[aguahombre]

campboy, on 2013-July-23, 10:44, said:

You don't need law 16D2, though, since the second sentence of 25A4 covers that. IMO the fact that 25A4 says what it does, rather than referring to 16D, suggests that unintended caller is not an offender.

I think it just suggests it is a PITA to bounce back and forth between sections, so they decided to stick in the 2nd sentence of 25A4 for convenience.

Edit: Furthermore, 16D2 addresses information from the withdrawn call itself ---which would just confuse the issue. It is authorized information to everyone that the guy was clumsy.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2013-July-23, 11:14

[RMB1]

campboy, on 2013-July-23, 10:44, said:

You don't need law 16D2, though, since the second sentence of 25A4 covers that. IMO the fact that 25A4 says what it does, rather than referring to 16D, suggests that unintended caller is not an offender.

Sorry, I seem to be guilty of not reading the laws. I guess Law 25A4 was new in 2007. We had to the argue that the inadvertent caller was the offending side under the previous laws to make LHO's call unauthorised.

It is interesting to read the corresponding Law 45C4(b) for an unintended designation in playing cards (from dummy, usually). Here there is a reference to Law 16D but only to Law 16D1 - suggesting there is no offending side and the card played next in rotation (after the unintended designation and before the correction, and then withdrawn) is authorised to declarer (the unintended designator).

[cloa513]

Vampyr, on 2013-July-22, 10:51, said:

LOL you are correct obviously.

What is the right verb?

[Vampyr]

cloa513, on 2013-July-24, 03:31, said:

What is the right verb?

I think that what you wanted was "appropriate".

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2013-July-24, 06:29, said:

I think that what you wanted was "appropriate".

Or "usurp".

[blackshoe]

I'd go with "usurp". Or "assume".

[pran]

A simple (and I believe common) situation is that when the Director has not been called by any of the players when they became aware of an irregularity and this eventually resulted in "trouble" he will deny NOS any redress (Law 11A) and take any gain obviously (or there will be lack of evidence) gained by OS away from them.

Most times that means just let the table result stand.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2013-July-25, 01:47, said:

A simple (and I believe common) situation is that when the Director has not been called by any of the players when they became aware of an irregularity and this eventually resulted in "trouble" he will deny NOS any redress (Law 11A) and take any gain obviously (or there will be lack of evidence) gained by OS away from them.

I think that's usually OK as long as it's the failure to call the director that results in trouble. If the irregularity itself caused the trouble, and calling the director at the time would have made no difference, the director should rule as though he had been called at the proper time.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2013-July-25, 01:47, said:

A simple (and I believe common) situation is that when the Director has not been called by any of the players when they became aware of an irregularity and this eventually resulted in "trouble" he will deny NOS any redress (Law 11A) and take any gain obviously (or there will be lack of evidence) gained by OS away from them.

Most times that means just let the table result stand.

You seem to have in mind that play may proceed to a conclusion without intervention, but you hvae been called because one side now feels that they would have done better if they had asserted their rights at the time. That can be one kind of "trouble".
However "trouble" may mean that play is now in an irregular condition and something needs to be fixed, but because it wasn't fixed immediately you are now off-piste as far as a lawbook ruling is concerned. Not acting is now not an option, but because you are off-piste you have a choice to make in terms of the balance of advantage of the ruling you make.
In terms of that balance of advantage, or indeed if the hand has proceeded to a conclusion, you need to consider if damage was really self-inflicted: sometimes one of the two sides has been taken advantage of by the other, for example by acting with apparent authority or making misleading comments - and it can be either OS or NOS.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2013-July-25, 02:56, said:

You seem to have in mind that play may proceed to a conclusion without intervention, but you hvae been called because one side now feels that they would have done better if they had asserted their rights at the time. That can be one kind of "trouble".
However "trouble" may mean that play is now in an irregular condition and something needs to be fixed, but because it wasn't fixed immediately you are now off-piste as far as a lawbook ruling is concerned. Not acting is now not an option, but because you are off-piste you have a choice to make in terms of the balance of advantage of the ruling you make.
In terms of that balance of advantage, or indeed if the hand has proceeded to a conclusion, you need to consider if damage was really self-inflicted: sometimes one of the two sides has been taken advantage of by the other, for example by acting with apparent authority or making misleading comments - and it can be either OS or NOS.

"Most times" when TD is eventually called, but too late related to when attention was called to the irregularity, play will either be completed or it is possible to Complete play somehow.

In the few remaining situations TD must of course make the best out of it, but IMHO his concern will still be the same:

The players have avoided their obligation to call the director, now they will have to live with the situation and a warning to remember calling the Director in due time.

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2013-July-25, 06:13, said:

"Most times" when TD is eventually called, but too late related to when attention was called to the irregularity, play will either be completed or it is possible to Complete play somehow.........
(Snipped)
The players have avoided their obligation to call the director, now they will have to live with the situation and a warning to remember calling the Director in due time.

Yes. Experienced players who make a conscious decision to delay or avoid calling the director immediately are also deciding they will be able to live with the situation. This includes confidence that the TD will be able to see what has happened and apply the laws equitably. If he instead chooses to convolute matters because we didn't call immediately, we must live with that (and his warning) as well.

I will personally rein in Partner, if he/she is unwilling to live with the consequences of our abdication.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-25, 10:49, said:

I will personally reign in Partner,

The usual preposition that follows "reign" is "over".

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-July-25, 10:59, said:

The usual preposition that follows "reign" is "over".

fixed