[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2013-July-22, 09:17, said:

Do they? In my experience they generally think that declarer leads from the correct hand instead, but not that this has anything to do with the defenders (or the TD!) at all.

Yes, I find this to be the case too. If none of the four players at the table knows the Law, it would not occur to the defenders to accept the lead or to anyone to call the director.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-21, 11:15, said:

So if someone should, but no one does, and taking into account that when a player doesn't do what he "should" a PP should be rare, but still possible, who should get a PP here if one is given? One to both sides? Two to both sides? Try to figure out who is most responsible? Using what criteria?

Since everyone at the table should call the director, all are in violation, so the PP could be given to all of them.

A Secretary Bird could then conclude that if only one player at the table calls the TD, the others would still be in violation. However, since this is "rarely penalized", it would take an extremely perverse TD to give them a PP for this "violation".

In practice, I think people think of calling the TD as a group activity -- people frequently say "We should call the director." The person who actually says, "Director, please!" is just the spokesman for the table.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2013-July-22, 01:43, said:

In some circumstances, players are not allowed to call the director, which varies according to who they are and who did what. So 9B(1) is important in giving permission to all players to call the director once attention has been drawn to an irregularity. With that permission, the players then collectively have a (mild) duty to call the director. Thus if the delay in calling the director makes a mess, the director can say "well you should have done". For those who might have been disadvantaged by that delay, there's a law that says it's your own fault. For those who might be on the other side of that, well I think the director can usually make life for them uncomfortable too if he feels that is unfair.

In sum, this seems to be right to me.

I'm not at all sure I understand your logic.

cloa513, on 2013-July-22, 05:47, said:

I think really the problem is people who eschew the role of director. Someone realise there is an irregularity and then someone "applies" the law (such a secretary bird). If all players realise there is an irregularity but fail to use their right as appropriate to call director as soon as possible then they can't call the director later (stiff bickies). Of course the cases where the irregularity cannot be realised until later are reasonable exceptions like a revoke. There should be a severe penalty for trying act like director.

I don't think "eschew" means what you think it means. Or maybe it doesn't mean what I think it means. Anyway, there's nothing in the law that suggests "if you don't call the director now, you can't call him later". There is a law about who has the right to "assess rectification". That's Law 10 and the who is the director, and only the director. There's also a law about forfeiture of the right to rectification. That's Law 11, Essentially, it says that if the NOS takes an action before summoning the director, they may forfeit their right to rectification. They may not. It's up to the director.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2013-July-22, 06:36, said:

Well mechanical errors in the auction genuinely are an exception. A mechanical error is not an irregularity and there is no requirement to call the TD when one is corrected.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "mechanical error". If you pull the 1NT card out of the bidding box when you intended to pull the 1♠ card, it's certainly a mechanical error - and it's equally certainly an irregularity, one addressed by Law 25A.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2013-July-22, 08:57, said:

I don't see why making an unintended call is a deviation from correct procedure. Is there a law which says so?

In the 2007 laws, the wbf in its wisdom deleted most of the headings, leaving what might as well be a random sequence of individual laws. The ACBL has not done this, instead retaining the chapter and section headings that were in the 1997 laws (and probably versions before that). The first two sections of Chapter V ("The Auction") are "Part I - Correct Procedure" and "Part II - Irregularities in Procedure". Law 25 is in Part II, so clearly it deals with some irregularity. Aside from that, it seems to me that even if it's not explicitly stated, it is implicit in the nature of the game that making the call you intended to make is correct procedure, and so making a call you did not intend to make is an irregularity. Or you could look at it another way - attempting to change your call, which is a required element of Law 25A, is definitely an irregularity, since once you have made a (sufficient legal) call, you have satisfied correct procedure (see Laws 18 and 19) and it is no longer your turn to call.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-22, 10:26, said:

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "mechanical error". If you pull the 1NT card out of the bidding box when you intended to pull the 1♠ card, it's certainly a mechanical error - and it's equally certainly an irregularity, one addressed by Law 25A.

That's the sort of thing I mean. I do not see why it is "certainly an irregularity".

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-22, 10:37, said:

In the 2007 laws, the wbf in its wisdom deleted most of the headings, leaving what might as well be a random sequence of individual laws. The ACBL has not done this, instead retaining the chapter and section headings that were in the 1997 laws (and probably versions before that). The first two sections of Chapter V ("The Auction") are "Part I - Correct Procedure" and "Part II - Irregularities in Procedure". Law 25 is in Part II, so clearly it deals with some irregularity. Aside from that, it seems to me that even if it's not explicitly stated, it is implicit in the nature of the game that making the call you intended to make is correct procedure, and so making a call you did not intend to make is an irregularity.

Neither the headings, nor what may or may not be implicit in the nature of the game, are part of the laws.

