Directorial Question
#1
Posted 2008-December-10, 22:11
Edit: Hand removed.
First an auction:
1♦-(P)-1N-(Dbl)* *Takeout
P-(2♥)-3♣-(3♥)
P-(P)-3♠
What does 3♠ mean, in your opinion?
In actuality the 3rd round of the auction actually went:
Dbl-(P)-3♠
What do you think 3♠ means here?
The reason I ask is that I (partner on this hand) actually bid 3♠, looked at the table and said 'Oh Shoot!' and reached my hand towards my 3♠ bid and then sat back in my chair.
If you hold this hand at the table are you obligated to pass 3♠ now? I'm proud to say my partner did. But how would you rule if this hand had pulled to 4♦?
Thanks.
#2
Posted 2008-December-10, 22:15
#3
Posted 2008-December-10, 22:17
Elianna, on Dec 10 2008, 11:15 PM, said:
Very good point. My mistake. I think just the auction is fine to have, though.
#4
Posted 2008-December-10, 22:19
#5
Posted 2008-December-10, 23:30
I think opener can remove it if not holding 4♠, but would be ethically obligated to pass holding a four-card spade suit.
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#6
Posted 2008-December-10, 23:34
It would be interesting to know what was happening at your chair, and the director would probably be asking you that. If the bid was a mechanical error you would have been allowed to change it. If the bid was just ill advised you still could have changed it but the best score your side could have received would be an average minus. Making the remark and then doing nothing was a serious breach of proprieties, but it happens all the time. Unfortunately the director is seldom called so the players do not learn their rights and responsibilities, the first of which is to call the director.
Practice Goodwill and Active Ethics
Director "Please"!
#7
Posted 2008-December-11, 02:38
JoAnneM, on Dec 11 2008, 01:34 AM, said:
This is no longer true.
Quote
Making the remark was a breach of etiquette (Law 74B2). Serious? Well, that law uses the word should (in "should refrain"), so not refraining (from making an extraneous remark) is an infraction of law, but "one that will draw a procedural penalty only rarely" (or words to that effect - it's late and I'm tired). I don't know what "and then doing nothing" is about. What do you think he should have done?
The responsibility to call the director (except in one case that does not apply here) is on all four players at the table, but only after attention is called to an irregularity. Did someone do that?
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#8
Posted 2008-December-11, 02:59
blackshoe, on Dec 11 2008, 03:38 AM, said:
JoAnneM, on Dec 11 2008, 01:34 AM, said:
This is no longer true.
Quote
Making the remark was a breach of etiquette (Law 74B2). Serious? Well, that law uses the word should (in "should refrain"), so not refraining (from making an extraneous remark) is an infraction of law, but "one that will draw a procedural penalty only rarely" (or words to that effect - it's late and I'm tired). I don't know what "and then doing nothing" is about. What do you think he should have done?
The responsibility to call the director (except in one case that does not apply here) is on all four players at the table, but only after attention is called to an irregularity. Did someone do that?
No one called the director and the auction was passed out without incident.
I'll tell you what was actually happening. I hadn't seen my partner's double and after placing the 3♠ call on the table couldn't repress my surprise when the red card seemed to have shot up from nowhere amongst my partner's bids. Maybe I don't say 'Oh Shoot!' but merely just 'OH!'. I think my partner knew what was going on, at least he said so afterwards. He also knows I almost never would pull this double since it is, in my opinion, clearly for business.
I believe there is a law that says you aren't obligated to accept what is obviously going to be a bad score for your side (i.e. if you bid 1N-4♥ naturally and partner takes it as a Texas Transfer... where you are then whacked you are certainly allowed to bid 5♥). Does this situation fall within those bounds? Or does the UI from partner preclude any sort of intelligent speculation as to whether 3♠ is a suggestion to play or not, etc.
#9
Posted 2008-December-11, 04:00
If however opener has a close decision, I think he is obliged to leave it because of the unauthorised information that you aren't really happy with your 3♠ bid.
Edited.
