Re: Law 11 (and perhaps 12)

I agree that Law 20F5b says “The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous [...]“, but this is one of the places in the laws where in my opinion the word “must” is unfortunate (although it looks fine on the paper).

 

What is important is that the player (at the proper time) must call attention to the irregularity of an incorrect explanation and offer the (in his opinion) correct explanation. Any player who feels that the irregularity might disturb (or already has disturbed) “normal” auction and/or play is then encouraged to call the Director.

 

My experience is that disrupting an auction or play with a call for the Director every single time a player notifies his opponents of a possibly incorrect explanation would be highly undesirable and is simply not done by the players.

 

So let us be practical and accept that calling the Director is compulsory only when players suspect that they might have reason for the Director’s intervention (whether such intervention could be expected to their own or opponents’ advantage).   

 

Fra: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] På vegne av Richard Hills
Sendt: 12. desember 2016 02:40
Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 11 (and perhaps 12)

 

Sven Pran wrote:

 

The player who bid 3C has acted correctly – see Law 20F5b{ii]

 

Richard Hills:

 

No, that player has not acted correctly. In addition to fixing partner's faulty explanation, Law 20F5(b) also requires that that player (not an opponent) MUST summon the Director.

 

Best wishes,

 

Richard Hills

 

On Monday, December 12, 2016, Sven Pran <[email protected]> wrote:

The player who bid 3C has acted correctly – see Law 20F5b{ii]

 

Either defender might feel that the incorrect explanation has affected his choice of call during the auction and must call the Director if that is the case. The Director will then apply Law 21B. Failing to call the Director implies that neither defender would have called differently from what they actually did had they been given correct information at the time. 

 

Here the incorrect explanation was corrected before the opening lead was faced. The opening lead may then be withdrawn and a different opening lead be substituted – see Law 47E2

 

There is apparently no reason here for the defending side to request an adjusted score nor for the Director to award any adjusted score on this board. An appeals committee would most probably dismiss an appeal and keep the charge.

 

Fra: [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>  [mailto:[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> ] På vegne av Bill Kemp
Sendt: 11. desember 2016 09:09
Til: [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> 
Emne: [BLML] Law 11 (and perhaps 12)

 

Purely for my education (I was not involved in the event) 

>From a recent (completed) Western Australian State Championship.

A pair was bidding towards a slam in spades. There was no opposition bidding.

During the auction, one of the declaring side bid 3C, alerted by his partner and described on request as first or second round control in clubs.

The auction ended in 6S.

The opening lead was made face down then the 3C bidder corrected his partners explanation to shortage (splinter) in clubs.

The opening lead of a spade was faced and 12 tricks duly rolled in. 

The Director had not been called at this stage.

The contract however went off on a club lead…..

And so the Director was called.

Would you adjust?

If after consideration of Law 11 you would adjust,

Would you consider a failure to call the director a serious error.

In the event that this went to appeal, how would your committee rule

Best wishes

bill kemp

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml