[pran]

barmar, on 2015-January-21, 16:04, said:

Well, they need to know enough about the rest of the laws to know when to suspect an irregularity.

For instance, if you don't know the law that says when an explanation should be corrected, how would you suspect that correcting at a different time is an irregularity?

Correcting an explanation is itself an indication of an irregularity.

[campboy]

pran, on 2015-January-21, 09:30, said:

Players really do not need to know more than one Law: Call the Director whenever you suspect that there might be an irregularity.

Not in this case. It would be quite wrong for South to call the TD when he first suspects an irregularity, i.e. when the incorrect explanation is made. He may not indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made, until after the final pass. (20F5)

[pran]

pran, on 2015-January-21, 09:30, said:

Players really do not need to know more than one Law: Call the Director whenever you suspect that there might be an irregularity.

campboy, on 2015-January-22, 03:54, said:

Not in this case. It would be quite wrong for South to call the TD when he first suspects an irregularity, i.e. when the incorrect explanation is made. He may not indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made, until after the final pass. (20F5)

If you suspect an irregularity and feel unsure about how it is to be handled you call the Director as soon as possible, but you do so without indicating in any way to the other players at the table why you call the Director.

Then when the Director arrives you (privately) inform him and let him handle the situation from there.

[campboy]

pran, on 2015-January-22, 05:02, said:

If you suspect an irregularity and feel unsure about how it is to be handled you call the Director as soon as possible, but you do so without indicating in any way to the other players at the table why you call the Director.

How do you propose to do that? The timing of a director call is itself an indication of why you've called the director. If partner's just given an explanation, everyone will know what the issue is.

[barmar]

Sometimes you're caught between a rock and a hard place. If you're unsure of your exact responsibility, the TD is the expert who can advise you on the requirements in the Laws. So you have to risk UI in order to get clarification. When the TD comes, he should instruct the partner of the caller not to take any inferences from the call.

Remember, there's no law against passing UI (you're supposed to try to minimize it, but sometimes it's unavoidable), only against USING the UI.

[pran]

campboy, on 2015-January-22, 06:22, said:

How do you propose to do that? The timing of a director call is itself an indication of why you've called the director. If partner's just given an explanation, everyone will know what the issue is.

They may guess, but they will not know.

[mycroft]

Oh, when someone calls the TD and "wants to speak away from the table", anybody who's thinking about the Laws guesses what's going on. Guess to the point of fairly serious UI.

[campboy]

barmar, on 2015-January-22, 10:14, said:

Remember, there's no law against passing UI (you're supposed to try to minimize it, but sometimes it's unavoidable), only against USING the UI.

In this case there is a law against passing the UI.

Law 20F5a said:

A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made.

Calling the TD after partner's explanation is a strong indication that there is something wrong with it, it seems to me.

[blackshoe]

Generally speaking, if a player violates Law 20F5{a}, I will explain to him the proper procedure, warn him not to do it again, and inform his partner that the director call may convey information to the partner, and that the partner must not use such information in determining any call or play on this hand. Then I'll tell the table to call me back after the play of the hand. If there seems to have been illegal use of UI causing damage, I'll adjust the score. If later on the player who violated 20F5{a} does so again, I will give him a PP.

[barmar]

campboy, on 2015-January-22, 12:16, said:

In this case there is a law against passing the UI.

It's a Catch-22! In order to find out when he should correct the explanation, he has to indicate that there was an incorrect explanation by calling the TD.

[pran]

And how shall the Director handle the situation if the player calls him in the middle of the auction and privately asks something like: "I don't remember, am I allowed to use agreement ...... at this event"?

Properly handled the other three players know nothing about what is said, only that the player called the Director.

[mycroft]

Oh sure, and the one time I had that (and the one time I was asked away from the table if the agreement they had was Alertable, and the one time I was asked what to do when her 1NT came back around to her and only then did she realize it wasn't the 1♠ she wanted to bid) certainly did not cause any issues. The 100 or so times the person gets up and wants to talk to me before the opening lead, though? That *never* meant anything except "I don't know when I'm supposed to correct my partner's misexplanation" - and everybody at the table knows that too.

