[bbubbles]

East’s last bid was 4h.
South pass
West pass
North 4d.
The director was called for the insufficient bid.
North changed the bid to a double.
The director allowed it with no lead restrictions.
E/ W played it in 4h x.
After the session the director was approached and the director realised allowing the double was incorrect.
What law/ laws now apply ?

[steve2005]

Generally you cant double after you have barred your partner. This turns possibly ambiguous doubles into penalty doubles

27 b 3
except as provided in B1(b) above, if the
offender attempts to substitute a double or a
redouble for his insufficient bid the attempted
call is cancelled.

[barmar]

Law 82C, Director's Error

Quote

If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose.

So both sides get Average Plus.

[barmar]

steve2005, on 2019-June-21, 06:56, said:

Generally you cant double after you have barred your partner.

But who says that partner is barred? If the double is considered a comparable call, partner won't be barred.

Anyway, the question wasn't whether the double should be allowed, the director has already concluded that it was a mistake to allow it. The question was what to do about it now that the session is over.

[pescetom]

bbubbles, on 2019-June-21, 00:44, said:

After the session the director was approached and the director realised allowing the double was incorrect.
What law/ laws now apply ?

82C, Director's Error - so an adjusted score 60%-60% I imagine.

[bbubbles]

barmar, on 2019-June-21, 08:27, said:

Law 82C, Director's Error

So both sides get Average Plus.

That’s what I thought. The double was taken away and the score was left in 4 h our way. 20% board result.

[blackshoe]

So two director errors. Change the score to 120% for both sides and give the director a procedural penalty.

[bbubbles]

blackshoe, on 2019-June-21, 15:42, said:

So two director errors. Change the score to 120% for both sides and give the director a procedural penalty.

Remember there were no lead restrictions as well. I have a lot of respect for the Director who is a lovely person. Something just went wrong with that ruling . I make my share of mistakes. It didn’t affect our outcome but it may have changed others. Thanks for your humours reply. Made my day.

[bbubbles]

barmar, on 2019-June-21, 08:27, said:

Law 82C, Director's Error

So both sides get Average Plus.

Agree

[msjennifer]

Sirs as per my limited knowledge of the rules.1) TD shall ask if East accepts the insufficient bid made by N, in which case the auction continues normally.(2) If E does not accept the bid then N has to make a sufficient bid IN THE SAME DENOMINATION and if he does so then the auction continues without any penalties.(3) N is not permitted to DOUBLE OR REDOUBLE to replace his insufficient bid..(4)If the chooses to pass then there are lead penalties.E may chose to bar a diamond lead ( in the present case) as long as S retains the lead.OR E may ask S to lead diamond as long as he retains the lead.(5)THE TD may award EW an adjusted score subject to appeal...In my personal humble opinion the concerned TD should be sent forthwith for a refresher course.

[pescetom]

msjennifer, on 2019-June-21, 23:44, said:

Sirs as per my limited knowledge of the rules.1) TD shall ask if East accepts the insufficient bid made by N, in which case the auction continues normally.(2) If E does not accept the bid then N has to make a sufficient bid IN THE SAME DENOMINATION and if he does so then the auction continues without any penalties.(3) N is not permitted to DOUBLE OR REDOUBLE to replace his insufficient bid..(4)If the chooses to pass then there are lead penalties.E may chose to bar a diamond lead ( in the present case) as long as S retains the lead.OR E may ask S to lead diamond as long as he retains the lead.(5)THE TD may award EW an adjusted score subject to appeal...In my personal humble opinion the concerned TD should be sent forthwith for a refresher course.

Perhaps you too could benefit from a course
If E does not accept the bid then it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (NOT necessarily in the same denomination). Yes a sufficient bid in the same denomination will allow the auction to continue without further rectification, but the Laws do not oblige E to choose this call, nor can the Director. It's up to the Director to determine if the call he makes is legal or not.

[mamos]

I do wish that people who replied to Law questions would make the effort to read the Law Book before they start to tap their keyboards. It certainly helps as well if that Law Book is the current one (2017 is the relevant edition).

This can be dowmnloaded at the ACBL or the EBU, the WBF or probably at any National Bridge Organisation.

Let no one think this is a simple issue. I've trained Club TDs for more than 30 years. At the beginning, this was one of the simpler Law Book rulings to teach and make at the table. It is currently one of the most difficult Club TDs face. Many think these Laws are inappropriate, but they are the Laws of Bridge and we have to do our best.

To deal with this the TD will need to have a working understanding and refer to the following Laws:

Law 27 Insufficient Bid
Law 23 Comparable Calls.
Law 82c Director's error
Law 12 Director's Discretionary Powers (especially 12b and 12c)
Law 9. Procedure following an Irregularity
Law 10c Choice following an irregularity

I cannot tell you what the correct ruling might be, because although it seems pretty clear that TD error occurred, I don't know exactly what happened.

Law 10c is vitally important here and my suspicion would be that the TD's first error came here.

