[mycroft]

Well, yeah. But it works, and it's club bridge, what do you expect? (note, blackshoe, I'm as serious as you expect me to be here). And my standard line about club players confronted with directors who give illegal rulings applies as well. "you have three options..."

But yes, (putting my "professional paranoid" hat on for a minute), if I can get a bad score, or even a 60/40, converted to a "session score" by actively compounding partner's screwup, the incentive for certain pairs to deliberately attempt to induce it is high. If they care enough about their club game scores to do that, well, "you have three options...".

I've been trying to ignore the actual hand in most of my comments (as requested), but the joy of this one is that the trivial (correct? in my eyes, it is) ruling would give them back the result they should expect to get on the board! (p-p-2NT-p; 3♣ "do you have a 4-card major?"-p-p "thanks for picking a minor, pd"-p) Okay, maybe West would come in over a "5-5" 2NT,... but still, it's relatively easy to do the right thing at the table (work out what the agreement actually is, ensure E-W know it, let the auction continue, and be willing to award 60/40 an adjusted score if there are any issues from the UI.)

But listen, if (club) directing wasn't as hard as blackshoe and I make out, it wouldn't pay as well as it does!

I would hope that the person who is clearly not a novice (playing Precision?) making the statement that South made, given that it "was an error in procedure that required an adjusted score for a contestant" - especially because it likely was to their definite advantage, and obviously so, to make that error - got a procedural penalty to go with their "no play". Or they will keep doing it.

[axman]

jillybean, on 2023-February-01, 04:26, said:

Axman, there are no CC in use.

Many moons ago it occurred to me that if the law were 'if a proper request is made (the answer not being on the CC) all resulting information flow is AI to his side and UI to the other side; but if a request is made when the answer is on the CC all resulting information flow is UI to his side and AI to the other side' there would be two noticeable consequences:
1. players would strive to have good CCs
2. players would strive to read the CC rather than ask questions
3. players would strive to gain advantage when the CC is defective. Well, I did say two consequences didn't I?

I gave it a name: Causation Doctrine- the side that causes the burden bears the burden

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2023-February-02, 10:49, said:

But listen, if (club) directing wasn't as hard as blackshoe and I make out, it wouldn't pay as well as it does!

ROFL!

mycroft, on 2023-February-02, 10:49, said:

I would hope that the person who is clearly not a novice (playing Precision?) making the statement that South made, given that it "was an error in procedure that required an adjusted score for a contestant" - especially because it likely was to their definite advantage, and obviously so, to make that error - got a procedural penalty to go with their "no play". Or they will keep doing it.

Yeah, they will. And I'm betting they didn't get a PP.

[jillybean]

The rules are complex and I don't expect "forums" level of Directing at a club however I do expect in a sanctioned game, some attempt to make a ruling.
Simply having a laws book to reference when attending a call would be a good start.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-February-02, 14:07, said:

The rules are complex and I don't expect "forums" level of Directing at a club however I do expect in a sanctioned game, some attempt to make a ruling.
Simply having a laws book to reference when attending a call would be a good start.

Having workable disclosure regulations is a good start too, especially f2f without screens.
OP has no mention of an alert or announcement related to 2NT, West chose to (had to?) ask.
A cursory reading of the NZ mega manual suggests that in a Green System 2NT may be either 20+ balanced (18+ in Rubber) or 5-4+ minors weak only, no announcement or alert required for either?

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2023-February-02, 16:01, said:

Having workable disclosure regulations is a good start too, especially f2f without screens.
OP has no mention of an alert or announcement related to 2NT, West chose to (had to?) ask.
A cursory reading of the NZ mega manual suggests that in a Green System 2NT may be either 20+ balanced (18+ in Rubber) or 5-4+ minors weak only, no announcement or alert required for either?

I don't know what NZ regs say about alerting 2NT, querying a 2NT opener seems to be standard procedure here, alerted or not.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-February-02, 22:30, said:

I don't know what NZ regs say about alerting 2NT, querying a 2NT opener seems to be standard procedure here, alerted or not.

That's exactly the kind of situation announcements are intended to avoid, because the way they query (or the time they *don't* query) will transmit UI, as will the way their opponents explain (free text).

An announcement of range ("21 23") or "weak minors" would seem to do fine, given the claustrophobic regulations.

[barmar]

jillybean, on 2023-February-01, 23:19, said:

I've had confirmation from a NZ Bridge Director

The board is adjusted to Did Not Play.
The pairs get 0 MP for this board but their total possible MP for the session is reduced so their percentage score is unaffected.

Which is mathematically equivalent to giving them their percentage score from all the other boards as their score on this board. This is essentially the same as treating the board like a sit-out.

As others said, this was definitely the wrong ruling in the circumstance in question. When there's MI or UI, you don't cancel the board, you let them play it out. Then you determine if the offending side gained as a result of the infraction, and adjust to what you think the likely result would have been absent the irregularity. The board is only cancelled if the TD believes that the UI was so eggregious that ordinary play is impossible (e.g. a player exposes their entire hand). And in that case you don't use DNP, you assign avg+/avg- to the NOS and OS respectively.