[mr1303]

Hi all

The actually ruling here should be fairly straight forward. However, there's a small complication:

---

Dealer was North, love all, matchpoint scoring, from face-to-face bridge

North is a beginner, having just been taught weak 2s.

2D P P X
P 2H all pass

Before doubling, West asked a lot of questions about the 2D opening. I (South) replied that it showed a weak 2 in diamonds, that was usually a 6 card suit, and showed less than an opening hand (I'm very careful to not specify a point range when my partner pre-empts). It did not say anything about outside suits.

After the hand had finished (2H went 3 off), West went ballistic, complaining about how he had been damaged by my completely inaccurate explanation of my partner's bid, and how he demanded that the director give an adjusted score.

The director, unfortunately, was me.

What's the correct procedure in this situation

[Walddk]

mr1303, on Mar 2 2006, 12:19 PM, said:

After the hand had finished (2H went 3 off), West went ballistic, complaining about how he had been damaged by my completely inaccurate explanation of my partner's bid, and how he demanded that the director give an adjusted score.

The director, unfortunately, was me.

What's the correct procedure in this situation

Find a stand-in director for the occasion. You should not make a ruling when you are part of the case. We all know that there has been no damage because your LHO has been given the correct explanation according to your agreements, but for everybody's sake it's much better if you let someone else give that ruling.

Roland

[chicken]

agreed with roland. however great opps not realizing that they are supposed to have written a 70% score, 3nt beeing cold with 6!d and 3 aces. :-)

[jikl]

I agree also, sort of.

When it comes to possible damage or adjustments where judgment is required you cannot rule. If it is a technical issue such as a lead out of turn, insuffucuent bid etc with a defined ruling then you can rule, BUT, have your law book ready!

Sean

[jdulmage]

There is no penalty.

Law 75 - Partnership Agreements.

The partnership agreement is as explained - 2 ♦ is less than an opener with 6 diamonds; the mistake was in North's bid. Here there is no infraction of law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands.

(Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.) North must not correct South's explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently.

As the director, I would see no point in calling over another director. I would have referred to Law 75 as it is written. If they had any dispute, they can get a committee.

On a side note, I'd refer the East-West to Law 74 Code and Etiquette. Because if West went "ballistic", he deserves a warning. Especially since they received a good board (3NT is cold N-S) and still had the nerve to rip out a newcomer.

[yoder]

This is not a judgment problem, it's clearcut application of Law 75. The bid was explained correctly, so no penalty.

If another director was available who had already played the hand, then I would call him/her and let him/her make the ruling, just to avoid problems.

If not, then stand up, put on your director hat, and rule exactly as you would have if Mr XYZ were sitting in the empty seat you just vacated.

If there is still an objection from the opponents, treat it exactly as you would if Mr XYZ were in the empty seat ... read them the Law from the Laws book.

I actually do this in live bridge when this situation arises. I stand up and go get the Laws book, and then come back and make the ruling standing by the table as I would at any other table. When the situation is resolved, I put the Laws book away and sit back down.

[barmar]

I had no problem at the club a few nights ago when the playing director opened out of turn and made his own ruling when I was at his table. I didn't even make him get up for the Law book, I trusted him to know this one by heart.

[PeterE]

I wouldn't even trust myself, when ruling BOOT without the lawbook
There are so many minimal differences and cross-references to other laws in the laws 30-32 and it depends so much on the (relative) position of the BOOT-bidder that I strongly recommend to NOT do it by heart.

Peter

[barmar]

Actually, it was an opening pass out of turn, which is the simplest case. Any experienced director who doesn't know this one is not worthy of the title, IMHO.

[PeterE]

ok, agreed on this one
But only on this one.