C. Choice after Irregularity
1. When these Laws provide an option after an
irregularity, the Director shall explain all the
options available

So here the TD has to begin by talking to East, the insufficient bidder's LHO and explain that the insufficient bid may be accepted or not and what North's options are then. At the end of this both players should understand all this. I think that talk of "comparable" calls in this auction are both fanciful and misleading. There is no way double can have a comparable meaning to 4♦. North should understand that if double is the replacement call, that the TD will require it to be replaced and lead restrictions applied to South. If this is not the case, the TD error occurred before North doubled.

There is an alternative scenario. Some Norths, blissfully unaware of these Laws will pick up their bidding card and replace it with a Double. A different sequence of events might occur, when the TD arrives, North might not listen or double without waiting for a full explanation. Now the TD error comes after North has made the double. This distinction might become significant when adjusting the score.

Once it is accepted that a TD error has been made, Law 82c applies.

C. Director’s Error
If a ruling has been given that the Director
subsequently determines to be incorrect, and
if no rectification will allow the board to be
scored normally, he shall award an adjusted
score, treating both sides as non-offending for
that purpose.


Now those who refer to this all say 60%/60% without any explanation or justification. It isn't what the Law says or intends. (This is made clear in the WBF Commentary on the Laws in Jan 2019.

Scores like 60%/40% or 50%/50% are intended to replace scores for boards that are unplayable. Law 12 explains how we should award assigned adjusted scores. We need to try and work out what would have happened without the TD error, starting in this case either before North doubled 4♥ or afterwards.

This sounds difficult,but may be less daunting than you think. Scores can be weighted and split. Both sides are non-offending and may get a little benefit. If someone can post the hands and the details of what happened, I could try and work out something as an example.

Hope this helps.
Mike

[RD350LC]

mamos, on 2019-June-22, 09:39, said:

I do wish that people who replied to Law questions would make the effort to read the Law Book before they start to tap their keyboards. It certainly helps as well if that Law Book is the current one (2017 is the relevant edition).

This can be dowmnloaded at the ACBL or the EBU, the WBF or probably at any National Bridge Organisation.

Let no one think this is a simple issue. I've trained Club TDs for more than 30 years. At the beginning, this was one of the simpler Law Book rulings to teach and make at the table. It is currently one of the most difficult Club TDs face. Many think these Laws are inappropriate, but they are the Laws of Bridge and we have to do our best.

To deal with this the TD will need to have a working understanding and refer to the following Laws:

Law 27 Insufficient Bid
Law 23 Comparable Calls.
Law 82c Director's error
Law 12 Director's Discretionary Powers (especially 12b and 12c)
Law 9. Procedure following an Irregularity
Law 10c Choice following an irregularity

I cannot tell you what the correct ruling might be, because although it seems pretty clear that TD error occurred, I don't know exactly what happened.

Law 10c is vitally important here and my suspicion would be that the TD's first error came here.

C. Choice after Irregularity
1. When these Laws provide an option after an
irregularity, the Director shall explain all the
options available

So here the TD has to begin by talking to East, the insufficient bidder's LHO and explain that the insufficient bid may be accepted or not and what North's options are then. At the end of this both players should understand all this. I think that talk of "comparable" calls in this auction are both fanciful and misleading. There is no way double can have a comparable meaning to 4♦. North should understand that if double is the replacement call, that the TD will require it to be replaced and lead restrictions applied to South. If this is not the case, the TD error occurred before North doubled.

There is an alternative scenario. Some Norths, blissfully unaware of these Laws will pick up their bidding card and replace it with a Double. A different sequence of events might occur, when the TD arrives, North might not listen or double without waiting for a full explanation. Now the TD error comes after North has made the double. This distinction might become significant when adjusting the score.

Once it is accepted that a TD error has been made, Law 82c applies.

C. Director’s Error
If a ruling has been given that the Director
subsequently determines to be incorrect, and
if no rectification will allow the board to be
scored normally, he shall award an adjusted
score, treating both sides as non-offending for
that purpose.


Now those who refer to this all say 60%/60% without any explanation or justification. It isn't what the Law says or intends. (This is made clear in the WBF Commentary on the Laws in Jan 2019.

Scores like 60%/40% or 50%/50% are intended to replace scores for boards that are unplayable. Law 12 explains how we should award assigned adjusted scores. We need to try and work out what would have happened without the TD error, starting in this case either before North doubled 4♥ or afterwards.

This sounds difficult,but may be less daunting than you think. Scores can be weighted and split. Both sides are non-offending and may get a little benefit. If someone can post the hands and the details of what happened, I could try and work out something as an example.

Hope this helps.
Mike

With this I agree. I have an older copy of the laws, and what Mike is saying is in accordance with these laws.
To put it simply, East first has the option of accepting the insufficient bid. If so, then play continues. If not, then North can make the bid sufficient (generally without penalty). If North attempts to replace the bid with a double (or redouble), that bid is cancelled, and South is subsequently barred from the auction.
Now, if the director made an incorrect ruling, law 82C would then apply-both sides given an adjusted score, with both sides considered non-offenders. I would expect this to be 50%/50%, though other scores could be given.
Just my 2 cents worth.

