[jtfanclub]

MFA, on Dec 18 2007, 04:17 PM, said:

Law 72B1:

"B. Infraction of Law
1. Adjusted Score
Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity."

So TD adjust to best result that was likely for NS, had the irregularity not happened.

This situation is analogous to the classical AK tight opposite QJxxxx with no entries in NT. Declarer plays A, K and calls for the Q. Even if RHO is caught sleeping and plays to the trick, §72B1 will protect him.

I think you missed a line here....

he shall require the auction and play to continue

You still haven't given a reason why you should interrupt the game in the middle of play but after it's too late to make a correction and call the director.

After the hand, sure, you can call the director. I don't think anybody can argue about that.

Actually, what you describe sounds like so much fun, I've got to try it. I'm playing in the Vanderbilt in a few months. I'll wait until we're defending some horribly difficult hand which requires an upside down double Italian squeeze with sprinkles, and then call the director on my partner for something to protect the opponents when I know full well that it can wait until after the hand. I'm sure they'll be thanking me for the needless distraction, especially if declarer forgets the spot cards and goes down. How about partner detatches a card early. That's always a good one. After all, it's an irregularity, and maybe declarer didn't notice. Surely I shouldn't rule on this myself.

There are other ways it can help you. It can wake partner up if he thinks he won the previous trick (if he has the contract wrong or the number of tricks wrong). And it can let you quiz declarer...after all, right now, you don't know if declarer let the lead through because of something you don't know about or because he wasn't paying attention. Wouldn't it be nice to know which it was?

I'll stand by my earlier statement: there is no reason to bring this up after declarer has played a card. It's of no advantage to declarer, and it could be of considerable advantage to you or your partner. If you honestly don't know what the rules are, well, fine. But when you know that a call can wait until after the round, and you call him earlier for an infraction on your side in order to gain an advantage...well, I guess I won't go so far as to say it's unethical. I'll just think it really hard.

Wait until after the hand, unless it's still correctable. It cannot hurt the opponents to do so.

[MFA]

jdonn, on Dec 21 2007, 08:10 PM, said:

MFA, on Dec 21 2007, 04:59 AM, said:

The term "likely" points in two directions:
1) Relative likelyhood. In this situation, there is no risk! This is important, although the laws do allow for some small risk of backfire.
2) Absolute likelyhood. There should be some realistic, positive chance that the "coup" would work, which is the case here.

I'll have to take your word for it if there is a majority interpretation of 1), and I certainly make no claims of being some authority on the laws, but that seems nonexistant as far as I'm concerned. The law could have said "low risk" or something but it didn't, it said "likely" to gain. 1% chance of gain with 0% chance of loss is not 'likely to gain'. 70% chance of gain with 30% chance of loss is 'likely to gain'. This seems obvious to me.

Like I said, any lead out of turn has a 0% chance of gaining and a >0% chance of losing, unless the opponent is completely irrational.

Irrational, yes agreed. But you might (well, I might ) be caught sleeping here. The opps are running a suit against me, and all I'm really thinking about is to discard properly. I might have played before noticing the "coup". And so would others. Our Danish friend did (in an analogous situation), and he's just about "world class" according to the BBO classification (for whatever that's worth )

I'm not talking about some LOOT, where this gained. I'm talking about this one! RHO is running an otherwise blocked suit, and he could know that trying this is to his advantage.
Give him a certain entry, for instance, and it is already another story.

In general, if some LOOT just happens to help the player, then fine, LOOT accepted and score stands. We need the "could have known" part.

Note that it's the application of §72B1 in these situtions that I thought was "mainstream interpretation".
The concrete explanation of the term "likely" is my own - an extract of various discussions, for instance the one on BLML, I linked to.

[MFA]

@ jtfanclub

I agree with you that it's optimal to call the TD afterwards in this situation.
My focus has been to resolve the case itself, and to judge if I thought it an ethical necessity to call the TD at all. Which I do.