[campboy]

barmar, on 2015-January-22, 16:05, said:

It's a Catch-22! In order to find out when he should correct the explanation, he has to indicate that there was an incorrect explanation by calling the TD.

Yes, that's my point. It is a catch 22, if the player doesn't know when he should correct the explanation. Thus we can conclude that this is something players need to know.

[blackshoe]

IMO, "correct procedure" in the laws should be collected all in one place, not scattered around. This would include correct procedure as to when to call the TD. Players should be educated as to correct procedure, leaving the "variations from correct procedure" part of the laws to the TD. This education should be part of beginner courses on the game, built into the syllabus in a way that presents it as a part of how to bid and play, not as dry and boring "this is the law".

NB: this means, among other things, teaching declarers to call for cards from dummy by naming the card (rank and denomination). Other methods should be deprecated. IOW, don't tell them there's a law that covers most of the ways they might screw it up.

[weejonnie]

I had to ask my partner to leave the table earlier in the week.

After a 2 Diamond overcall to 1NT, I bid 2NT - Lebensohl asking for a transfer to 3 Clubs.

The bidding wasn't alerted so after 3 passes (RHO on lead), I called the TD.

My partner agreed that he should have alerted 2NT - and then gave an incorrect explanation of the call!

So, although the TD was at the table already, I had to call him again.

My partner left the table and the opponents were given the correct explanation and the final pass was then confirmed. (I gently pointed out to the TD that I couldn't give my explanation while partner was at the table as RHO might want to re-open the bidding).

Had the opponents re-opened the bidding, it would have been interesting in that my partner has UI in that his explanation was incorrect.

(Later on in the hand my LHO revoked! The TD was probably groaning a bit when he came back again. But he was very polite and understanding.)

[RMB1]

The correction should be given with all players at the table, the law does not specify otherwise.

If the opponents change their final call and the auction continues and the partner of the corrector has unauthorised information during the remainder of the auction (and during the play if he becomes a defender).

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-January-23, 07:58, said:

IMO, "correct procedure" in the laws should be collected all in one place, not scattered around. This would include correct procedure as to when to call the TD. Players should be educated as to correct procedure, leaving the "variations from correct procedure" part of the laws to the TD. This education should be part of beginner courses on the game, built into the syllabus in a way that presents it as a part of how to bid and play, not as dry and boring "this is the law".

it doesn't really matter where they're written, because that's not how most players learn correct procedure. The most important things are (hopefully) taught in bridge classes, everything else comes from experience. And some players are better at remembering these things than others.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-January-23, 12:13, said:

it doesn't really matter where they're written, because that's not how most players learn correct procedure. The most important things are (hopefully) taught in bridge classes, everything else comes from experience. And some players are better at remembering these things than others.

Your objection looks, to me, like "we already do it that way."

[mycroft]

I think it's more "that way won't help unless we convince bridge players to be like golf players and read the laws every year" than "we don't do it that way". And I don't think that's ever going to happen.

I think that we don't do *enough* law teaching in our classes (currently, that seems to be "well, follow suit, bids have to be sufficient, and I don't know what else"); and I have suggested that we encourage teachers to spend one class doing the "Laws Players Need To Know". But that requires having the material there for them to teach, and for the teachers themselves understand it.

That's a Sisyphean Task, but at least we can see the top of *that* mountain. Reorganizing the laws to have all the player-knowledge in one spot? Let's try changing them such that a 5-card trick is no longer "deficient" (tell me that *anybody* finds that without being reminded) and go from there.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-January-23, 13:48, said:

Your objection looks, to me, like "we already do it that way."

It has nothing to do with how "we do it". It's recognizing human nature.

When you learned to drive, did you spend any time reading all the driving laws? If you took a Driver's Ed class, they probably covered the most important ones (stop at Stop signs, signal before turning, etc.), but there's no way they covered all the statutes that we're all expected to follow. While going on practice drives, if the instructor noticed you doing something wrong, they pointed it out to you. Some things might never have been noticed; it's possible you didn't learn about them until a cop pulled you over for violating them, and then you learned.