[bbubbles]

mamos, on 2019-June-22, 09:39, said:

I do wish that people who replied to Law questions would make the effort to read the Law Book before they start to tap their keyboards. It certainly helps as well if that Law Book is the current one (2017 is the relevant edition).

This can be dowmnloaded at the ACBL or the EBU, the WBF or probably at any National Bridge Organisation.

Let no one think this is a simple issue. I've trained Club TDs for more than 30 years. At the beginning, this was one of the simpler Law Book rulings to teach and make at the table. It is currently one of the most difficult Club TDs face. Many think these Laws are inappropriate, but they are the Laws of Bridge and we have to do our best.

To deal with this the TD will need to have a working understanding and refer to the following Laws:

Law 27 Insufficient Bid
Law 23 Comparable Calls.
Law 82c Director's error
Law 12 Director's Discretionary Powers (especially 12b and 12c)
Law 9. Procedure following an Irregularity
Law 10c Choice following an irregularity

I cannot tell you what the correct ruling might be, because although it seems pretty clear that TD error occurred, I don't know exactly what happened.

Law 10c is vitally important here and my suspicion would be that the TD's first error came here.

C. Choice after Irregularity
1. When these Laws provide an option after an
irregularity, the Director shall explain all the
options available

So here the TD has to begin by talking to East, the insufficient bidder's LHO and explain that the insufficient bid may be accepted or not and what North's options are then. At the end of this both players should understand all this. I think that talk of "comparable" calls in this auction are both fanciful and misleading. There is no way double can have a comparable meaning to 4♦. North should understand that if double is the replacement call, that the TD will require it to be replaced and lead restrictions applied to South. If this is not the case, the TD error occurred before North doubled.

There is an alternative scenario. Some Norths, blissfully unaware of these Laws will pick up their bidding card and replace it with a Double. A different sequence of events might occur, when the TD arrives, North might not listen or double without waiting for a full explanation. Now the TD error comes after North has made the double. This distinction might become significant when adjusting the score.

Once it is accepted that a TD error has been made, Law 82c applies.

C. Director’s Error
If a ruling has been given that the Director
subsequently determines to be incorrect, and
if no rectification will allow the board to be
scored normally, he shall award an adjusted
score, treating both sides as non-offending for
that purpose.


Now those who refer to this all say 60%/60% without any explanation or justification. It isn't what the Law says or intends. (This is made clear in the WBF Commentary on the Laws in Jan 2019.

Scores like 60%/40% or 50%/50% are intended to replace scores for boards that are unplayable. Law 12 explains how we should award assigned adjusted scores. We need to try and work out what would have happened without the TD error, starting in this case either before North doubled 4♥ or afterwardok s.

This sounds difficult,but may be less daunting than you think. Scores can be weighted and split. Both sides are non-offending and may get a little benefit. If someone can post the hands and the details of what happened, I could try and work out something as an example.

Hope this helps.
Mike

Thank you very much for your reply. After reading all the laws it is obvious the Director’s calls were incorrect. I’m reassured that I wasn’t wrong and have improved my own learning.

[barmar]

RD350LC, on 2019-June-22, 11:38, said:

With this I agree. I have an older copy of the laws, and what Mike is saying is in accordance with these laws.

Be aware that the laws regarding what replacement calls are allowed when correcting an insufficient bid changed in the 2017 revision of the Laws.

[bbubbles]

Apparently there is a law that says because we didn’t query the incorrect double ruling at the table at the time any advantage to the offender is taken away so that’s why the 4h was left in and the double removed. We waited till the end of the session and then talked to director within the 30 minute time frame instead. It’s can’t be law 11a as we called the director immediately the insufficient bid was made.
Also the director gave no options other than do you want to accept this insufficient bid to LHO which wasn’t accepted and to the offender that he could make any bid which was the double. The offenders partner was told he could not bid again. LHO asked if there were any lead restrictions and was told no , not after a double.
To his credit I overheard the director rule about an insufficient bid 2 weeks later and comparable bids were mentioned so it seems the director has done some homework. I’m happy with that outcome.

[barmar]

bbubbles, on 2019-June-28, 15:48, said:

Apparently there is a law that says because we didn’t query the incorrect double ruling at the table at the time any advantage to the offender is taken away so that’s why the 4h was left in and the double removed. We waited till the end of the session and then talked to director within the 30 minute time frame instead. It’s can’t be law 11a as we called the director immediately the insufficient bid was made.
Also the director gave no options other than do you want to accept this insufficient bid to LHO which wasn’t accepted and to the offender that he could make any bid which was the double. The offenders partner was told he could not bid again. LHO asked if there were any lead restrictions and was told no , not after a double.
To his credit I overheard the director rule about an insufficient bid 2 weeks later and comparable bids were mentioned so it seems the director has done some homework. I’m happy with that outcome.

More director error. It's not your responsibility to figure out that the director made an error in the original ruling, and there's no special time limit other than the general correction period. Since he realized his error within the correction period, he should have adjusted both scores.