[lamford]

---

Butler IMPs, Opening lead ♦K, table result NS+600

The auction on this hand from a North London Club needs some explaining, and North was one of the club's weakest members, we shall call him RR. He passed out of turn for the third time in only eleven boards, and South, who looks and behaves like SB, called the director in his usual boorish manner. The regular TD was on holiday, but a stand-in who had recently taken the EBU club director course came to the table. "Yet another COOT," started SB. The TD thought for a moment that SB was being rude to him or RR but looked down and saw the Pass by North. "Ah," said the TD, "riffling through his law book". I think that North now has to pass when, er, I think just when it is his next turn to call". "Aren't you missing, something?" retorted SB. "You have to give East the option to accept the pass out of rotation". "Yes, I recall that now," replied the TD. "Do you want to do so?", he asked East. "No, I don't" replied East. "OK," continued the TD,"the bidding reverts to South and he can make any call he wants." "I think you are missing something else," continued SB, who was relishing the obvious discomfort of the new TD. "You need to advise me under Law 16D2 that information from my partner's withdrawn pass is unauthorized. Did they not teach you that on the EBU course that I hear you failed?" The TD found the relevant Law and read it out. SB now decided to open 3NT, as he thought Pass and 1NT could be demonstrably suggested by the UI. RR, North, repeated his pass, and SB, now in full swing, told the TD "That is a further call out of rotation, as West has not called yet". SB knew that it would have no effect, but he was determined to make life as hard as possible for the new TD. The TD ruled that the second pass was cancelled and the auction reverted to West, who decided to pass. North passed as did East. Before West could lead, SB chipped in again, "there was a failure to alert the conventional call of 3NT which systemically shows a solid minor and little outside", he said to East. "I think the TD should allow you your last call again." The TD was now getting out of his depth, as he was unsure whether 3NT was alertable opposite someone obliged to pass, so he consulted with an EBU referee who advised him that it probably was not. Eventually the auction ended and West led the king of diamonds, but SB's guardian angel was watching over him and there was, of course, no defence.

SB asked the TD to consider whether the second pass out of turn was a pass of an artificial call, and asked the TD to consult on that, as he thought it was possible that the TD should have applied Law 31, or even Law 37a, to the second pass. Also, he asked if East should have been given the chance to accept the second pass out of rotation. However as LHO passed, he pointed out that both laws would have produced the same result. West, who was a County TD, asked the TD to consider:

a) whether RR could have been aware that his first COOT could well damage the non-offending side, and whether Law 23 should apply
b) whether the TD considered if Law 12A2 applied, in that the rectification clearly did not permit "normal" play of the board.
c) whether the director considered under 12A1 that the Laws failed to provide indemnity to the non-offending side for the particular type of violation committed by RR.

While the TD was pondering these, and repeating his phone call to the EBU referee, SB turned to West. "Just typical; you let through a contract that is cold off at trick one, and you expect the nanny state to bail you out." And, venting his spleen on the TD, he continued, "As a result of your dithering, we will not have time to play the second board; next time I expect a TD to come, not a locum".

How would you have ruled? Is it just "rub of the green"?

[Zelandakh]

NS+600 and 100% of a top penalty to N-S sounds about right. The SB is presumably on a suspended sentence from his previous narrow escape from a lifetime ban, right?

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-18, 07:30, said:

NS+600 and 100% of a top penalty to N-S sounds about right. The SB is presumably on a suspended sentence from his previous narrow escape from a lifetime ban, right?

Under which law do you impose the penalty? And do you consider that there was "normal" play of the board? If you do, could you give an example of when play of the board would be abnormal? There was no other player in 3NT by South. And do you consider that North could have been aware that his forced pass could well damage the non-offending side (for example, it would prevent partner opening any artificial bid, and he has a bad hand, so it would increase the chance of partner passing)? And do you consider the Laws provided indemnity to EW in this case? And, if so, could you give an example of the Laws failing to provide indemnity?

[barmar]

I interpret the "could well" language in the Laws to mean that there's a reasonable expectation that the damage will happen. An interpretation that allows for any possibility of gain makes it unworkable, because there's always a remote chance that you'll get lucky (as on this deal). If the Lawmakers had intended this, they would have used language like "could possibly" or "could conceivably" instead of "could well". So if a player takes a punt in a situation where partner is barred, and happens to hit pay gold, he gets to keep it.

