[jh51]

---

The 2♣ bid was preceded by an insufficient 1♣ bid. The director was called, but on this particular night at the club, he was playing and neither he nor the other two club level directors in attendence had played the board yet. (This was the second round.) North said she was simply going to make the bid sufficient, and the director remarked that the new bid would not have the same meaning as a 1♣ opening bid. North-South play Michaels, so this is clearly the case.

I think that the ruling on the hand was not correct, once North bids 2♣ and that South should now be barred from the bidding for at least one round. (But I am not a director, so I may have this wrong. I assume just one round, but aren't there certain cases where IB's partner is barred for the rest of the auction?)

When South is not barred by the director, I would think that she has UI that North has a 1♣ and not a Muchaels bid. It would seem to me that if South treated 2♣ as Michaels, passing 2♠ is not a LA. In fact, I would think that once North bids 2♠, these is no LA to 4♥.

Would I be right in thinking that with a proper rulling, the final contract would likely have been 2♣ by North, most likely going down. Once South is not barred, 4♥ (or more) seems inevitable. This contract is almost certainly doomed.

Additioanl comments:
North had missorted her cards and had a spade amongst the clubs.

At the end of the night I considered asking the director to take a further look at this, but I found we already had a top. North found a way to take only 9 tricks when everyone else was taking 10 if they played in spades. One North played 3NT had made 5 (bad defense I suppose.)

[ArtK78]

jh51, on 2013-February-19, 09:17, said:

---

The 2♣ bid was preceded by an insufficient 1♣ bid. The director was called, but on this particular night at the club, he was playing and neither he nor the other two club level directors in attendence had played the board yet. (This was the second round.) North said she was simply going to make the bid sufficient, and the director remarked that the new bid would not have the same meaning as a 1♣ opening bid. North-South play Michaels, so this is clearly the case.

I think that the ruling on the hand was not correct, once North bids 2♣ and that South should now be barred from the bidding for at least one round. (But I am not a director, so I may have this wrong. I assume just one round, but aren't there certain cases where IB's partner is barred for the rest of the auction?)

When South is not barred by the director, I would think that she has UI that North has a 1♣ and not a Muchaels bid. It would seem to me that if South treated 2♣ as Michaels, passing 2♠ is not a LA. In fact, I would think that once North bids 2♠, these is no LA to 4♥.

Would I be right in thinking that with a proper rulling, the final contract would likely have been 2♣ by North, most likely going down. Once South is not barred, 4♥ (or more) seems inevitable. This contract is almost certainly doomed.

Additioanl comments:
North had missorted her cards and had a spade amongst the clubs.

At the end of the night I considered asking the director to take a further look at this, but I found we already had a top. North found a way to take only 9 tricks when everyone else was taking 10 if they played in spades. One North played 3NT had made 5 (bad defense I suppose.)

I believe that Law 27B2 is quite clear. "2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23."

The "except as provided in B1 above" refers to an insufficient bid being replaced by either a minimally sufficient bid in the same strain which has the same meaning as the insufficient bid being replaced or by any sufficient bid which has the same or a more narrow meaning as the insufficient bid being replaced, in which case there is no penalty (this is not a direct quote, but the meaning is sufficient for this purpose).

As you stated, the 2♣ bid did not have the same meaning as the 1♣ bid being replaced, so the partner of the 2♣ bidder should have been barred from the auction, and lead and other penalties may apply.

I like the way you presented the problem:

"he was playing and neither he nor the other two club level directors in attendence had played the board yet."

At your club, you have directors who specialize in two club bids? LOL.

[mink]

The diagram shows that West bid 2♠, but in the text you say that North bid it - I assume the text is correct.

What exactly was the ruling?

The correct way to handle this for the director is, according to law 27:

• Explain what might happen
  
• Give East the opportunity to accept the insufficient 1♣ bid
  
• If it is not accepted, tell North that he can make any sufficient bid or pass, but South must pass for the rest of the auction; and if E or W become declarer, when South has to lead for the first time, declarer may require or forbid a ♣ lead

If North knew that South must always pass, I expect him to bid something else than 2♣. If, however, he had already replaced the 1♣ with 2♣ before the director arrived, then this will be the final contract maybe.

Karl

[jh51]

ArtK78, on 2013-February-19, 09:29, said:

I like the way you presented the problem:

"he was playing and neither he nor the other two club level directors in attendence had played the board yet."

At your club, you have directors who specialize in two club bids? LOL.

Obviously not. The intent was to say that there were two other people there who ran games at the club on other nights and had experience directing club games. BUt I thnik you got that.

[RMB1]

The original ruling should have been that Law 27B1a would not apply (2C is artificial) and 27B1b would not apply (unless 1C-3C is natural) so any bid or pass by North would silence partner. Thereafter North would make his choice of call and there might be lead penalties (and in principle, consideration of Law 23).

This was not the ruling at the table, so we have directors' errors - North was not told that any bid/pass would silence partner before choosing his call and South was not silenced when North bid 2C.

EW were not damaged by the first error but with South silenced they would defend 2C, going off.

