Ethics and Law 25B

[kfgauss]

Here's another law-related issue I've posted both here and on the Bridgetalk Laws forum:

 

At an ACBL club game yesterday, I heard as dealer:

 

1C P 1H 1S

P 2S 3D P

?

 

Partner and I had discussed that such bids were weakish and just competitive (usually only 4 hearts, long diamonds). I had forgotten about this discussion and bid 3NT. My LHO now sighed/chuckled (I don't know why; perhaps he "knew" 3D was weakish or perhaps he just had a good hand and was surprised at my 3NT bid), causing me to look at the auction again and remember our agreement. LHO was still thinking about his bid but I didn't try to change my call and 3NT was eventually passed out and I ended up down 3.

 

Some questions:

 

1) I presume I would have been allowed under 25B to change my call to pass. Let me know if you disagree.

 

[Law 25B states that you may purposefully change your call before your LHO makes a call if you accept that your maximum score for this hand will be Avg-. Your opponents get the table result.]

 

2) Would it have been ethical to invoke 25B here and change my call? (Decide for yourself what "ethical" means. E.g. it could mean "would you think poorly of someone who did this" or it could mean "would you yourself feel bad if you did this" or it could mean "would you yourself do this" etc.)

 

3) If no, would it have been ethical if I hadn't been woken up by my LHO's chuckle (which is presumably AI [= authorised info] to me) but had simply remembered on my own that 3D was weakish?

 

4) If no, is it ever ethical to invoke 25B? Does how quickly you correct have anything to do with it?

 

5) Is it more or less ethical to invoke 25B when you've [a] realized you misunderstood something compared with when you've simply made a bid you don't like or [c] realized you were mistaken about what the auction was (e.g. you didn't see partner's bid, etc)?

 

It turns out that the difference between the average minus we would've gotten and the bottom we actually received would've been enough to win. It was just a club game, and I have no need to win it, but it was a bit surprising to have my decision not to change my bid "be the thing that lost it for us" (yes, yes, I know -- my initial misunderstanding "lost it for us" if anything, and it's of course silly to attribute the loss to any one of the many decisions one could've made differently). Suppose I'm playing in a big tournament and something like this happens. Should I correct my bid and save that 40%? Should I feel bad if I do?

 

Andy

 

PS A side question: do people play 3D in the above auction as just competitive or as forcing? What's standard? (My partner and I don't play good/bad 2NT here. With a forcing 3D bid we have to double first.)

[Guest Jlall]

huh? I think you are misunderstanding the law. If you simply make a bad bid, then realize you made a bad bid, you cannot change it. If you pull the wrong card from the bidding box, that is when you may invoke the law. Let's say you had a 4D bid, but you pulled out 4H by mistake, then you can change it. Simply changing your mind is not a time when you can use this law.

 

On that note, I'd like to add the purpose of UNDO is the same. If you click on the wrong bid, you can undo. If you make a bad bid then change your mind, no way you should even consider asking for an undo.

[awm]

Well, law 25A deals with inadvertant calls (slips of the fingers and so forth).

 

Law 25B is really a very strange law and I'm not at all sure why it's on the books. Sounds like it basically permits you to "change your mind" about a bid as long as LHO hasn't made a call. I will never understand why the rules regarding bidding and play are so radically different (i.e. slip of the fingers in the bidding box is correctable with no penalty, but try to unplay a played card and it's a whole different story).

 

Seems to me that you are in fact permitted to change your bid via 25B and take your average minus. I wouldn't say this is the most ethical thing to do, and personally would never invoke this law unless it was a case of "I didn't see one of the bids already on the table." Of course, a modern version of "why you lose at bridge" would probably have a whole chapter about how being ethical is a losing tactic. :P

[barmar]

Yes, 25B sure is strange, and it's not one that comes up much. We had a director call over the weekend when an opponent tried to change her call, and the director had to talk to her away from the table, I think to make sure that it was a 25A situation rather than 25B.

 

But to answer the original question, I don't see how it can be unethical to take advantage of it. Since 25A is about correcting inadvertent calls, there mere existence of 25B seems to indicate that it's OK to change your mind about a call if you do so before LHO calls, but there are consequences. Unless LHO condones the changed call, the best you can do is turn a bottom into an Av-, and there are also lead penalties if you end up defending.

[Rebound]

I believe this contradicts the Laws. See Law 72B2. A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay.

[kfgauss]

I believe this contradicts the Laws. See Law 72B2. A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay.

But then how could I ever invoke Law 25B?

 

Andy

[barmar]

I believe this contradicts the Laws. See Law 72B2.  A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay.

But then how could I ever invoke Law 25B?

 

Andy

I don't think that changing your call under the 25B is an infringement of a law. That law specifically says that you may change your call under certain circumstances.

[mycroft]

Law 25B did have a point, but it has been shown to be unworkable, and I am pretty certain it will go away in the new FLB.

 

Law 25B was designed (and a WBFLC minute has confirmed that this should be the only cause for invocation) to correct the really stupid "of course we want to play here" problems. Everybody's done this at least once:

 

1S-3S;

4NT-5H;

"Oh well, not enough" pass "whoops!"

 

"Come on, this is stupid that I would have to..." Well, under Law 25B, you don't. You can play 5S for 40% or -3 max. The story goes that Kaplan got caught with this auction and said "there otta be a law!" - and of course, since Kaplan basically ran the WBFLC, he got one. Absolutely no proof to this story, of course.

 

I have to tell you, the odd time I have to explain this rule to players, their reaction is invariably "what?" I really hope it goes away soon.

 

Michael.

[Rebound]

I can see that it has a certain amount of merit. I know I would prefer not to play in some rediculous contract due to such an error by the opponents. It isn't bridge to my way of thinking. I don't think the offender should get off scot-free however, and like the ave- max rule. But I still don't think I like it.

 

My original post was intended only to point out that the laws appear to be contradictory, however, and something should be done about that.