is not an 'extremely serious error unrelated to the infraction'. North is quite likely to just bid 1♥ when they know that 1♦ is negative - in which case the meaning of 2♥ is moot.

I completely disagree, I think they're more likely to bid 2♥ than 1♥ if they know it's negative, as if it's not, you're much less likely to have game on so don't need to show your balanced 11 opposite what is probably another 11 or 12 and can just bid 1♥.

Hence I don't think it's related to the infraction. The play is 2 tricks suboptimal on most if not all defences, and I'm really struggling to see how you go off, but I know serious error requires ridiculous levels of idiocy (and IMO requires too much idiocy, as people who've played seriously badly and got a bad score because of that still get redress and apparently would have played 3N like a magician (not that you need to here), despite the fact that they played 2♥ like an idiot).

[ahydra]

In regards to "serious error", the NZ manual says:

Quote

In general, the following types of action qualify as serious errors.
(a) Failure to follow proper procedure (e.g. revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the Director after an irregularity).
(b) Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam or opening a weak NT on a 20 count.

For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be serious
errors.
© Any call or play that would be deemed to be normal, even if inferior or careless.
(d) Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously not the percentage line.

Although this is the club's strongest night it doesn't get above I/A level really. I don't think North's play is close to meeting the bar for a serious error. As for 3N, that plays itself when the DQJ drop.

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

ahydra, on 2019-June-01, 06:12, said:

In regards to "serious error", the NZ manual says:



Although this is the club's strongest night it doesn't get above I/A level really. I don't think North's play is close to meeting the bar for a serious error. As for 3N, that plays itself when the DQJ drop.

ahydra

I know the law says this, and it's probably the law I like least. 2♥ has 8 top tricks if the trumps are 4-3, the inability to take 8 cashing tricks should count as a serious error but clearly doesn't.

[blackshoe]

Hm. When was that written? I'm wondering if the author(s) took into account the current wording (since 2017) of the law, which refers to extremely serious errors (my emphasis).

Is not calling the director after an irregularity an extremely serious error?

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-June-01, 07:44, said:

Is not calling the director after an irregularity an extremely serious error?

Is not your question seriously ambiguous ?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-June-01, 07:44, said:

Hm. When was that written? I'm wondering if the author(s) took into account the current wording (since 2017) of the law, which refers to extremely serious errors (my emphasis).

Is not calling the director after an irregularity an extremely serious error?

Law 9 B 1 {a} said:

The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

and

Law 12 C 1 {e} said:

...an extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction)...

How failing to summon the Director can be considered an extremely serious error is beyond me so long as Law 9 B 1 {a} is a "should" law.

[nige1]

In similar cases, David Burn says the Director should ask himself "Without the EW misexplanation, would the NS debacle be less likely? If the answer is yes (as in this case), then the director should rule for the victims.

Assuming i'm not misrepresenting David's position, I agree with him.

FWIW, IMO, weighted rulings pander to careless offenders and deprive their victims of just redress..

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2019-June-01, 08:18, said:

Is not your question seriously ambiguous ?

Okay, let me try again: Is failing to call the director after an irregularity an extremely serious error?

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2019-June-01, 08:33, said:

How failing to summon the Director can be considered an extremely serious error is beyond me so long as Law 9 B 1 {a} is a "should" law.

That was my thought. Prior to 2007, when the law said the director "must" be called, it might have been considered an extremely serious error, but back then the criterion was only "serious error".

[pran]

pran, on 2019-June-01, 08:33, said:

How failing to summon the Director can be considered an extremely serious error is beyond me so long as Law 9 B 1 {a} is a "should" law.

blackshoe, on 2019-June-01, 13:25, said:

That was my thought. Prior to 2007, when the law said the director "must" be called, it might have been considered an extremely serious error, but back then the criterion was only "serious error".

I trust that we both know the difference between "should" and "must"

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2019-June-01, 13:30, said:

I trust that we both know the difference between "should" and "must"

We do.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-June-01, 13:23, said:

Okay, let me try again: Is failing to call the director after an irregularity an extremely serious error?

I agree with others that failure to call when the Law says "must" is serious.
The need for an irregularity to be extremely serious escapes me in either context, maybe someone could explain why this change was made.

[blackshoe]

I wasn't on the drafting committee, so I don't know why the change was made. I speculate that it was an attempt to limit what the committee viewed as excessively stringent rulings under the previous "serious" provision.

The current laws do not say that the director must be called after an irregularity. Rather, he should be called. That change was made in the 2007 edition of the laws.

[ahydra]

blackshoe, on 2019-June-01, 07:44, said:

Hm. When was that written? I'm wondering if the author(s) took into account the current wording (since 2017) of the law, which refers to extremely serious errors (my emphasis).

Is not calling the director after an irregularity an extremely serious error?

Unfortunately the manual hasn't been updated since 2016. Some of the references to Laws within therefore have the wrong numbers, which has certainly confused me up to now. I'm not sure when it's due for revision, but I hope shortly.

In regard to the question about calling the director - I can imagine something like:

- NS give misinformation.
- EW play a horrible contract of 4H as a result, rather than 5C.
- NS revoke during the play. The table agrees their own ruling of one trick transfer.
- EW finish down 6, so down 5 after the one trick transfer.
- EW however discover later the revoke messed with entries / etc, and the TD would have restored equity and given EW many more tricks, say down only 2 instead of 5.
- TD will treat the failure to call him at the time of the revoke a "serious error" (and it is unrelated to the MI infraction), and therefore adjust the score for both sides to 5C=, but deduct from EW the difference in matchpoints between 4H-5 and 4H-2.

ahydra

[barmar]

pran, on 2019-June-01, 08:33, said:

and

How failing to summon the Director can be considered an extremely serious error is beyond me so long as Law 9 B 1 {a} is a "should" law.