NS were damaged by the first error, it appears that North (even with 4-1-3-5) only bid 2C so that partner would not be silenced. If North is correctly informed that South will be silenced (throughout) regardless then North will probably Pass and EW will reach 1NT/2C/2H. There is a chance North will sort his hand correctly and (with 5-1-3-4) he may compete to 2S.

A possible ruling under Law 82C and 12C1(e)(i) is
EW get 2C(N) going off some likely number of tricks,
NS get the result of 2S(N) or some partscore by EW going off (depending on how likely North is to correctly sort his hand and bid 2S).

Under Law 12C1(c)
EW would get a weighted score for the number of tricks in 2C(N),
NS would get a weighted score of some of 1NT(W), 2C(W), 2H(E) and 2S(N)

[aguahombre]

ArtK78, on 2013-February-19, 09:29, said:

As you stated, the 2♣ bid did not have the same meaning as the 1♣ bid being replaced, so the partner of the 2♣ bidder should have been barred from the auction, and lead and other penalties may apply.

Yes. And here, if the offender did indeed have long clubs and the barring of partner resulted in a 2C contract ---we would be poised to adjust under that "could have known" thing.

[jh51]

mink, on 2013-February-19, 09:46, said:

The diagram shows that West bid 2♠, but in the text you say that North bid it - I assume the text is correct.

What exactly was the ruling?

The correct way to handle this for the director is, according to law 27:

• Explain what might happen
  
• Give East the opportunity to accept the insufficient 1♣ bid
  
• If it is not accepted, tell North that he can make any sufficient bid or pass, but South must pass for the rest of the auction; and if E or W become declarer, when South has to lead for the first time, declarer may require or forbid a ♣ lead

If North knew that South must always pass, I expect him to bid something else than 2♣. If, however, he had already replaced the 1♣ with 2♣ before the director arrived, then this will be the final contract maybe.

Karl

I have corrected the diagram.

Because he did not want to see what was going on, the director did not come to the table and ruled from the table where hw was playing. He basicly allowed North to correct the bid to 2♣ without further repercussions. He made some remarks that since "everyone knew what was going on" we had no reason to beleive that North's bid was Michaels.

I was thinking at the time that had we the correct ruling, he would have been in a 2C contract and that without the UI (everyone, including South knew this was not Michaels, but If allowed to bid, South should bid as though it were) it would seem that South would want to be in 4H with a presumed double fit and a void in West's suit. I am of course assuming that 2♠ by a Michaels bidder after partner bids 2♥ os a forward going bid.

[jh51]

RMB1, on 2013-February-19, 10:30, said:

NS were damaged by the first error, it appears that North (even with 4-1-3-5) only bid 2C so that partner would not be silenced. If North is correctly informed that South will be silenced (throughout) regardless then North will probably Pass and EW will reach 1NT/2C/2H. There is a chance North will sort his hand correctly and (with 5-1-3-4) he may compete to 2S.

A possible ruling under Law 82C and 12C1(e)(i) is
EW get 2C(N) going off some likely number of tricks,
NS get the result of 2S(N) or some partscore by EW going off (depending on how likely North is to correctly sort his hand and bid 2S).

Under Law 12C1(c)
EW would get a weighted score for the number of tricks in 2C(N),
NS would get a weighted score of some of 1NT(W), 2C(W), 2H(E) and 2S(N)

I guess I failed to mention that North had discovered her mis-sort sometime between her 1♣ insufficient bid and her 2♠ bid.


With only 3 HCP and 4 clubs, my East partner might well have passed 1♣.

As noted, at the end of the night I was happy with the table result (a match point top) but not how we got there. In the discussion of the possible weighted scores, I think they all result in zeroes for NS.

[aguahombre]

You deserve better directing than that. Playing directors are expected to do their job. If that involves them receiving EI about a hand they will be playing, so be it; they must deal with themselves at that time.

[RMB1]

jh51, on 2013-February-19, 10:55, said:

I guess I failed to mention that North had discovered her mis-sort sometime between her 1♣ insufficient bid and her 2♠ bid.

Neverthess, I don't think we should adjust on the basis that discovering the mis-sort is automatic.

jh51, on 2013-February-19, 10:55, said:

With only 3 HCP and 4 clubs, my East partner might well have passed 1♣.

I guess the 10s made it look worth a response.

jh51, on 2013-February-19, 10:55, said:

As noted, at the end of the night I was happy with the table result (a match point top) but not how we got there. In the discussion of the possible weighted scores, I think they all result in zeroes for NS.

Understood. Once North has made the insufficient bid and then later made fewer tricks than anyone else, he is not getting any match points, regardless of directors' errors.

[ArtK78]

jh51, on 2013-February-19, 10:55, said:

As noted, at the end of the night I was happy with the table result (a match point top) but not how we got there. In the discussion of the possible weighted scores, I think they all result in zeroes for NS.

Correct me if I am wrong, but since this is an ACBL hand, it is my understanding that a ruling based on weighing possible outcomes is not permitted.

[blackshoe]

You're not wrong, Art. In the ACBL, anyway.

