[Fluffy]

---

At the end of an unlucky session where we played very well on a weak field, yet we were struggling to get over average this bidding happened.

At this point I could only pray for west to make a bid, and he thought for about 20 second before finaly reaching the bidding box with a bid,

I triumphaly saw how he picked a diamond bid, but instead of 4♦, he placed 3♦ on the board.

When he saw the bid was inssuficent he paused for a couple of seconds to correct it with a pass.


Going over a beginner is certainly not in fashion for a pro, and I got 2 down in 3♥. But I am wondering if me calling director to allow partner the option of passing 3♦ would convey UI of what I´d want partner to do over 3♦

[pran]

Fluffy, on 2013-October-12, 05:51, said:

---

At the end of an unlucky session where we played very well on a weak field, yet we were struggling to get over average this bidding happened.

At this point I could only pray for west to make a bid, and he thought for about 20 second before finaly reaching the bidding box with a bid,

I triumphaly saw how he picked a diamond bid, but instead of 4♦, he placed 3♦ on the board.

When he saw the bid was inssuficent he paused for a couple of seconds to correct it with a pass.


Going over a beginner is certainly not in fashion for a pro, and I got 2 down in 3♥. But I am wondering if me calling director to allow partner the option of passing 3♦ would convey UI of what I´d want partner to do over 3♦

Calling the director is your (as well as the other players') privilege, but doing so in any manner (whatsoever) that might give your partner an indication that you would be happy if he just accepted the 3♦ bid and passed is a serious offence.

So the answer to your question depends on the manner in which you called the director and what (if anything) you possibly said or indicated.

[bixby]

Saying, "wait a minute, my partner has the option to accept that 3♦ bid and might choose to pass it, Director!" would be ill-advised.

But saying, "Director, please!" and then informing the Director, "West bid 3♦ over my 3♥ and then changed it to Pass," would be perfectly appropriate. Indeed, calling the Director is required by Law 9B.

So as Pran says, it depends on the manner in which you call the Director. If you call in an appropriately neutral way, there wouldn't be UI.

[aguahombre]

This is interesting. If no one else has called for the TD to address the irregularity, then you must --and are in an uncomfortable position because only you can have a preference on this auction about what partner should do. Your partner should have had the good grace to be the one who called the TD.

[barmar]

You were North? How do you know from your hand that defending 3♦ is better than declaring 3♥? In fact, It looks to me like you can make 3♥ unless the opening lead is a club, but surely East will lead his singleton in his partner's suit. Then it just comes down to guessing hearts correctly.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2013-October-12, 07:15, said:

Calling the director is your (as well as the other players') privilege

Shouldn't that say "duty"?

[pran]

gnasher, on 2013-October-13, 01:35, said:

Shouldn't that say "duty"?

Not until someone has called attention to the irregularity.

It is any* player's privilege to draw attention to an irregularity.
Once such attention has been drawn it is everybody's duty to call the director.

* except of course that dummy has no such privilege during the play period . But that is not relevant here as we are within the auction period.

This post has been edited by pran: 2013-October-13, 14:55

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2013-October-13, 02:03, said:

Not until someone has called attention to the irregularity.

You are confusing the restrictions upon Dummy with this case, where everyone at the table is an active player. No one else had to call attention to this one before South may call the TD.

[ggwhiz]

I think it's up to your partner to ask for the director with any intent to accept the call since anything you do is a red flag.

BTW as your partner I would always accept the bid and either pass or repeat my call to show a good or bad 3♥ bid and think this is AI?? It's actually a discussed partnership policy against rookies whether it helps us or not so as to maintain the ambiance and for bids out of turn too if they are rookieish enough.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-13, 05:24, said:

You are confusing the restrictions upon Dummy with this case, where everyone at the table is an active player. No one else had to call attention to this one before South may call the TD.

No he's not. He did not say someone had to call attention to an irregularity before someone calls the director, only that once attention has been drawn, the director must be called.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-13, 09:34, said:

No he's not. He did not say someone had to call attention to an irregularity before someone calls the director, only that once attention has been drawn, the director must be called.

My mistake. When Pran said it was not South's duty to call the TD for an irregularity until someone had drawn attention to it, I read his words and responded. Thanks for clarifying that he didn't say that. I must have dreamed it.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2013-October-13, 02:03, said:

Not until someone has called attention to the irregularity.

It is any* player's privilege to draw attention to an irregularity.
Once such attention has been drawn it is everybody's duty to call the director.

* except of course that dummy has no such privilege during the play period . But that is not relevant here as we are within the auction period.

When the 3♦ bidder tried to replace his insufficient bid with a pass, he drew attention to the irregularity.

[paua]

The Laws should say "The offender must call the Director."

[pran]

gnasher, on 2013-October-13, 16:32, said:

When the 3♦ bidder tried to replace his insufficient bid with a pass, he drew attention to the irregularity.

Did he say anything to indicate that he (knew he) had committed an irregularity or did he just (try to) change his call?

There is a difference!

(Note that at this time he has committed two different irregularities!)

[gnasher]

pran, on 2013-October-14, 01:45, said:

Did he say anything to indicate that he (knew he) had committed an irregularity or did he just (try to) change his call?

