[661_Pete]

I should explain that this happened during the bidding. There was no obvious reason (e.g. exposed card, bid out of turn etc.) to summon the TD. No explanation was given at the time.

What should happen next, if anything?

[Cyberyeti]

Nothing I suspect, could be as simple as he thought he had 12 cards when the 13th unstuck itself.

[blackshoe]

My personal feeling is that if somebody calls the director, there should be no option to then say "never mind". But that's not in the laws or regulations we currently have.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-July-26, 17:24, said:

My personal feeling is that if somebody calls the director, there should be no option to then say "never mind". But that's not in the laws or regulations we currently have.

So when the TD arrives and asks "How can I help you?", what is he supposed to say if there's no actual need for the TD? Is he supposed to explain the problem he thought existed, even though he realized otherwise?

In some cases it may be innocuous, like the suggested case where he miscounted his cards and then got it right. But I think there could be cases where explaining the problem could result in extraneous information to the other players.

[pran]

A player may summon the Director for whatever reason the player might have. No other player may interfere in any way with this, the Director alone is responsible for judging the relevance. (Law 81C)

[ahydra]

The player should just apologise to the TD like "sorry, there's no problem", and then everyone carries on. No need to explain what he thought the problem was.

ahydra

[pran]

ahydra, on 2019-July-26, 20:46, said:

The player should just apologise to the TD like "sorry, there's no problem", and then everyone carries on. No need to explain what he thought the problem was.

ahydra

Sure, if that is the situation.

But a player's reason for summoning the Director is primarily a matter between him and the Director and in fact doesn't even have to concern bridge as such.
(There could for instance be medical reasons.)

[shyams]

661_Pete, on 2019-July-26, 14:53, said:

I should explain that this happened during the bidding. There was no obvious reason (e.g. exposed card, bid out of turn etc.) to summon the TD. No explanation was given at the time.

What should happen next, if anything?

Nothing.

Did it disconcert you and cause you to misplay/misbid that hand? If it did, I suspect there is no recourse available.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2019-July-26, 19:06, said:

So when the TD arrives and asks "How can I help you?", what is he supposed to say if there's no actual need for the TD? Is he supposed to explain the problem he thought existed, even though he realized otherwise?

In some cases it may be innocuous, like the suggested case where he miscounted his cards and then got it right. But I think there could be cases where explaining the problem could result in extraneous information to the other players.

It's not illegal to give extraneous information to the other players.

You're called. You go to the table. Just as you arrive, somebody says "never mind". You look at the table, and there's an exposed card in front of one of the defenders. What do you think has happened? Why do you think you were told "never mind"? What should you do?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-July-27, 10:17, said:

You're called. You go to the table. Just as you arrive, somebody says "never mind". You look at the table, and there's an exposed card in front of one of the defenders. What do you think has happened? Why do you think you were told "never mind"? What should you do?

You apply Law 81 (in particular law 81C) and clarify the circumstances leading up to you being summoned.

This implies hearing the player who summoned you and then any other player (if any) who wants to be heard.

If the remark "never mind" apparently was an attempt to violate Law 10A you issue a procedure penalty (in the form of a warning) against this violation.

[661_Pete]

Thanks (belatedly - sorry!) for the replies.

I should explain that the circumstances at my table were far from innocuous.

The person who called the TD gave no explanation, he just sent the TD away. But I got a sort of message at second-hand, after the session (just as I was about to go home). This was, that he had suspected my partner of passing me an illegal signal during the bidding. (this was quite untrue).

This worried me - as you might expect - so I E-mailed the TD and the scorer. I then got a different message: the new version was that the opponent thought a certain call should have been alerted - and then decided it needn't be. This reassured me: it appeared to be just a procedural thing.

However, at the following week's session, I was told that the first story was the correct one - i.e. that he'd suspected some sort of "signal".

I was really upset now. Back home, I E-mailed the club chairman stating my concerns - and said that I'd be taking a break of a few weeks to 'get over it'. As it happens, I'll be away on holiday part of this period, so I'd have missed some sessions anyway.

I must stress that the Chairman, TD and scorer have been most supportive and sympathetic towards me about this. When I go back to playing at the club, I'm sure it'll all have blown over.

I don't blame anyone for the mix-up in explanations. These things happen.

[pescetom]

I'm with those who suggest you should let this go. He suspected something wrongly - so what? He apparently recounted different versions to different people, which doesn't speak much for his character, and if the TD is any good he will take note. Enjoy your holiday, then enjoy bridge.

[pran]

A technicality, but an important one:

Once the Director has been summoned he is now the only person who has the right (and duty) to decide whether there was an irregularity and how this in case shall be handled. (The player who summoned him may not just "cancel" the summoning without explaining to the table why.)

In order to do that the Director should clarify the situation and hear any player involved who might want to be heard

I strongly believe that had such procedure been followed in this situation there would not have been any cause for later bad feelings.

(And I agree with pescetom)

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2019-August-04, 09:28, said:

A technicality, but an important one:

Once the Director has been summoned he is now the only person who has the right (and duty) to decide whether there was an irregularity and how this in case shall be handled. (The player who summoned him may not just "cancel" the summoning without explaining to the table why.)

In order to do that the Director should clarify the situation and hear any player involved who might want to be heard

I strongly believe that had such procedure been followed in this situation there would not have been any cause for later bad feelings.

(And I agree with pescetom)

Of course a person can say something along the lines of “never mind, no problem”.

[blackshoe]

A person can say a lot of things.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2019-August-04, 19:33, said:

A person can say a lot of things.

Yes.

In the OP case it would have been particularly bad to have followed Scen’s procedure — sorry, Director, I thought they were making illegal signals but decided that I did not have enough evidence o make an accusation.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2019-August-04, 20:42, said:

Yes.

In the OP case it would have been particularly bad to have followed Scen’s procedure — sorry, Director, I thought they were making illegal signals but decided that I did not have enough evidence o make an accusation.

Can't you imagine a more civil explanation to the Director than "sorry, Director, I thought they were making illegal signals but decided that I did not have enough evidence o make an accusation."

Anyway, an immediate clarification would (hopefully) have cleared the air right away instead of causing ill-feelings for weeks in the club.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2019-August-04, 23:09, said:

Can't you imagine a more civil explanation to the Director than "sorry, Director, I thought they were making illegal signals but decided that I did not have enough evidence o make an accusation."

Well, this was the case. Should the player lie? Is that better than saying “sorry, no problem”?

Quote

Anyway, an immediate clarification would (hopefully) have cleared the air right away instead of causing ill-feelings for weeks in the club.

The director call and retraction caused no ill-feeling whatsoever. It is the remarks afterwards that caused it. And these remarks could have been made whether the director was called at the time or not.

[barmar]

pran, on 2019-August-04, 09:28, said:

I strongly believe that had such procedure been followed in this situation there would not have been any cause for later bad feelings.

If the player who called the TD never mentioned what was going through his mind to anyone, there also would not have been any cause for bad feelings. The bad feelings were due to him blabbing after the fact, and the rumor got back to the OP.

If he decided there wasn't really enough of a problem to call the TD, he could have just kept his original suspicion to himself, and everything would be fine.