There are two things here, I think: what would the correct ruling have been at the table, and what is the correct ruling now that the table ruling was wrong. As for the first, I agree with a ruling under 27B2: offender can bid what he wants, as long as if a bid it's sufficient and it's not a double, but his partner is barred throughout. I would not apply Law 23, and I haven't looked at the applicability of Law 26. On the second question, the table ruling is director error, so the director should apply Law 82C.

Comment: The director's comment is not, to my mind, a ruling. Did he actually make one, or did he just not say anything beyond the comment?

[mycroft]

"I'm sorry, but I have information about this hand that may make it difficult for me to play it ethically" (or "will make it impossible for me to", or "may come up, but I doubt it", or "that requires us to play it with me South", or whatever). Luckily I can say this in my area, in the expressing doubt versions, and the opponents will believe me if I don't say anything about it *having* affected me (and I'll tell them what I knew after the hand so they can check my judgement).

If it happens that it becomes an unplayable board for me, that's the risks I take by playing in my own game, whether it's because that's usual or because I'm filling in to avoid a half-table.

I think it's happened three times in 12 years.

I have no sympathy with the playing TD. Sure, use alternate directors if it will help and not compromise their game, but if not, you go, you make your ruling, you do your best to minimize the information you get without compromising the ruling, and you hope you get to play the board. With things like UI rulings, or equity plays, you ask if you can look at it after you play the board, maybe; but the game comes first, your game a distant second.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-19, 15:49, said:

I would not apply Law 23.....

Really? If the only way this pair could get to play 2C (some hand with 6 clubs) was by blowing off Michaels via an insufficient 1C overcall of 1C, and it resulted in a bad score for the opponents ---I believe you would do your job.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2013-February-19, 18:12, said:

I have no sympathy with the playing TD. Sure, use alternate directors if it will help and not compromise their game, but if not, you go, you make your ruling, you do your best to minimize the information you get without compromising the ruling, and you hope you get to play the board. With things like UI rulings, or equity plays, you ask if you can look at it after you play the board, maybe; but the game comes first, your game a distant second.

I have more sympathy with the playing TD. I think that at certain times, such as the session being a qualifier for a national event, it is wrong to let the playing director's game suffer (this goes back to the thread on what score a playing director should get if a board ends up spoilt for her). Too much of this will end up with no one choosing to serve as director. Naturally it's different if the director is being paid, and is filling in maybe because the host did not turn up; but I assume that that is not what we are talking about, because if it were a paid director the above would go without saying.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-19, 20:46, said:

it is wrong to let the playing director's game suffer......

Please explain how a competent director's game would suffer. His score might just as likely be improved on hands where he judges that he has too much information and cannot play them.

Compare that with the likelihood that the games will suffer of all those other players who are deprived of at-the-table decisions.

I would rather a player chose not to direct than he chose to direct badly.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-19, 21:56, said:

Please explain how a competent director's game would suffer. His score might just as likely be improved on hands where he judges that he has too much information and cannot play them.

Compare that with the likelihood that the games will suffer of all those other players who are deprived of at-the-table decisions.

Please don't quote bits of posts out of context -- I wasn't saying that the playing director shouldn't make rulings in the proper way, but was responding to mycroft's comment about the director's game being a distant second -- it is a bit unfair on the person who volunteered to direct for an important session.

Quote

I would rather a player chose not to direct than he chose to direct badly.

I would rather be very tolerant of playing directors, because if they chose not to direct, the responsibility would fall on two or three people. Many people feel that serving as a playing director hurts their score just in general, because of the distraction and sometimes the need to catch up time lost making a ruling. So it is best to try to spread the responsibility as thinly as possible.

[blackshoe]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-19, 15:49, said:

I would not apply Law 23…

aguahombre, on 2013-February-19, 20:20, said:

Really? If the only way this pair could get to play 2C (some hand with 6 clubs) was by blowing off Michaels via an insufficient 1C overcall of 1C, and it resulted in a bad score for the opponents ---I believe you would do your job.

I was talking about this case, not some hypothetical other case.

[bluejak]

I am a great believer that if you are a playing TD you do your job just as fully as if you are not. Specifically, if you have to rule on a board you are yet to play then you rule, and you take care to know enough to rule correctly. If it affects your own game, tough, and if it is a national qualifier, double tough.

[ArtK78]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-19, 20:46, said:

I have more sympathy with the playing TD. I think that at certain times, such as the session being a qualifier for a national event, it is wrong to let the playing director's game suffer (this goes back to the thread on what score a playing director should get if a board ends up spoilt for her). Too much of this will end up with no one choosing to serve as director. Naturally it's different if the director is being paid, and is filling in maybe because the host did not turn up; but I assume that that is not what we are talking about, because if it were a paid director the above would go without saying.

Unless things have changed since I used to direct games (and I admit it has been quite a number of years), in the ACBL playing directors are not allowed for any game above the level of a club game. And, in special events held in clubs, such as Sectional Touraments in Clubs or North American Pairs qualifying games, playing directors are not allowed.

So, the issue of a playing director's game suffering in a qualifying game for a national event would not arise.