[jtfanclub]

MFA, on Dec 22 2007, 03:57 AM, said:

@ jtfanclub

I agree with you that it's optimal to call the TD afterwards in this situation.
My focus has been to resolve the case itself, and to judge if I thought it an ethical necessity to call the TD at all. Which I do.

OK, sounds like we're in agreement here then, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Are we in agreement on the following?

"If an irregularity by you or partner is not correctable (because it's not a correctable issue or because it is longer correctable because opponents have continued on), then it is laudable but not required to bring it up at the end of the auction (if your side is declaring) or the end of play (if it occurs during play or you are defending). This includes:

-Revokes (once they've been established)
-Insufficient Bids
-Leads out of Turn
-Failures to Alert
-Hesitations by your side

Unless the issue can still be corrected, you should wait until the auction or play is complete. If you are unsure as to whether an irregularity can (still) be corrected, you should call the director".

[MFA]

jtfanclub, on Dec 24 2007, 04:22 PM, said:

MFA, on Dec 22 2007, 03:57 AM, said:

@ jtfanclub

I agree with you that it's optimal to call the TD afterwards in this situation.
My focus has been to resolve the case itself, and to judge if I thought it an ethical necessity to call the TD at all. Which I do.

OK, sounds like we're in agreement here then, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Are we in agreement on the following?

"If an irregularity by you or partner is not correctable (because it's not a correctable issue or because it is longer correctable because opponents have continued on), then it is laudable but not required to bring it up at the end of the auction (if your side is declaring) or the end of play (if it occurs during play or you are defending). This includes:

-Revokes (once they've been established)
-Insufficient Bids
-Leads out of Turn
-Failures to Alert
-Hesitations by your side

Unless the issue can still be corrected, you should wait until the auction or play is complete. If you are unsure as to whether an irregularity can (still) be corrected, you should call the director".

Hmm, hmm, it's reasonable, sure, but not quite my views actually.
I make a sharp distinction §72B1 - not§72B1. I'll try to explain.

In the general case, §72B3 applies:

Quote

There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of Law committed by one's own side (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation).

This takes care of all standard revokes, LOOTs, and bids out of turn. I see no reason, really, to "turn yourself in" for these.
And if someone wants to impress me with his ethical standards, he should focus on other areas instead. (like full disclosure etc.)

[Failures to alert and hesitations by our side are different from the three above. We must notify our opponents about a missing alert, whereas if they feel damaged by our hesitations in any way, they should take action. Ok, I might help a very inexperienced player, but that's all!]

So why is a potential §72B1-situation different?

§72B1 is applied when an irregularity by our side...
- clearly is to our own advantage
- and we could have known at the time of the irregularity that this would likely be the case.

In a sense, we have done exactly what a cheater would have done! Inadvertently, yes, but still.
This I can't just watch and do nothing. I'm unsure if §72B3 technically also covers §72B1-situations, but I don't care. To me it's an active ethics extension, we must speak up.

Note the difference. In the general situation the irregularity is bad for us. Penalty tricks, penalty cards, choices of accepting/declining our play, UI, etc are lurking - it's big time -EV. If we survive unscratched, we're lucky, and that's perfectly OK.
On the contrary, in a §72B1 case the irregularity was clearly to our own advantage, and we could have known this. We can't keep quiet about that.

Imagine what our opponent would say after the session, if he finds out that we ran a blocked suit against him and said nothing. His words won't be rosy, and who could blame him? Not me!

[jtfanclub]

Here's Mike Flader's opinion on it, which IMHO follows your viewpoint rather than mine...

1. LHO dealt, but partner calls first with a pass. Can you call the director? What if RHO bids prior to you noticing partner's pass, can you still call the director? ****Law 9 states that unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction, whether or not it is his turn to call. It is not a good idea for players to make their own rulings at the table, so, even though the opponent may choose to accept the irregularity, the director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity (law 9B1a).

2. LHO dealt and opened 2 diamonds. Your partner says 1 heart. Can you call the director? What if RHO calls 1 spade before you notice partner's insufficient bid. Can you still call the director?