I do think the Laws provide indemnity to the non-offenders. The indemnity is that the opponents are deprived of a constructive auction.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2015-September-18, 09:05, said:

I interpret the "could well" language in the Laws to mean that there's a reasonable expectation that the damage will happen. An interpretation that allows for any possibility of gain makes it unworkable, because there's always a remote chance that you'll get lucky (as on this deal). If the Lawmakers had intended this, they would have used language like "could possibly" or "could conceivably" instead of "could well". So if a player takes a punt in a situation where partner is barred, and happens to hit pay gold, he gets to keep it.

I would agree with you if the Law stated: "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could well have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could damage the non-offending side <snip>."

Instead it says: "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side <snip>."

So, there is only a requirement that the person "could have been aware", not "could well have been aware". I don't see any practical difference between "could conceivably be", "could possibly be" and "could be". I agree that TDs have to interpret "could have been aware" and that must be "a significant chance" that the person could have been aware. Surely, someone with a balanced 0 count could be aware that an enforced pass might well damage the NOS in many ways, if not in the way it did.

And you did not comment on whether you thought rectification permitted "normal" play of the board.

[pran]

1: If I had been the Director the SB would not have had any reason for bullying like this, and if he tried he would have faced a serious DP.

2: If I had been present in any official capacity and observed this behaviour I would probably let the board result stand but impose a 100% of top on a board penalty for the bullying. In addition I would have awarded an artificial adjusted score on any board(s) not played because of lack of time with SB entirely at fault and his opponents not at all at fault.

Law reference 74.

[lamford]

pran, on 2015-September-18, 11:52, said:

1: If I had been the Director the SB would not have had any reason for bullying like this, and if he tried he would have faced a serious DP.

2: If I had been present in any official capacity and observed this behaviour I would probably let the board result stand but impose a 100% of top on a board penalty for the bullying. In addition I would have awarded an artificial adjusted score on any board(s) not played because of lack of time with SB entirely at fault and his opponents not at all at fault.

Law reference 74.

Which Law prevents SB from "bullying"? He was quite entitled to draw attention to the failings of the temporary director and to ask for a ruling on any point of law, however obnoxiously he phrased it. And the delay was entirely due to the incompetent TD. You quote Law 74, but SB points out that 74A and 74B say "should" not "must". SB never violates the correct procedure provided in 74C. He accepts a 3 IMP or 10% PP, but anything more would be inappropriate.

But you are evading the main point of the thread. I wish now I had reported the incident blandly, as nobody is really answering these questions:

Do you consider that there was "normal" play of the board? If you do, could you give an example of when play of the board would be abnormal?

Do you consider that North could have been aware that his forced pass could well damage the non-offending side?

Do you consider the Laws provided indemnity to EW in this case? And, if so, could you give an example of the Laws failing to provide indemnity?

[As an aside here, gordon td, and in effect barmar, think that indemnity does not need to be full redress, the former using an insurance analogy. This is contradicted by the provisions of 12B1: The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.]

That seems absolutely cut and dried to me. The TD should restore the situation to the position before the infraction, awarding an artificial adjusted score if, as I suspect is the case here, the possibilities were too numerous.

It is my view that many if not most TDs have been ruling incorrectly when an infraction gains. If an infraction breaks even, because someone guesses to bid 3NT opposite a silenced partner, then fine. Damage does not exist. However, the laws bend over backwards to prevent "rub of the green", and TDs are routinely ignoring 12A1 and 12A2. If you think that 3NT= on this board is "normal" play, then I'm a Dutchman. And I wonder where that expression comes from?

[pran]

lamford, on 2015-September-19, 04:27, said:

pran, on 2015-September-18, 11:52, said:

1: If I had been the Director the SB would not have had any reason for bullying like this, and if he tried he would have faced a serious DP.

2: If I had been present in any official capacity and observed this behaviour I would probably let the board result stand but impose a 100% of top on a board penalty for the bullying. In addition I would have awarded an artificial adjusted score on any board(s) not played because of lack of time with SB entirely at fault and his opponents not at all at fault.

Law reference 74.

Which Law prevents SB from "bullying"? He was quite entitled to draw attention to the failings of the temporary director and to ask for a ruling on any point of law, however obnoxiously he phrased it. And the delay was entirely due to the incompetent TD. You quote Law 74, but SB points out that 74A and 74B say "should" not "must". SB never violates the correct procedure provided in 74C. He accepts a 3 IMP or 10% PP, but anything more would be inappropriate.

But you are evading the main point of the thread. I wish now I had reported the incident blandly, as nobody is really answering these questions:

Do you consider that there was "normal" play of the board? If you do, could you give an example of when play of the board would be abnormal?

Do you consider that North could have been aware that his forced pass could well damage the non-offending side?

