[Shugart23]

Bidding goes : Pass (by me), Pass , 1NT by partner showing 12-15 HCP, 2H by RHO which is alerted and explained as Hearts and a Minor (and is on the card). Pass by me, 3C by LHO...Pass by Partner, 3S by RHO.....RHO had thought she was showing both Majors and forgotten their agreement.

I called the director saying I believed RHO used Unauthorized information...eg her partner 'woke' her up as to their agreement...

As a Director, what do you do ?

The director said to go ahead and play it out ...all pass, and declarer went down 4 because my partner had 5 Spades....

But I am just curious...is 'PLAY IT OUT' a real ruling, or is it just a cop out by the director ?..

[pran]

Shugart23, on 2017-July-08, 07:31, said:

Bidding goes : Pass (by me), Pass , 1NT by partner showing 12-15 HCP, 2H by RHO which is alerted and explained as Hearts and a Minor (and is on the card). Pass by me, 3C by LHO...Pass by Partner, 3S by RHO.....RHO had thought she was showing both Majors and forgotten their agreement.

I called the director saying I believed RHO used Unauthorized information...eg her partner 'woke' her up as to their agreement...

As a Director, what do you do ?

The director said to go ahead and play it out ...all pass, and declarer went down 4 because my partner had 5 Spades....

But I am just curious...is 'PLAY IT OUT' a real ruling, or is it just a cop out by the director ?..

In cases like this "PLAY IT OUT" simply means that the Director has noted the case and deferred his ruling till after end of the play. (The Direcftor should have added something like "CALL ME AGAIN AFTER THE PLAY IF YOU FEEL THAT AN ADJUSTMENT IS IN ORDER".)

This is a quite normal and common first response by the Director.

(I had a similar situation once where the offenders had a misunderstanding in addition to misinformation. I wasn't called again and eventually asked the non-offenders about the outcome? The told me that they scored 4000 in on the board so they didn't bother!)

[Shugart23]

pran, on 2017-July-08, 07:57, said:

In cases like this "PLAY IT OUT" simply means that the Director has noted the case and deferred his ruling till after end of the play. (The Direcftor should have added something like "CALL ME AGAIN AFTER THE PLAY IF YOU FEEL THAT AN ADJUSTMENT IS IN ORDER".)

This is a quite normal and common first response by the Director.

Yes, this happens often, but I am really just wondering if this is 'technically' correct....eg...so now, both LHO and RHO have UI....as a technical matter, isn't LHO OBLIGATED to make another bid since, 3S would NOT be a bid that can be passed according to their agreement ?....

These were A level players, as an aside...

I am not a director, but I assume the rule book doesn't prescribe 'play it out and call me back' and that this would not happen in some kind of world championship game where a director would say 'play it out'

[pran]

Shugart23, on 2017-July-08, 08:04, said:

Yes, this happens often, but I am really just wondering if this is 'technically' correct....eg...so now, both LHO and RHO have UI....as a technical matter, isn't LHO OBLIGATED to make another bid since, 3S would NOT a bid that can be passed according to their agreement ?....

These were A level players, as an aside...

I am not a director, but I assume the rule book doesn't prescribe 'play it out and call me back'

We never (well hardly ever) penalize anybody for giving or receiving UI. The infraction is using UI, and that will usually be established at the end of the play (together with the question on whether using UI has damaged the non-offending side).

[Shugart23]

pran, on 2017-July-08, 08:12, said:

We never (well hardly ever) penalize anybody for giving or receiving UI. The infraction is using UI, and that will usually be established at the end of the play (together with the question on whether using UI has damaged the non-offending side).

sure, and I think the 'play it out and call me back if you feel you were damaged' is reasonable and keeps the pace of the game going...I am not complaining about it...In fact, down 4 Red was a good result for us and we moved on..

But I am really just getting at strictly the technical aspect of it...Right then and there, shouldn't LHO been obligated to make a response to 3S in this specific circumstance and more generally, is the 'play it out' technically proper or is it just easier for directors to go that route (for time and convenience)....

I guess I am thinking, a ruling theoretically is supposed to be be made right then and there

Of course, I could be totally wrong...

[pran]

Shugart23, on 2017-July-08, 08:26, said:

sure, and I think the 'play it out and call me back if you feel you were damaged' is reasonable and keeps the pace of the game going...I am not complaining about it...In fact, down 4 Red was a good result for us and we moved on..