****Yes to both questions, once again per law 9.

3. It's LHO's turn to lead a card in the middle of the hand, but your partner leads instead. Can you call the director? What if RHO plays to the trick before you can say something? Can you still call the director? ****Unless you are the dummy, you may call the director during the play of the hand as well (law 9A2)

4. It's your turn to lead a card in the middle of the hand, but your partner leads instead. Can you call the Director? What if RHO plays to the trick before you can say something? Can you still call the director? ****Same as above.

I said, and I believe that I am correct, that the 2nd case of #3 and #4 you can not call the director. The infraction has been canceled, so it's as if there was no infraction. If you do call the director, the call is UI to partner and could 'wake him up', such as if he thought that he won the trick because he didn't realize what trumps were, and therefore could give your side an advantage.****I don't beleive that I have ever had to adjust a score due to the fact that a player called the director because of his partner's infraction.

[barmar]

Following to a bid or lead out of turn does NOT "cancel" the infraction. The irregularity has still occurred, it's just that most options and consequences have been removed. There are still potential 72B1 issues, though.

As has been mentioned, there's no requirement to call attention to an inadvertent irregularity by your side. So if the opponent doesn't realize that your partner bid or led out of turn, you don't have to say anything. But if someone calls attention to the infraction, even after it has been implicitly accepted, the TD must be called.

[Free]

gwnn, on Dec 17 2007, 09:57 PM, said:

The auction
1NT-2♣-(X by pd)-2♦-3♦(after long thought)
3NT(after even longer thought) all pass brings you to lead.

you have about 7 hcp, guaranteeing some sort of entries at pd, and QT9 of clubs.

You lead the Q of clubs, (which is an almost sure blunder), but that was your choice, taken by the A by declarer.

then you get in with your outside king and you continue clubs from top.

then pd gets in with some sort of outside ace. He seems to still have about 7-8 hcp, but you can't be sure, opps don't seem to know their NT range, etc. he leads a small club and you WIN. While you are thinking what to return, where's pd's entry etc, pd tries another club, declarer leniently following suit. May you call TD or tell pd "my play ok???".

Once declarer followed suit, he accepted the lead out of turn... TD can't do anything...

[barmar]

Free, on Dec 28 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

Once declarer followed suit, he accepted the lead out of turn... TD can't do anything...

He can still adjust based on 72B1, if he determines that the defender could have known that his lead out of turn would work to their benefit.

[Free]

barmar, on Dec 28 2007, 10:51 PM, said:

Free, on Dec 28 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

Once declarer followed suit, he accepted the lead out of turn...  TD can't do anything...

He can still adjust based on 72B1, if he determines that the defender could have known that his lead out of turn would work to their benefit.

I'm not so sure about that. Article 53A is clear, and there's no reference to 72B1!

[mycroft]

You're right, he can't. But that does not affect that if attention is drawn to the irregularity, even after LHO bids, the director must (should in the new laws, but still it is right and proper to do so) be summoned.

What if your opponents didn't know what they had just done? What if you just let it go, get a good score as a result, and then declarer figures it out and complains? Sure, he "accepted" the LOOT, but do you not think that it is easier in the long run to get that explained right away, rather than at the end of the hand, where declarer has this feeling that his opponents have pulled something on him?

I've been called for this a number of times, and I don't feel like it was an unnecessary call, or "don't call me here" thing - the only one of those I have is "call me at the end of the hand, not now" for defender's misexplanations - and even that is a "call at the right time", not "don't call".

[MFA]

Free, on Jan 2 2008, 05:51 AM, said:

barmar, on Dec 28 2007, 10:51 PM, said:

Free, on Dec 28 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

Once declarer followed suit, he accepted the lead out of turn...  TD can't do anything...

He can still adjust based on 72B1, if he determines that the defender could have known that his lead out of turn would work to their benefit.

I'm not so sure about that. Article 53A is clear, and there's no reference to 72B1!

I wouldn't read too much in that, § 72 is about general principles.
http://web2.acbl.org...proprieties.htm