There is a difference!

Writing something in bold italics doesn't make it true. The laws don't say "attention is drawn verbally" or "attention is drawn explicitly" or even "attention is drawn intentionally". They just say "attention is drawn".

Changing his call drew Fluffy's attention to the insufficient bid. Therefore "attention was drawn", and the director should have been called.

Edit: It's also worth considering the intent of this law. The objective is to prevent players making up their own rulings. The lawmakers thought, reasonably enough, that before you could invent a ruling on an infraction you would first have to know that the infraction existed. You seem to want to interpret the rules in a way that circumvents this intention.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-October-14, 02:28

[iviehoff]

gnasher, on 2013-October-13, 16:32, said:

When the 3♦ bidder tried to replace his insufficient bid with a pass, he drew attention to the irregularity.

Not really. Maybe the first bid wasn't an irregularity and he is attempting to change it anyway. What he is doing isn't even necessarily irregular either: maybe he is exercising his right to correct a mechanical error.

Drawing attention to an irregularity needs to be a bit more explicit than that.

[lamford]

I can find nothing in the Laws to indicate that replacing the call oneself before the director has ruled is an irregularity. It should be, of course, but 28C does not state that is. I think the irregularity was the IB, and that this entitles anyone to call the TD. And I don't agree that calling the director for the only possible reason that you want North to Pass is an infraction. The director call is AI, as it arises from the legal procedures in the Laws. I would go further. It is legal to have an agreement that South calls the director if he wants his partner to accept the IB, and does not do so if he wants North not to accept the IB. Except in a jurisdiction where you are not allowed to vary your agreements consequent upon an opponent's irregularity. It is a bit like when declarer leads from the wrong hand. My partner and I pause to see out if the other wants to accept the lead.

Here North can also accept the substituted Pass and the only LA for East is a diamond lead, when 3H is cold.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2013-October-14, 02:10, said:

Writing something in bold italics doesn't make it true. The laws don't say "attention is drawn verbally" or "attention is drawn explicitly" or even "attention is drawn intentionally". They just say "attention is drawn".

Changing his call drew Fluffy's attention to the insufficient bid. Therefore "attention was drawn", and the director should have been called.

Edit: It's also worth considering the intent of this law. The objective is to prevent players making up their own rulings. The lawmakers thought, reasonably enough, that before you could invent a ruling on an infraction you would first have to know that the infraction existed. You seem to want to interpret the rules in a way that circumvents this intention.

I used bold italics to draw attention to that particularly statement.

The fact that Fluffy's attention was drawn to the insufficient bid doesn't imply that the other player's attention was also drawn to it. In fact if it is Fluffy's partner who commits an irregularity to which Fluffy's attention is drawn then Fluffy has no obligation at all to call the Director. Law 9A4 is very specific on this situation.

Thus when the laws speaks about drawing attention to an irregularity it must be something more specific than some event causing one or more players to become aware of it. The most obvious example of "drawing attention" is a player calling out "that is an irregularity", "that is illegal", "you are not allowed to do that" or words to similar effects.

So, as iviehoff correctly said: "Drawing attention to an irregularity needs to be a bit more explicit [...]".

[pran]

lamford, on 2013-October-14, 07:02, said:

I can find nothing in the Laws to indicate that replacing the call oneself before the director has ruled is an irregularity. It should be, of course, but 28C does not state that is. I think the irregularity was the IB, and that this entitles anyone to call the TD. And I don't agree that calling the director for the only possible reason that you want North to Pass is an infraction. The director call is AI, as it arises from the legal procedures in the Laws.

Law 10C2 said:

If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner.

This implies that the partner to a player who has options available after an irregularity may not in any way convey any kind of information that can possibly suggest an option that might be preferable to their side.

This even includes information from the manner in which the Director is called.

lamford, on 2013-October-14, 07:02, said:

I would go further. It is legal to have an agreement that South calls the director if he wants his partner to accept the IB, and does not do so if he wants North not to accept the IB. Except in a jurisdiction where you are not allowed to vary your agreements consequent upon an opponent's irregularity. It is a bit like when declarer leads from the wrong hand. My partner and I pause to see out if the other wants to accept the lead.

Here North can also accept the substituted Pass and the only LA for East is a diamond lead, when 3H is cold.

I consider this part of your comment to be evidence of a deliberate and serious laws infraction.

Your agreement about calling or not calling the director depending on whether you want to have the IB accepted, and your agreement about hesitation when declarer leads from the wrong hand are severe violations of the prohibition against concealed partnership understandings (You don't explicitly declare it in advance do you?) in addition to violations of several other laws.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2013-October-14, 07:14, said:

The fact that Fluffy's attention was drawn to the insufficient bid doesn't imply that the other player's attention was also drawn to it. In fact if it is Fluffy's partner who commits an irregularity to which Fluffy's attention is drawn then Fluffy has no obligation at all to call the Director. Law 9A4 is very specific on this situation.

Are you reading the same Laws as me? Law 9A4 doesn't say anything about calling the director.

Law 9A4 tells us that you don't have to draw attention to your own side's infraction. Law 9B1a tells us that if anyone does draw attention to any irregularity, the director should be called.