But I am really just getting at strictly the technical aspect of it...Right then and there, shouldn't LHO been obligated to make a response to 3S in this specific circumstance and more generally, is the 'play it out' technically proper or is it just easier for directors to go that route (for time and convenience)....

I guess I am thinking, a ruling theoretically is supposed to be be made right then and there

Of course, I could be totally wrong...

Your question is confusing:
The auction continues (without restrictions to any player) until three consecutive passes end the auction.

If misinformastion is revealed then the last player on the non-offending side that has called may withdraw his last call and replace it with a different call if the misinformastion has influenced his choice of the call that he wants to withdraw.

If (just) misbid is revealed then no call may be withdrawn by any side.

"PLAY IT OUT" includes "complete the auction to a normal end by three consecutive passes".

[gordontd]

Shugart23, on 2017-July-08, 08:26, said:

sure, and I think the 'play it out and call me back if you feel you were damaged' is reasonable and keeps the pace of the game going...I am not complaining about it...In fact, down 4 Red was a good result for us and we moved on..

But I am really just getting at strictly the technical aspect of it...Right then and there, shouldn't LHO been obligated to make a response to 3S in this specific circumstance and more generally, is the 'play it out' technically proper or is it just easier for directors to go that route (for time and convenience)....

I guess I am thinking, a ruling theoretically is supposed to be be made right then and there

Of course, I could be totally wrong...

I think you are. Players may be told to avoid taking advantage of UI but they shouldn't ever be told during the auction what they can or can't bid due to UI and nor should TDs look at their hands at that moment. The proper thing to do is exactly what your TD did: establish the facts and tell them to play it out before calling back if necessary. Often players create their own bad results when using UI and they get to live with those.

[blackshoe]

---

At this point, North called the director? Was there any evidence other than the 3♠ call itself that indicated a possible irregularity? If not, North should not have called at this time.

At what point did West say or otherwise indicate that she had mis-bid?

On the meager information in the OP, here is my ruling on the alleged violation of Law 16: Law 16A4 says "If there is a violation of this law causing damage, the Director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12C." Per Law 12B1, damage can only be assessed once a result has been obtained on the board. Therefore the table is instructed to continue the auction and play, and to call me back after the hand if any player believes that EW have been damaged by an irregularity.

Note: it would be inappropriate for East West to blurt out anything about having mis-bid at this point in the auction, even after the director is called. It would be inappropriate for the director to ask if she's mis-bid or, as Gordon said to look at her hand.

East should must emphatically not be required to make any particular call after West's 3♠, and especially so before North has called.

Regarding the possible use of UI and calling the director, Law 16B1 suggests various actions that might convey UI. Simply making a call, unusual though that call might seem, is not one of them. Even if it were, proper procedure at that point is not to call the director, but to see if the alleged offending side agrees that UI may have been conveyed. If they disagree they should* call the director immediately, but the director's only task at that point is to resolve the question whether UI may have been conveyed.

* Use of "should" in this law indicates that if they don't call the TD, they have committed an infraction, albeit one which would rarely draw a procedural penalty.

Law 16B3 says that if a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent has made use of UI, he should** call the director when play ends. The reason for this timing is that the rectification, if there is to be any, depends on the table result (see above re: damage).

** In this case, a footnote to Law 16B3 explicitly says that it is not an infraction to call the director earlier or later than when play ends. Still, it's a good idea to do it at the right time.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2017-July-08, 16:12
Reason for edit: West, not East.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-July-08, 10:45, said:

---

Note: it would be inappropriate for East to blurt out anything about having mis-bid at this point in the auction, even after the director is called. It would be inappropriate for the director to ask if she's mis-bid or, as Gordon said to look at her hand.

AIUI, it's West who misbid when she bid 2♥ (sounds like she thought they were playing DONT rather than Cappeletti).

Quote

Regarding the possible use of UI and calling the director, Law 16B1 suggests various actions that might convey UI. Simply making a call, unusual though that call might seem, is not one of them. Even if it were, proper procedure at that point is not to call the director, but to see if the alleged offending side agrees that UI may have been conveyed. If they disagree they should* call the director immediately, but the director's only task at that point is to resolve the question whether UI may have been conveyed.