I suspect what they're referring to is making your own, incorrect ruling after an irregularity, rather than calling the director and getting the proper instruction.

So it's not really the failure to call the TD itself that's the serious error, but the consequences of the failure.

[pran]

barmar, on 2019-June-01, 20:02, said:

I suspect what they're referring to is making your own, incorrect ruling after an irregularity, rather than calling the director and getting the proper instruction.

So it's not really the failure to call the TD itself that's the serious error, but the consequences of the failure.

"consequences of the failure" being an error just doesn't make sense to me.

If eventually I am called to an irregularity where the players have sorted out the things themselves (without bothering to call me) my ruling will (almost?) always be that they will have to live with their own ruling. I can no longer establish the actual circumstances and thus am not in any position to rectify the result in a fair way.

However, I am still able to impose a procedure penalty and will certainly do so if I judge that their own ruling had been way out of order. (And they will of course be given a warning.)

[cherdano]

pescetom, on 2019-May-28, 06:44, said:

NS bidding looks all rather strange to me.
South's decision to double on that hand is odd, I too would prefer 1♦ or 1NT.
North's decision to bid 2♥ is incomprehensible to me, unless she knew the conventional meaning of the unalerted 1♦ and decided not to ask about it (for some reason) and to treat it as pass (but that would be quite a leap to make unless already agreed with partner).
South's reasoning that 2♥ must be some kind of weak jump is surprising too, as North already had the chance to bid a weak two on the first round of bidding.

All in all I find it hard to imagine that NS are up to finding 3NT should EW alert correctly, so maybe you were a bit generous. I think East deserves a penalty for the missing alert of artificial 1♦ however.

You are being very harsh on the non-offenders.
(1) Yes I wouldn't double but bidding 1♦ does miss some games, this is a very good hand and a style where you double on this is very reasonable.
(2) What's wrong with 2♥? Seems completely normal.
(3) I've quite a lot of sympathy for S who can see that E showed 12+, W showed 6+ and a decent diamond suit, hence partner's jump is probably weak (and a weak jump opposite a takeout double is a very different beast than opening 2♥). Since the hand is suddenly not worth a double any more (with good diamond's bid on our left), it seems a good decision to cut your losses and pass out 2♥ - it's what I'd do opposite a weak jump and with a natural positive diamond bid on my left.

Obviously NS had a misunderstanding, but that seems directly related to the misinformation. If South had known 1♦ is 0-7 they'd have no reason to abandon their double-and-bid plan. I think only 60% of 3NT is a bit harsh on NS, actually, but that's a minor quibble - the ruling was clearly better than what many posters would have decided, IMO.

[cherdano]

ahydra, on 2019-May-28, 05:28, said:

E/W commented they felt not many would bid game on this board, which I felt was surprising, but actually was borne out by the results at other tables with only one other table reaching 3NT+2.

That comment is irrelevant unless the other Souths also started with double, intending to double-and-bid showing 16+.

[blackshoe]

ahydra, on 2019-June-01, 18:47, said:

In regard to the question about calling the director - I can imagine something like:

- NS give misinformation.
- EW play a horrible contract of 4H as a result, rather than 5C.
- NS revoke during the play. The table agrees their own ruling of one trick transfer.
- EW finish down 6, so down 5 after the one trick transfer.
- EW however discover later the revoke messed with entries / etc, and the TD would have restored equity and given EW many more tricks, say down only 2 instead of 5.
- TD will treat the failure to call him at the time of the revoke a "serious error" (and it is unrelated to the MI infraction), and therefore adjust the score for both sides to 5C=, but deduct from EW the difference in matchpoints between 4H-5 and 4H-2.

It seems to me that since the law says that all four players are responsible to call the director, if anyone committed a serious error in not calling him, they all did. Also, if it's a serious error, is it also an extremely serious error? What makes it so, and why?

barmar, on 2019-June-01, 20:02, said:

I suspect what they're referring to is making your own, incorrect ruling after an irregularity, rather than calling the director and getting the proper instruction.

So it's not really the failure to call the TD itself that's the serious error, but the consequences of the failure.

Consequences for which side?

pran, on 2019-June-01, 22:21, said:

"consequences of the failure" being an error just doesn't make sense to me.

If eventually I am called to an irregularity where the players have sorted out the things themselves (without bothering to call me) my ruling will (almost?) always be that they will have to live with their own ruling. I can no longer establish the actual circumstances and thus am not in any position to rectify the result in a fair way.

However, I am still able to impose a procedure penalty and will certainly do so if I judge that their own ruling had been way out of order. (And they will of course be given a warning.)

Indeed. Will you impose a PP on both sides, or only one? If only one, which one, and why?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-June-02, 08:25, said:

Indeed. Will you impose a PP on both sides, or only one? If only one, which one, and why?

Certainly, and to both sides.

The PP will be anything from a warning to inexperienced players (who I always try to treat lenient) up to a very heavy penalty if the irregularity itself was serious, the players experienced and their own ruling at the table was incorrect.

So far I cannot remember ever having to penalize really experienced players this way because they do not violate Law 9 without being qualified directors themselves and behaving accordingly.