[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2012-September-14, 11:06, said:

Asking them their NT range could be construed as asking solely for partner's benefit, so could be prohibited. But calling attention to the fact that they failed to announce their range, and calling the TD about it (since it's an infraction), is not asking a question.

Maybe it isn't asking a question. But, we have never seen anyone ever call the TD unless there is an actual refusal to announce the range, and it would certainly arrouse suspicion that the commotion was all for partner's benefit.

Perhaps the practical solution would be to never assume they are playing the same range they did the last time we played against them, and routinely request the announcement. I don't believe asking the opps to comply with the rules is the type of question which might be prohibited ---unless done rudely. A quick glance at LHO with eyebrows raised and a smile is usually sufficient to wake him up and get an announcement.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-14, 11:29, said:

don't believe asking the opps to comply with the rules is the type of question which might be prohibited ---unless done rudely.

I agree.

[mycroft]

In certain cases, I have Alerted calls, and explained the equivalent (for that call) of

"if your NT range could contain 16 or more, it's two-suited with clubs. If not, it shows both majors." - and then asked at my turn.

And when they ask "well, which one is it?" I ask "what's your NT range?"

Obviously, in my games, this shouldn't occur (and frankly, I can tell that it's clubs-and-higher because only pairs who play 15-17 "forget to Announce". Frankly, I'm almost at the point (at least with a couple of inveterate "why should we have to..." pairs) of teaching WeaSeL to a few select troublemakers and let them learn the hard way. But I won't, much as it tempts me) - but in other similar auctions, it does.

[blackshoe]

Law 90A: The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offense that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure or requires the award of an adjusted score atanother table".

No need for WeaSel.

"But players won't like that," you say? No, they won't. So?

[jh51]

I hate to confess to this, but on more than one occasion I have put put a 2♦ or 2♥ bid card after my partner opened 2NT. She would then announce my bid as an insufficient transfer! (If the opponents accepted my bid, I suppose she could bid 2♥ or 2♠ and superaccept at the 3 level.)

[Vampyr]

Quote

Under Law 40B3 (d) a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity by
either side, except that following its own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so that it is brought within the criteria of Law 27B1 (b).

I believe that guidance has been issued on this issue to the effect that players are not permitted to have agreements following their own irregularities, only the opponents; but that you can shade a replacement bid and partner is permitted to take this into account.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-10, 13:19, said:

Any player may call attention to an irregularity. No one is required to do so.

Huh. Law 9A4 fails to mention Law 20F4, which requires a player who notices his own misexplanation to call the TD immediately. An error, IMO.

Yes, there is an error, and it is yours. This situation is different, because it is not an irregularity (such as an insufficient or out-of turn bid) that the whole table would notice. Your opponents would have no knowledge at all about this irregularity, so it is your responsibility to rectify the situation.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-September-18, 19:21, said:

Yes, there is an error, and it is yours.

1. How kind of you to put it that way.
2. I disagree.

[aguahombre]

Blackshoe: How can you possibly disagree with Vampire on that point?

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-14, 09:14, said:

Let's say the announcement of range is required where we are playing, just for this discussion. My question is about your partner's dilemma. He knows what you might not know about their NT. The opps have already committed the irregularity of failing to announce. Does partner have the right to insist on compliance? Is he doing so for the benefit of partner, or is he doing it for everyone's benefit ---to avoid the confusion you point out in your post?

The fact that nobody will really know partner's intention is not really germain; she will know and does not want to be in violation of the rules.

I always ask players to make an announcement when they forget. One of the advantages in England/Wales is that 1NT and 2 of a suit openings are always alertable or announceable, so it is safe to assume an alerting/announcing error by opponents. Sadly, this is not true for 2♣/♦/♥ responses to 1NT - weak takeouts are neither alertable nor announceable - so while "no-one" plays weak takeouts it is more difficult if they do not announce. In practice, looking enquiringly at opener seems to work.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-18, 19:34, said:

Blackshoe: How can you possibly disagree with Vampire on that point?

Well, we cannot say that Blackshoe's preferred solution to the problem is not superior until we know what it is. What is it, then?