The purported UI is West hearing East's explanation of 2♥. So now she knows that East's 3♣ is just tolerance for the minors, not a suit of their own. This makes pulling it to her other major more attractive.

However, we may need to look at West's hand to see if passing 3♣ is an LA. East didn't open 3♣, so could they really have a hand that would play OK in clubs opposite a singleton, if that's what West has?

[Shugart23]

I called the director because it was obvious from the body language that partners alert woke her up to her mistake. As i was next to bid i felt I had to call the director immediately to protect myself....had i not called the director and simply passed, i suppose the 3c bidder would have morally be obigated to bid..? But because i called the director, he was allowed to pass ? That ia the take away?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-July-08, 13:54, said:

AIUI, it's West who misbid when she bid 2♥ (sounds like she thought they were playing DONT rather than Cappeletti).

Noted, corrected. Thanks for pointing it out.

barmar, on 2017-July-08, 13:54, said:

The purported UI is West hearing East's explanation of 2♥. So now she knows that East's 3♣ is just tolerance for the minors, not a suit of their own. This makes pulling it to her other major more attractive.

However, we may need to look at West's hand to see if passing 3♣ is an LA. East didn't open 3♣, so could they really have a hand that would play OK in clubs opposite a singleton, if that's what West has?

Agreed. After the hand.

[blackshoe]

Shugart23, on 2017-July-08, 14:44, said:

I called the director because it was obvious from the body language that partners alert woke her up to her mistake. As i was next to bid i felt I had to call the director immediately to protect myself....had i not called the director and simply passed, i suppose the 3c bidder would have morally be obigated to bid..? But because i called the director, he was allowed to pass ? That ia the take away?

No, certainly not. The alert and explanation provide UI to West, but West's body language also provides UI to East. Now you should not just immediately call the director, first you see if East agrees that he may have UI. If East does not agree, he is supposed to call the director – but he won't, because he doesn't know that, or has forgotten it, or is willfully ignoring it. Never mind, his reason for not calling is irrelevant. Now you call the TD. Don't say anything about UI, just explain the facts - there was an alert, 2♥ was explained as both majors, and West squirmed, or made a face, or whatever. Let the TD take it from there. When he tells you to play on, just do it.

Note that giving extraneous or unauthorized information to one's partner is not an infraction, unless done deliberately. Receiving extraneous or unauthorized information is likewise not an infraction. The question is whether the recipient of the information used it to make a decision on what to bid (or, sometimes, what card to play at a particular point in the play). You can't know that until after the hand is played. The director can't determine whether you were damaged until after the hand is played. So if you think UI was used, and that you were damaged by that use, after the hand is played is when you call him for a ruling on that question.

The only place in regulation (there is no place in law) which speaks of "protect yourself" is in the general conditions of contest: "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." That provision does not apply to this case. It does not apply to UI cases at all – failure to alert is an MI issue, not a UI issue.

[sfi]

Shugart23, on 2017-July-08, 08:26, said:

sure, and I think the 'play it out and call me back if you feel you were damaged' is reasonable and keeps the pace of the game going...I am not complaining about it...In fact, down 4 Red was a good result for us and we moved on..

But I am really just getting at strictly the technical aspect of it...Right then and there, shouldn't LHO been obligated to make a response to 3S in this specific circumstance and more generally, is the 'play it out' technically proper or is it just easier for directors to go that route (for time and convenience)....

I guess I am thinking, a ruling theoretically is supposed to be be made right then and there

Of course, I could be totally wrong...

As a director, there are five questions you need to ask and answer before adjusting for in a UI situation:

- Was there UI?
- Were there logical alternatives to the action (or actions) taken?
- Did the UI demonstrably suggest one course of action over another?
- Did the person with the UI take the action suggested by the UI?
- Did the action taken result in a better score than the alternative action would have?

You can't judge all of these without completing the hand. All the director at the table can do is to note the UI and obtain agreement on the facts - there is nothing in the laws about adjusting mid-hand. That's why the director asked you to call them back at the conclusion of the hand. This is both normal and correct procedure. Answering the five questions above is not always simple - the director may need to ask advice from experts to obtain a representative sample of opinions. And the last question obviously cannot be answered at all without completing the hand.

