[G_R__E_G]

Scoring: MP

Auction:
P-1♦-1♥-1♠
2♦-X-3♥-P
4♥-P-P-4♠
P-P-X-All pass

---

Dealer's hand and the auction are shown above. Before the opening lead is faced, East informs N/S that West's double of 2♦ was in fact a support double and promised 3 spades (strange but true - they both agreed on this). Director was called and asked to speak with North away from the table. The director asked North if knowing it was a support double would have changed his decision to double. North said that it would so the director came to the table and stated that the double would be cancelled and that the contract would be played 4♠ undoubled. South then asked to speak to the director away from the table. South told the director that if he'd know that West had 3 spades that he would have bid 5♥ directly over the 4♠ bid rather than leaving the final decision to partner. The director told South that the contract would have to be played out in 4♠ and to call him back after the play if South felt they'd been damaged.

As it turns out, due to the crazy distribution of the hands E/W made 5♠ (it's cold) and N/S were actually cold to make 6♥. Ruling?

[gordontd]

G_R__E_G, on Aug 24 2009, 10:05 PM, said:

The director told South that the contract would have to be played out in 4♠ and to call him back after the play if South felt they'd been damaged.

Did anyone ask the director to cite a law for this ruling?

[bluejak]

In effect, I am ruling the same way as Gordon:

The TD must write out 100 times:

I must follow the Law book and not make up Laws that do not exist.

[blackshoe]

It is South, not North, who is entitled to change his last call, which was his last pass (Law 21B1{a}). However, one of the criteria is that the call to be changed (not a previous call) was affected by the MI. That does not appear to be the case here.

I want to ask East at what point he realized he had failed to alert. I'm assuming, btw, that it should have been alerted, although since the jurisdiction was not specified, that is not a fact yet in evidence.

Assuming it should have been alerted, at this point the correct law to apply is 82C, as the TD's ruling was in error.

[G_R__E_G]

Sorry, I forgot to give the jurisdiction. It's ACBL land - a regional tournament to be specific. I was South and I was quite certain that the director was incorrect not to let me change my call but I tried to be respectful of the others in the game and not hold things up too much (it was pairs). So, after they made 5 spades I called him back and told him that I felt we'd been damaged. He wrote out the auction and said he'd be back. This was in the second round that this happened, he came back a few times to ask some follow up questions and then finally came back just before the last round and told me that they had decided there would be no adjustment because I should have bid 5♥ over the 4♠ bid even without the knowledge that West had support and therefore I had failed to "play bridge".

[blackshoe]

[jeremy69]

Quote

He wrote out the auction and said he'd be back. This was in the second round that this happened, he came back a few times to ask some follow up questions and then finally came back just before the last round and told me that they had decided there would be no adjustment because I should have bid 5♥ over the 4♠ bid even without the knowledge that West had support and therefore I had failed to "play bridge".

It must have been a bet as to how many errors he could make on the same board. To get that standard of direction in a regional event strikes me as particularly unlucky. I imagine a DP would have been issued if you said that whilst you didn't think you had "failed to play bridge" he had manifestly "failed to direct with any skill"

[G_R__E_G]

It actually got worse after that. When the round was over I told the director that I wanted to appeal the ruling. He pointed me to the DIC. The DIC (that acronym was particularly suited this time) told me that I clearly should have bid 5♥ and the fact that I didn't said alot about my bridge skills. Anyway, after discussing it for several minutes he finally said "Well you don't deserve it but I'm going to give you something just to make you happy. I'll give you an average plus".

[bluejak]

Ok, you have managed it: I cannot think of a single thing to say.

[jillybean]

Hi G_R__ E_G, I think you could respectfully ask the director to read from law book, which law(s) he is applying here. He should turn to Law21B Call based on misinformation from an opponent, it says nothing about failing to play bridge.

[blackshoe]

True, Jilly, but this director (I use the term loosely) clearly had his head somewhere the sun don't shine. It's dark in there, he wouldn't have been able to see his law book to read it.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on Aug 25 2009, 06:34 PM, said:

True, Jilly, but this director (I use the term loosely) clearly had his head somewhere the sun don't shine. It's dark in there, he wouldn't have been able to see his law book to read it.

True and I see this was all said earlier, I clicked reply before reading the entire thread.

[JoAnneM]

I wonder if this is the same TD that told me I "failed to play bridge" when I had a clear adjustment coming to me.

[G_R__E_G]

JoAnneM, on Aug 25 2009, 10:14 PM, said:

I wonder if this is the same TD that told me I "failed to play bridge" when I had a clear adjustment coming to me.

I don't think so JoAnne. This was in Ontario, Canada and if I recall correctly I think you're a long way from here.

[greenender]

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with all the rude things which have been said about the table TD and the DIC, I think that the correct ruling may be a little more interesting than the lack of attention to it so far warrants.

Of course:
1. The TD's allowing of the auction being rolled back to the NOS's penultimate call of the auction (N's double) was wrong.
2. The TD's refusal to contemplate the auction being rolled back to the NOS's final call of the auction (S's final pass) was also wrong.
3. The final ruling should therefore have been on the basis of TD error.
4. The DIC had no business making an adjustment if he believed on the basis of the law that S did not deserve one, although S in fact did.
5. The DIC had no business giving an artificial score.

Instead the ruling ought to have been on the basis of the proper application of Law 21, in the light of what Law 82C has to say about both sides being treated as non-offending.

So the correct ruling is that N's double stands, and Law 21 has to be applied with regard to S's final pass.

Now the Law used to say something along the lines that S's pass can be changed if it is probable that is was made as a result of MI. It now says that the change can be made if the director judges that it could well have been influenced by the MI. So, on the face of it the director has a judgment to exercise.

In England the TD does not seem to be expected to be too critical in his exercise of judgment: he just tends to ask S if he wants to change his final pass, and S makes a bridge decision which everyone is stuck with for better or worse. But the wording of the Law implies that it is open to the TD to judge that the call was not plausibly influenced by the MI.

Many players would not have sat for 4♠ (doubled or otherwise) on the S hand. If the TD is exercising a judgment role, then it is presumably open to him to form the view that the MI made little difference (as Ed seems to think, not that I necessarily agree with him).

The problem, of course, with the TD actively exercising his judgment, as the wording of the Law seems to require, is that the TD's judgment call is going to give information about S's hand to the rest of the players while the hand is still live, so one can see why English TDs rule as they do.

Moving on to Law 82C, the final ruling has to be given treating both sides as non-offending in terms of what might have happened had the TD got it right in the first place and applied Law 21 properly. For N/S it is relatively easy: they must be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether S would have pulled the double.

For E/W, it does not seem to me to be so clear: they also are entitled to the benefit of the doubt, so it may well be that they get the score for 4♠X+1, if the director, once restored to competence and sanity, rules that it is within the standard for a non-offending E/W that a S who was prepared to defend 4♠ with the default unaltered meaning of W's double (presumably stressing ♦s), may have been prepared to defend 4♠X with the correct information, holding an A and the ♠K notwithstanding his generally offensive hand.

[bluejak]

This is not the way English TDs should rule. Certainly they should not look at the hand, but they should make it clear to the player that he can only change it if it is because of the MI. They should not allow it without explanation and/or warning.