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-September-20, 11:06, said:

Well, we cannot say that Blackshoe's preferred solution to the problem is not superior until we know what it is. What is it, then?

I will take a guess. Your point was that the two situations are different; he disagrees. I will naively infer he believes the two situations are not different; I agree with you and wonder who should be calling on an irregularity if not the only person at the table who knows there has been one?

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-20, 11:13, said:

I will take a guess. Your point was that the two situations are different; he disagrees. I will naively infer he believes the two situations are not different; I agree with you and wonder who should be calling on an irregularity if not the only person at the table who knows there has been one?

Yes, I realise this; what I wonder is what he thinks is the alternative to calling the director when you realise you have given an incorrect explanation. If the law covering the matter is an error, there must be another way. Obviously saying and doing nothing is a possibility, but I think (hope?) that Blackshoe knows a bit more about the disclosure requirements of this game, because if I am not mistaken he directs games.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 9A4: There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partner’s apparently mistaken explanation).

My point is this: if a player provides a mistaken explanation, and later realizes he has done so, he has an obligation to draw attention to that irregularity* (Law 20F4). Law 9A4 doesn't mention this obligation to draw attention to an irregularity committed by one's own side. It should, for completeness if nothing else.

OTOH…

Quote

Law 20F4: If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4.

This law is poorly worded, but I don't think that means that Law 9A4 need not say anything about it. Apparently others do think so.

*The act of calling the director, and explaining to him why he was called, certainly calls attention to an irregularity (if an irregularity is the reason the director was called).

[Vampyr]

I see. So the error is that this is not mentioned in Law 9. Yes, I agree that it should be. Otherwise there is an apparent contradiction.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-September-20, 17:40, said:

I see. So the error is that this is not mentioned in Law 9. Yes, I agree that it should be. Otherwise there is an apparent contradiction.

Don't we usually resolve this by the "more specific law trumps more general law" rule?

It would be nice if 9A4 said that the 20F5 exception was just an example -- it does seem like it's intended to be the only exception.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-September-21, 09:26, said:

Don't we usually resolve this by the "more specific law trumps more general law" rule?

We do but...

Quote

It would be nice if 9A4 said that the 20F5 exception was just an example -- it does seem like it's intended to be the only exception.

This is also true. The next version of the Laws should be thoroughly checked for cross references and the lack thereof -- so that this, Lamford's various inconsistencies, and the dWS (which is still maintained by at least one person) no longer exist.

[kevperk]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-20, 12:51, said:

My point is this: if a player provides a mistaken explanation, and later realizes he has done so, he has an obligation to draw attention to that irregularity* (Law 20F4). Law 9A4 doesn't mention this obligation to draw attention to an irregularity committed by one's own side. It should, for completeness if nothing else.

OTOH…

This law is poorly worded, but I don't think that means that Law 9A4 need not say anything about it. Apparently others do think so.

*The act of calling the director, and explaining to him why he was called, certainly calls attention to an irregularity (if an irregularity is the reason the director was called).

The laws say you have an obligation to give your opponents the correct information of your bids, through the alert procedure and answering of any questions. That obligation does not cease just because you didn't do it in a timely manner, or correctly. The moment you realize, you must fulfill your obligation. The laws require you to call the director, not to point out the irregularity, but to deal with the MI and UI issues arising for the lack of promptness, or incorrectness. The fact that this calls attention to the irregularity is not the same as calling just to call attention to the irregularity. I know I am not alone in not needing Law 9A4 to point this out.

[blackshoe]

Another who misses my point.

You may not need Law 9A4 to know that Law 20F4 exists and requires you to call the director, etc. I don't need it for that purpose either. But Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice aren't as familiar with the laws as we are.

[kevperk]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-22, 20:01, said:

Another who misses my point.

You may not need Law 9A4 to know that Law 20F4 exists and requires you to call the director, etc. I don't need it for that purpose either. But Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice aren't as familiar with the laws as we are.

Sorry, you missed my point. I thought you were saying there was a contradiction in the laws about calling attention to your own irregularity. I was saying there was no contradiction. And I was saying that I don't need Law 9A4 to be changed to point that out.