Another question you might have is why the director doesn't simply stay there for the remainder of the hand. One reason is technical - if they see an irregularity (such as a revoke or an insufficient bid), they must adjust the score according to the laws. Therefore, the players are now playing under different conditions from the rest of the room. This is why you won't see directors kibitzing tables while they are not busy.

The second reason is practical. It is likely they will take that time to look at the hand record and make an initial assessment about the likelihood of damaging arising from the UI and how best to proceed. That way the director will be better prepared when you do call them back at the end of the hand - as requested.

[Shugart23]

Thanks for the input and explanations...It remains strange to me that we wait until the play of the hand is completed for an adjustment to be done....What other sport or game has a rule that says, finish the game and then we will decide if we should change something...I can see why it is done for efficiency and for fairness to the offended party and in the interest of time, but as a strictly technical matter it sure seems strange to me...

As I now see it, if everybody at the table was in their own 'cone of silence', the 2H bidder thought she was showing the Majors while her opponent thought ( and their actual agreement was) she was showing Hearts and a Minor.......So, no problem with the 2H bid, no problem with the 3C bid, and really no problem with the 3S bid....But I don't think the 3S is passable...It seems to me that it is a bid showing a stop, or a lack of a stop, or something other than a natural bid, as far as the 3C bidder would be concerned...Maybe it's a try for 3NT but a retreat back to 4C...

It seems to me, if the bidding had passed out at 3S (assuming that I had not called the director), the 3C bidder should have been forced to make a bid according to their agreement and NOT allowed to pass (unless the 3C bidder had 5+ Spades, perhaps)...

It really doesn't make much sense to me to finish the bidding, paly all the cards, and then decide if an adjustment is warranted...I gather I am wrong on this,but it seems this is really just a convenient and expedient way to resolve the issue/dispute rather than address the problem head-on. (again, I am not complaining and am just curious)..

I believe the previous posts have explained it and said that the 3C bidder absolutely should not be forced to make a bid...I just find that odd when we know he is obligated to make a bid before the first card is played, that the director wouldn't stand over the table and ,make sure that he does...

[Vampyr]

Shugart23, on 2017-July-11, 07:52, said:

Thanks for the input and explanations...It remains strange to me that we wait until the play of the hand is completed for an adjustment to be done....What other sport or game has a rule that says, finish the game and then we will decide if we should change something...I can see why it is done for efficiency and for fairness to the offended party and in the interest of time, but as a strictly technical matter it sure seems strange to me...

The main difference is that bridge is a game where judgment is involved, so the correction for an infraction is not always clear at first glance. Reading these forums, you should have noticed that the adjustment is often not clear long after the fact! If directors were forced to impose the probable adjustment in real time, they would often get it wrong and then there would be a real mess.

People are always trying to compare bridge to other games, like basketball or Monopoly, but the same rules don't apply to those two, so why should the same rules as one of them should apply to bridge?

[Shugart23]

I think i am suggeating that in theoey, perhaps no adjystment is made....the 3c bidder should be compelled to make a bid according to the agreement and his hand....

[Shugart23]

But also maybe what i suggest is totalky impractical

[gordontd]

Shugart23, on 2017-July-11, 08:23, said:

I think i am suggeating that in theoey, perhaps no adjystment is made....the 3c bidder should be compelled to make a bid according to the agreement and his hand....

Compelled how? What would you do if you thought they had failed to do it?

[sfi]

Shugart23, on 2017-July-11, 08:23, said:

I think i am suggeating that in theoey, perhaps no adjystment is made....the 3c bidder should be compelled to make a bid according to the agreement and his hand....

For better or worse, directors can only rule according to the laws. There is nothing in law that compels a player to bid (the only requirement is for a player to pass under certain circumstances), so a director cannot enforce such an action. What the law does require is consideration of an adjustment if UI is used. For instance, wouldn't North-South feel cheated if East-West now bid to a cold 4S contract after East is required to bid over 3S?

[RMB1]

Shugart23, on 2017-July-11, 07:52, said:

It remains strange to me that we wait until the play of the hand is completed for an adjustment to be done....What other sport or game has a rule that says, finish the game and then we will decide if we should change something...

Isn't this what happens in football (soccer) and rugby when the referee "plays advantage". There is an infraction but play continues until it is clear that the non-offending side have not been able to take advantage of the position; at that point the referee rules on the original infraction (awards a penalty rectification).