[blackshoe]

If I were declaring, and a defender told me I must lead from the correct hand, I'd call the director. First, the defender apparently thinks he's the director, second, that makes him wrong on two counts, and third, I'm not going to make the mistake he's already made, and put on my own director hat and explain his errors. Not my job.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-22, 10:23, said:

I don't think "eschew" means what you think it means. Or maybe it doesn't mean what I think it means.

LOL you are correct obviously.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2013-July-22, 10:39, said:

Neither the headings, nor what may or may not be implicit in the nature of the game, are part of the laws.

So?

[iviehoff]

campboy, on 2013-July-22, 08:57, said:

I don't see why making an unintended call is a deviation from correct procedure. Is there a law which says so?

Pulling the 1S card out is clearly not the correct procedure for calling 1NT. Do you need a law to tell you that is the case?

[campboy]

Yes I do need a law to tell me that making an unintended call is an irregularity, because I do not believe it is one and because it seems to be to everyone's advantage if it is not. I am not going to start calling the TD every time there is a 25A correction unless I see a clear legal reason for doing so.

[aguahombre]

campboy, on 2013-July-23, 05:49, said:

Yes I do need a law to tell me that making an unintended call is an irregularity, because I do not believe it is one and because it seems to be to everyone's advantage if it is not. I am not going to start calling the TD every time there is a 25A correction unless I see a clear legal reason for doing so.

This is interesting. We often recognize a 25A situation, and see no reason to involve the TD --"No problem, what happened is obvious. Go ahead and pull the right card."

It never occurred to me to deny it was an irregularity so my conscience would be clear.

[broze]

WellSpyder, on 2013-July-22, 09:17, said:

Do they? In my experience they generally think that declarer leads from the correct hand instead, but not that this has anything to do with the defenders (or the TD!) at all.

I have to admit I was under the impression that if declarer leads from the wrong hand and it is drawn attention to then he must correct it.

Indeed I have been informed countless times by players much more experienced than me that declarer "can show the defence whatever cards he wants during the play" and that a lead from his own hand instead of from dummy just constitutes a card 'shown' to the defence and not a card led....

[blackshoe]

If it's not an irregularity why is there a law explained how to rule when it happens?

"Not part of the laws" not withstanding, if it's not an irregularity why is it in a section the ACBL labels (and the WBF used to label) "Irregularities in Procedure"? Are the lawmakers insane?

I'm pedantic, and perhaps a bit obsessive, about a lot of little things, but this strikes me as ridiculous.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-23, 06:43, said:

If it's not an irregularity why is there a law explained how to rule when it happens?

"Not part of the laws" not withstanding, if it's not an irregularity why is it in a section the ACBL labels (and the WBF used to label) "Irregularities in Procedure"? Are the lawmakers insane?

I'm pedantic, and perhaps a bit obsessive, about a lot of little things, but this strikes me as ridiculous.

Law 25A does not explain how to rule, or suggest that a ruling is required. It just says the player may change his call. There are plenty of other laws which say a player may do something which do not involve irregularities.

Law 25B clearly does deal with an "irregularity in procedure" (making a correction that is not permitted), so perhaps that is why law 25 is in that section. Although, since the section headings are not part of the laws and are known to not always be perfectly appropriate, I hardly need to answer this point.

[blackshoe]

You don't "need" to answer any point - but not answering makes it difficult to have any kind of reasonable discussion.

25A4 contains the sentence "there is no further rectification". If there's no irregularity, why is there a rectification?

[RMB1]

campboy, on 2013-July-23, 05:49, said:

Yes I do need a law to tell me that making an unintended call is an irregularity, because I do not believe it is one and because it seems to be to everyone's advantage if it is not.

I do not want unintended caller to have the advantage of seeing LHO's call over the unintended call. I want Law 16D2 to apply to unintended caller, so I want them to be an offender.

[aguahombre]

RMB1, on 2013-July-23, 08:24, said:

I do not want unintended caller to have the advantage of seeing LHO's call over the unintended call. I want Law 16D2 to apply to unintended caller, so I want them to be an offender.

Yes, of course. Campboy's position on the term "irregularity" has that problem. To make his work, the 25A finger fumble would only become an irregularity if the next player's legal action made it one, and thereafter the "offender" noticed his/her boo boo.

I prefer to call the unintended action an irregularity for which the offender should call the TD and --- if he somehow shows it to be unintended before anything else happens, yet hasn't called --- we may choose to let him fix it or call the TD ourselves. The indications of an unintended call are usually clear to all others at the table who are paying the slightest bit of attention.

Try to give me a PP for letting him fix the irregularity. Who will be calling the cops ---the grateful offender, or a spiteful partner?

[campboy]

RMB1, on 2013-July-23, 08:24, said:

I do not want unintended caller to have the advantage of seeing LHO's call over the unintended call. I want Law 16D2 to apply to unintended caller, so I want them to be an offender.

You don't need law 16D2, though, since the second sentence of 25A4 covers that. IMO the fact that 25A4 says what it does, rather than referring to 16D, suggests that unintended caller is not an offender. But Blackshoe is quite right that the use of the word "rectification" suggests the opposite.