[blackshoe]

Change of call is an irregularity. Players are not permitted to allow or disallow an irregularity. That is a prerogative of the TD.

That said, I'm sure there are plenty of players who ignore the law whenever it suits them.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Mar 15 2009, 07:49 AM, said:

Change of call is an irregularity. Players are not permitted to allow or disallow an irregularity. That is a prerogative of the TD.

That said, I'm sure there are plenty of players who ignore the law whenever it suits them.

Yes. A situation like this is perfect.

But as much as I would enjoy having this discussion for the umpteenth time, wasn't the problem presented that the director came and left it up to us whether rho could take back his bid or not?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Mar 15 2009, 07:49 AM, said:

Change of call is an irregularity. Players are not permitted to allow or disallow an irregularity. That is a prerogative of the TD.

That said, I'm sure there are plenty of players who ignore the law whenever it suits them.

But in this case the relevant law specifically says that LHO may accept the change of call. Normally the TD should be called, who will ask him if he wants to accept the change of call, but if LHO makes a call then the acceptance is implicit.

The TD should still be called to determine whether this was an allowable change of call in the first place.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Mar 15 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

wasn't the problem presented that the director came and left it up to us whether rho could take back his bid or not?

That was the original problem, yes. Seemed to me we'd drifted from that, but maybe not.

[dburn]

Since I was at the Camrose in the role of vugraph commentator, I was consulted by the Director about this ruling.

When the hand actually occurred, a diligent search of the North-South and East-West convention cards eventually enabled me to explain to the audience that [a] the North-South methods were demented; [b] they were not as demented as North, who seemed to believe that the methods applied in a situation where they clearly did not. I had no idea at the time that North did not know against which country he was playing, but if I had, I would not have revised my opinion of North's general level of dementia other than upwards.

I confess that I was not sure about the basis on which the Director allowed North to change his call only with East's permission. That seems to imply a set of screen regulations with which I am not familiar. The WBF General Conditions of Contest say:

Quote

A call placed and released may be changed :

If it is illegal or inadmissible (in which case the change is obligatory), if screens are in use, as soon as either screenmate is aware of this; or

If it is determined by the Director to be a call inadvertently selected; or

Under the provisions of Law 25, but note that in order to comply with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007, revised regulations when screens are in use will be published as soon as possible.

As far as I know, no revised regulations have yet been published, and the EBU regulations for screens do not seem to me to make any specific provision for the situation that actually arose. I may be wrong on both of these counts.

Law 25 says that:

2007 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge said:

Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.

but this does not apply here, since [a] a pause to reflect upon the fact that you did not know what methods the opponents were playing is certainly a "pause for thought" within the meaning of the Act; and [b] North clearly intended to bid 3♦ when he bid it.

At any rate, North was stuck with 3♦, as in my opinion he should have been whether East would allow him to be stuck with it or not (but the Director is one of the most capable on the highly capable EBU staff, and he doubtless knew something I did not about the Law and the regulations).

As it happened, South was 5-5 in spades and diamonds and was able to offer a forcing raise to 4♦, hastily passed by the demented North and leaving East in a bit of a pickle.

I spoke with East at some length during the dinner that followed the tournament, so my opinion might have been one of the two conflicting ones he is said to have received.

Whereas in general I am very much less sympathetic than most with the idea that certain infractions profit the offending side simply through "rub of the green", I said that in the circumstances I did not believe that his side was due any redress - he had just been desperately unlucky. His treatment of the situation as it arose on his side of the screen appeared to me tactically correct and morally irreproachable, as I would expect from this fine player and gentleman. However, as not only this East but every other competitor in the Camrose was to discover, nothing would avail against North in his might this day.

[mugsmate]

The auction continued:
4D P P P

Dummy held AQxxx xx AKJxx x, and was intending to bid blackwood over a 4H cuebid from partner.

So the opposition got incredibly lucky, that the overcaller had a hand where he wasn't just rebidding spades at some level and going for an enormous penalty.

The Scottish team accepted that 4D was failrly automatic, but asked for a ruling in any case, although they presented no bridge case for why they might get one. There was a hastily arranged "appeal hearing" between the director and the teams in the hotel foyer after the match, where the Scottish captain seemed to be on a "fishing expedition". I think captains should consider a bit more carefully whether and why they have a case before wasting everyone's time on frivolous appeals.

[blackshoe]

Um. If they ask for a ruling, they're entitled to a ruling. Might not be favorable to them, of course, but a ruling they shall get. And "ruling" ≠ "appeal".

If I've taken something out of context, sorry about that. I'm just responding to the post above mine.