[Fluffy]

I Was directing (subbing the director) at our local yesterday.

I was watching behind out when this hand arised.

AKx
AKQx
KJx
AKx

--

Qxx
x
A109xx
QJ10x


NS ended up in 7NT, ♠J lead. Declarer though for long, then run all his tricks outside diamonds.

He wante to try some sort of squeeze maybe, and kept his 4th heart instead of third diamond, but he discarded the low one instead of the ♦J, reaching


-
x
KJ
-

-----

-
-
A109
-


He played ♦K, then ♦J, and thoguh for a while, finally ducked it, what happened next surprsied me a bit, everyone on the table packed his cards and agreed with 13 tricks.




As a director, I had no clue if I had to act or not, it was just the random table I was watching, could be anywere else, should I alert E-W of what was going on?.

[paulg]

This is why Directors are taught not to watch boards in play, but of course this is the club rather than a serious competition.

Technically,

1997 Laws said:

LAW 81 - DUTIES AND POWERS

C. Director’s Duties and Powers

The Director’s duties and powers normally include the following:

6. Errors
to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C.

However I think most directors in this position at the local club would not get involved.

Paul

[Fluffy]

Thank you, and if I think North did everything on purpose and was aware he should be 1 off, what kind of action is apropiate for him?

[Foxx]

Nothing that comes to my mind. E/W turkeyed themselves. It's their job to make sure they get their trick.

[inquiry]

It is best if directors don't watch, and you would not have been placed into this position. Having seen a claim that takes a trick that never can be won, you really should have adjusted the score to down one.

But as a non-real director (a sub), maybe not knowing the rules was a blessing.

[Free]

Not sure about this. Aren't you considered a kibitzer and not the TD at that moment? If so, you should shut up according to article 76...

[P_Marlowe]

Fluffy, on Jun 8 2007, 04:08 AM, said:

Thank you, and if I think North did everything on purpose and was aware he should be 1 off, what kind of action is apropiate for him?

It is unethical.

The laws forbid accepting a claim you
know is wrong, i.e. if they concede a trick
you know, you cant take, you have to
correct the false claim.

There was a ruling in germany and the
player in question go temporarily banned.

Of course such a case is hard to prove.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jtfanclub]

Fluffy, on Jun 8 2007, 02:20 AM, said:

As a director, I had no clue if I had to act or not, it was just the random table I was watching, could be anywere else, should I alert E-W of what was going on?.

Have you considered the possibility they were right?

Suppose East had:

JTx
JT9xx
Qxx
xx

Three rounds of spades, then 4 rounds of clubs. East sluffs two hearts. AKQ of hearts, and when the remaining hearts break 3-3, South could claim, but he's lost track of the discards (but EW know). King of diamonds, jack of diamonds allowed to ride, and everybody throws in their hands.

Edited to add: on the last trick, West will have the 13th spade, while East has the Q of diamonds. Both can throw in their hands 100% certain that they cannot win the last trick.

[Fluffy]

jtfanclub, on Jun 8 2007, 03:33 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Jun 8 2007, 02:20 AM, said:

As a director, I had no clue if I had to act or not, it was just the random table I was watching, could be anywere else, should I alert E-W of what was going on?.

Have you considered the possibility they were right?

Not an option, I had seen west's hand, and also the full deal at another table, I knew everything at that moment, but North didn't knew that I did!

[paulg]

Free, on Jun 8 2007, 03:12 PM, said:

Not sure about this.  Aren't you considered a kibitzer and not the TD at that moment?  If so, you should shut up according to article 76...

Frequently suggested but only possible in a parallel universe. The Director cannot relinquish his responsibilities and morph into a kibitzer.

[Echognome]

Agree with the others. If you are a TD and you notice an irregularity, you have to act on it under the laws. You cannot place on a 'kibitzer' hat and claim you weren't a TD during that time. That is exactly why TDs do not kibitz.

That being said, at the local club, I've seen many a law broken and not worried about.

[LH2650]

In general, you should do nothing. For the legalities, see Mike Flader's column in the Chicago NABC Daily Bulletin #3

http://web2.acbl.org...6summer/db3.pdf

[mike777]

LH2650, on Jun 8 2007, 09:32 PM, said:

In general, you should do nothing.  For the legalities, see Mike Flader's column in the Chicago NABC Daily Bulletin #3

http://web2.acbl.org...6summer/db3.pdf

Nothing?

The director should do nothing? How the heck do you read that out of this article.
Seems to me the director did a heck of alot of work in this article, not nothing.
To say the director should do nothing out of this article is just silly.

[jdonn]

mike777, on Jun 8 2007, 10:16 PM, said:

LH2650, on Jun 8 2007, 09:32 PM, said:

In general, you should do nothing.  For the legalities, see Mike Flader's column in the Chicago NABC Daily Bulletin #3

http://web2.acbl.org...6summer/db3.pdf

Nothing?

The director should do nothing? How the heck do you read that out of this article.
Seems to me the director did a heck of alot of work in this article, not nothing.
To say the director should do nothing out of this article is just silly.

Mike did you read the article? Flader makes a gigantic point of stating that though the director is allowed to correct an error no matter how it comes to his attention, the law is intentionally worded in such a way that the director doesn't HAVE to correct it if the players didn't call him. In other words, he should use his discretion and apply common sense. He also gives this relevent example.

"Thus, if the director becomes aware of a revoke by a player that is not noticed by his opponents, he may not always bring it to other attention of the non-offending side. After all, the players have some responsibility in this game to protect their own interests."

The entire point of that example is to show that in a case like the one presented by the original poster, the director might very well (and legally) decide to do nothing. Which is what I would do.

[mike777]

Josh
In the article the director does a lot of work to make the decision to not get involved. That is not nothing, that is using his experience and knowledge to make a decision to intervene or not. That is not nothing. In fact that is alot.

Example, a Doctor decides to not give medicine or do an operation on a patient. That is not do nothing.

[BillHiggin]

jdonn, on Jun 8 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 8 2007, 10:16 PM, said:

LH2650, on Jun 8 2007, 09:32 PM, said:

In general, you should do nothing.  For the legalities, see Mike Flader's column in the Chicago NABC Daily Bulletin #3

http://web2.acbl.org...6summer/db3.pdf

Nothing?

The director should do nothing? How the heck do you read that out of this article.
Seems to me the director did a heck of alot of work in this article, not nothing.
To say the director should do nothing out of this article is just silly.

Mike did you read the article? Flader makes a gigantic point of stating that though the director is allowed to correct an error no matter how it comes to his attention, the law is intentionally worded in such a way that the director doesn't HAVE to correct it if the players didn't call him. In other words, he should use his discretion and apply common sense. He also gives this relevent example.

"Thus, if the director becomes aware of a revoke by a player that is not noticed by his opponents, he may not always bring it to other attention of the non-offending side. After all, the players have some responsibility in this game to protect their own interests."

The entire point of that example is to show that in a case like the one presented by the original poster, the director might very well (and legally) decide to do nothing. Which is what I would do.

LAW 81 - DUTIES AND POWERS
C. Director’s Duties and Powers
The Director’s duties and powers normally include the following:
6. Errors
to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any
manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law
79C.

It would seem to me that interpreting the words "normally include" as "at the director's option" is a significant stretch.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Bill. I also believe that players, whether qualified directors or not, should not make or attempt to make rulings at their own table, unless they are both playing and directing. And that directors who are not playing should not kibitz. And that kibitzers should keep their mouths shut about what they see unless asked by the director to speak to a question of fact or law.