Do you consider the Laws provided indemnity to EW in this case? And, if so, could you give an example of the Laws failing to provide indemnity?

[As an aside here, gordon td, and in effect barmar, think that indemnity does not need to be full redress, the former using an insurance analogy. This is contradicted by the provisions of 12B1: The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.]

That seems absolutely cut and dried to me. The TD should restore the situation to the position before the infraction, awarding an artificial adjusted score if, as I suspect is the case here, the possibilities were too numerous.

It is my view that many if not most TDs have been ruling incorrectly when an infraction gains. If an infraction breaks even, because someone guesses to bid 3NT opposite a passed partner, then fine. Damage does not exist. However, the laws bend over backwards to prevent "rub of the green", and TDs are routinely ignoring 12A1 and 12A2. If you think that 3NT= on this board is "normal" play, then I'm a Dutchman. And I wonder where that expression comes from?

Law 74A2 said:

A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

and

Law 74B5 said:

{As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:....}
summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants.

I hold laws 74A and 74B to be the most important laws in the entire book and I don't care whether they use the word "should" or "must".
And I am ready to ignore any other "request" by this SB because of his grave violation of both.

(I am, however, ready to take away from his opponents any advantage obtained illegally.)

[lamford]

pran, on 2015-September-19, 04:50, said:

I hold laws 74A and 74B to be the most important laws in the entire book and I don't care whether they use the word "should" or "must".
And I am ready to ignore any other "request" by this SB because of his grave violation of both.

(I am, however, ready to take away from his opponents any advantage obtained illegally.)

The reason they are 74A and 74B, rather than 1 and 2, is that they are not integral to the game. Specifically the introduction states: “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized). And you are still getting distracted with SB's behaviour and not addressing the main questions in the thread which I posed in my last and several previous posts. For now, assume that SB behaved impeccably. To give SB 3NT=, and to remove 100% of the IMP gain as a PP or DP is ludicrous. He would have you in the Court of Arbitration for Sport in no time.

[sanst]

To answer the question whether N could have been aware that his COOT could damage the non offending side: I don't see how. This situation is taken care of in detail by the laws and you use Law 23 in clear cut cases. Otherwise any infraction would call for the application of 23.
Lamford doesn't think that SB behaved appallingly, but he certainly did. Not only to the director, in football this behaviour would have earned him a red card, but also to his partner. I actually would have sent him packing if only for the remark about the course wherein the TD failed.
But his remark about the non alert is also a really appalling offense. He should know that no call in this situation is alertable, because his partner is barred. Any call he makes can make him declarer. But his remark may easily lead EW to think that he has a solid minor and little outside. Since his hand doesn't come near to that, he clearly tries to put his opponents on the wrong foot. That certainly falls in the 23 category. From wat I know about him, SB would, had he been E or W, called for the TD and told him that S must have had prior knowledge of the hand.
There is no reason to correct the score, assuming SB had no prior knowledge of the hand. But his behaviour not only calls for a couple of PP's, but also for him to be suspended for the rest of the session.
Sven is right when he states that Law 74 is the most important one in the book. No matter what, you should always be courteous to your partner, your opps and the TD. You might ask the TD on which laws his ruling is based, you can ask him why he didn't consider Law A, B or C, but you shouldn't call him inadequate. Once you have decided to play in a session where he is the TD, you must accept his authority. If necessary, you can appeal, which is more than in most other sports. And I'm fully confident that the Court of Arbitration in Sport would uphold my decision.

Joost

[sanst]

About the awareness of N: one of the weakest members who is obviously in such awe of his partner, that he even doesn't notice when it's his turn to call. His whole being is probably aware of just one thing: the ogre opposite with his acid dripping fangs.

Joost

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2015-September-18, 07:41, said:

Under which law do you impose the penalty? And do you consider that there was "normal" play of the board?

I was not being entirely serious with my post but there is ample ground to award a serious penalty to SB for the reasons already given. Just because the rule says should is not a carte blanche to ignore it and if a player fully aware of this law is continuously breaching it I see no reason why that should not lead to a more serious penalty. To use sanst's football analogy, a player continously fouling will earn a yellow card, and eventually a red card, regardless of how minor the fouls are.

Obviously no board where a player has their partner silenced and has to guess is "normal" play. In the same way that a LOOT, MPC or revoke might lead to a board not being played completely "normally". Do you consider "normal" play important under the current laws?