#10
Posted 2008-December-11, 04:48
kfay, on Dec 11 2008, 04:59 AM, said:
I'll tell you what was actually happening. I hadn't seen my partner's double and after placing the 3♠ call on the table couldn't repress my surprise when the red card seemed to have shot up from nowhere amongst my partner's bids. Maybe I don't say 'Oh Shoot!' but merely just 'OH!'. I think my partner knew what was going on, at least he said so afterwards. He also knows I almost never would pull this double since it is, in my opinion, clearly for business.
I believe there is a law that says you aren't obligated to accept what is obviously going to be a bad score for your side (i.e. if you bid 1N-4♥ naturally and partner takes it as a Texas Transfer... where you are then whacked you are certainly allowed to bid 5♥). Does this situation fall within those bounds? Or does the UI from partner preclude any sort of intelligent speculation as to whether 3♠ is a suggestion to play or not, etc.
You are mistaken. There is no such law. What the law actually says is that if you have UI, you are not permitted to choose amongst logical alternatives one demonstrably suggested by that UI if there is another LA available. If you make such a choice, and the other LA would have led to a better score for your opponents, then they were damaged by the choice of call, and the TD should adjust the score. If you have no LA to the call you made, then there is no infraction of law, and no score adjustment.
Your partner has UI from your remark and reactions. That UI suggested to him that you weren't aware of his double. If there had been no UI, then he would have considered what call he might make on the basis that you pulled his penalty double. Now there is UI, he must consider what call he might make on the assumption he had not doubled, and what alternatives there would be. He must, if one (or more) of the possible calls is suggested over another, choose the call least likely to gain.
Without seeing the hands, we can't tell what the LAs are, so we can't tell what the ruling (if one had been requested) should be.
Your Texas Transfer example is interesting, since it came up for me just last Friday. Playing with a pickup partner, with little time to discuss system (I was also directing) we agreed strong NT and four suit transfers. We did not discuss Texas, nor what to do over interference. I had 6 hearts to the Queen, 3 spades, and 10 points. My partner opened 1NT, RHO overcalled 2 diamonds, and I bid 4 hearts. Partner alerted and (without being asked, which is a procedural error) explained my call as Texas. LHO passed, partner bid four spades. When it came back to me, after much thought, I passed. Maybe I was being overly ethical, but it seemed to me the right thing to do. Partner played well in our 3-3 fit, going down only 2. I never looked, but I suspect 4 hearts was making, and 5 hearts was down 1. If passing was not an LA with my hand (what would 4 spades mean over Texas?) then perhaps a 5 heart call was justified. Wouldn't have mattered - a bottom is a bottom.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#11
Posted 2008-December-11, 04:50
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#12
Posted 2008-December-11, 04:57
Law 16 Unauthorised Information
A Extraneous Information from Partner
After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information
that mat suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question,
a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed,
special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the
partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that
could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous
information.
That is the Law as in force in the UK (and I assume WBF)
Thus the Director is the one who decides whether offenders partner has his bid should he make one.
#13
Posted 2008-December-11, 05:05
#14
Posted 2008-December-11, 05:12
Quote
Kinda hard for a director to make a decision if he isn't called to the table.
The law is international; it applies everywhere. Regulating Authorities may make certain elections, but none, I think, that apply to these particular laws.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#15
Posted 2008-December-11, 05:15
Fluffy, on Dec 11 2008, 07:05 AM, said:
"Looks like"? "Cannot be natural"? Well, maybe. Maybe not. All I can say is, make your case to the TD, and see how he rules.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#16
Posted 2008-December-11, 08:45
This is because on my partnerships, we use the impossible suit to show this kind of hands, I can understand that for people not used of this methods, 3♠ could be natural in some way and should be taken as that.
#17
Posted 2008-December-11, 08:58
#18
Posted 2008-December-11, 10:12
This is no longer true.
Thanks for that, I am still learning the new laws. I think the suggestion, in another thread, for a forum on director issues and bridge law would be well received.
Practice Goodwill and Active Ethics
Director "Please"!
#19
Posted 2008-December-11, 10:21
In the meantime, there's IBLF.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#20
Posted 2008-December-11, 16:01
Practice Goodwill and Active Ethics
Director "Please"!