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-19, 10:26, said:

I was not being entirely serious with my post but there is ample ground to award a serious penalty to SB for the reasons already given. Just because the rule says should is not a carte blanche to ignore it and if a player fully aware of this law is continuously breaching it I see no reason why that should not lead to a more serious penalty. To use sanst's football analogy, a player continously fouling will earn a yellow card, and eventually a red card, regardless of how minor the fouls are.

Obviously no board where a player has their partner silenced and has to guess is "normal" play. In the same way that a LOOT, MPC or revoke might lead to a board not being played completely "normally". Do you consider "normal" play important under the current laws?

I am pleased that you were not entirely serious about any penalty for a mythical character, and I think that those who are wasting time on assessing penalties on him all the time are achieving nothing. They should take up role-play games instead of bridge. I do not think SB's behaviour should deny him redress.

It is not for me to decide whether "normal play" is important under the current laws. The Lawmakers have done that for me and decided it is:
12A2. The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board.

On this hand no rectification permits normal play of the board, but it might have done. If South did not have an opening bid, the board would have proceeded normally, and the director should judge that the rectification permits normal play. If South had opened 1NT and West overcalled 3D, that would have led to normal play. When South opens 3NT, it is no longer possible for there to be normal play.

Do you consider it right to ignore 12A2?

[lamford]

sanst, on 2015-September-19, 09:39, said:

About the awareness of N: one of the weakest members who is obviously in such awe of his partner, that he even doesn't notice when it's his turn to call. His whole being is probably aware of just one thing: the ogre opposite with his acid dripping fangs.

Wonderful sentence! However the Law says "could have been aware" not "was aware".

[pran]

lamford, on 2015-September-19, 10:59, said:

I am pleased that you were not entirely serious about any penalty for a mythical character, and I think that those who are wasting time on assessing penalties on him all the time are achieving nothing. They should take up role play games instead of bridge. I do not think SB's behaviour should deny him redress.

It is not for me to decide whether "normal play" is important under the current laws. The Lawmakers have done that for me and decided it is:
12A2. The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board.

On this hand no rectification permits normal play of the board, but it might have done. If South did not have an opening bid, the board would have proceeded normally, and the director should judge that the rectification permits normal play. If South had opened 1NT and West overcalled 3D, that would have led to normal play. When South opens 3NT, it is no longer possible for there to be normal play.

Do you consider it right to ignore 12A2?

When a player has received a ruling that he must pass for the rest of the auction his partner is free to make whatever call he wants regardless of their partnership agreements (except, of course, that he may not choose any call which could be suggested by unauthorized information received from his partner).

This fact is authorized information also to their opponents, consequently no such call need be alerted and there is in this case no legal reason for any adjustment because of the 3NT bid by South.

Furthermore I fully agree with sanst that neither is there reason for any Law 23 ruling because of North's COOT in this case.


PS.: I ran a double dummy check on this board and found that NS can make 6 tricks (only) in No Trump but 7 tricks in Spades while EW can make 7 tricks in either minor.

This confirms my suspicion that SB was indeed (unbelievable) lucky to make 9 tricks.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2015-September-19, 10:59, said:

It is not for me to decide whether "normal play" is important under the current laws. The Lawmakers have done that for me and decided it is:
12A2. The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board.

You are more than well aware that "normal play" in this law means something different from what it might mean in casual conversation. Otherwise we could throw out half of the rulebook!

[lamford]

pran, on 2015-September-19, 11:26, said:

This confirms my suspicion that SB was indeed (unbelievable) lucky to make 9 tricks.

Indeed. As he goaded in the bar later, if West had led a fourth-best diamond, EW would have collected +300 and 7 IMPs.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-19, 11:28, said:

You are more than well aware that "normal play" in this law means something different from what it might mean in casual conversation. Otherwise we could throw out half of the rulebook!

In that case I have no idea what the phrase means. As it seems that you do, perhaps you will reply to my request in #3 for an example of where normal play is not possible, rather than wrongly surmise that I already know.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2015-September-19, 07:56, said:

To answer the question whether N could have been aware that his COOT could damage the non offending side: I don't see how. This situation is taken care of in detail by the laws and you use Law 23 in clear cut cases. Otherwise any infraction would call for the application of 23.

I don't see any requirement in the Laws for "clear-cut cases". Indeed the wording of Law 23, "could have been aware", indicates otherwise. Interpretation of this is up to the TD.

[pran]

lamford, on 2015-September-19, 12:09, said:

Indeed. As he goaded in the bar later, if West had led a fourth-best diamond, EW would have collected +300 and 7 IMPs.

Any lead other than a heart or a honour in diamonds will hold South to 6 tricks!