Taking advantage of the Laws

[relpar]

In a recent ACBL Club event South, intending to pull out the 4♣ bidding card pulled out the 'Insufficient" 3♣ card by mistake. The Director was called and, apparently not considering the possibility of it being a mechanical error, instructed that the auction continue as the insufficient bid had been 'condoned' by the subsequent Pass by West. South, aware that he had made a mechanical error, decided not to tell the Director this, and made no further comment, deciding that things might work out in his favor! Does not the combination of 10A and 81C5 give the TD the sole right to assess or waive rectification? Can a player consciously decline to provide the TD with information because it might work out to his advantage. I struggle with the ethical aspects of this one.

[PeterE]

Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought.

 

Reading the OP ISTM that

a.) 3♣ was unintended;

b.) South did not substitute 4♣ nor did he attempt to do so;

c.) there was substantial pause for thought.

 

Having the above in mind a legally trained player knows there's no basis for a "mechanical change" any more. In that case it's totally ethical to close your mouth and do not tell the TD things he did not ask for.

 

It's too late to apply Law 25 A1, so I have no problem with South here.

[jnichols]

Two things to note:

 

Law 25 says that a player "...MAY substitute...". It doesn't say "must" so I think the player really does have an option here.

 

It also says "without pause for thought." Once the player has thought (s)he might prefer not to change the bid the "pause" has occured, so there is no longer an option.

[JoAnneM]

I believe that "without pause for thought" and mechanical errors are "apples and oranges". Besides how can the next player have bid and partner not bid within the time frame of "without pause for thought".

 

In my opinion mechanical errors can, and should, be corrected before partner bids. This restores some equity to the hand by allowing LHO to change his bid.

 

I really think the goal should be to get things back on track and not allow a hand result to be skewed for the rest of the field.

[skjaeran]

I believe that "without pause for thought" and mechanical errors are "apples and oranges". Besides how can the next player have bid and partner not bid within the time frame of "without pause for thought".

 

In my opinion mechanical errors can, and should, be corrected before partner bids. This restores some equity to the hand by allowing LHO to change his bid.

 

I really think the goal should be to get things back on track and not allow a hand result to be skewed for the rest of the field.

Peter quoted the relevant law. Whether it is "apples or oranges" doesn't matter - it IS law.

 

"Without pause for thought" refers to what happened from the moment the 3♣ bidder realized his mistake. Which often is later than the moment the bidding card is placed on the table. So if the bidder discovers his mistake before his partner bids, and at once corrects the mispulled bid, the correction is ok.

[axman]

I believe that "without pause for thought" and mechanical errors are "apples and oranges". Besides how can the next player have bid and partner not bid within the time frame of "without pause for thought".

 

In my opinion mechanical errors can, and should, be corrected before partner bids. This restores some equity to the hand by allowing LHO to change his bid.

 

I really think the goal should be to get things back on track and not allow a hand result to be skewed for the rest of the field.

According to TFLB when a player substitutes a call for his call without pause for thought, application of L25A provides for no penalty if the original call was inadvertent.

 

When the original call was not inadvertent L25A does not so provide. But L25B provides that LHO may condone or not. If not condoned, [in this case the condition of an IB condoned apparently exists] then the substituted call is canceled.

 

Therefore, once a pause has occurred nothing good can happen to a player that then speaks up about his faux pas. He has no duty to his opponent to further disadvantage his side nor to give aid and comfort to the opponent.

 

Once the opponent calls then 'things are back on track' and it is irrelevant whether or not you believe that the result is thereby skewed.

[relpar]

I am not sure where the idea that there was "substantial pause for thought" came from. It certainly was not mentioned in the original posting. At the Table apparently West made a call after South had bid 3♣. At that stage the TD was called, before North had bid. I do not know who called the TD. It was the call of the TD that awakened South to the fact that he had not bid 4♣, which was the bid he thought he had made.

Law 10A "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications where applicable. Players do not have the right to determine ( or waive- see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative"

[bluejak]

Since the player did not change his call, or attempt to do so, without pause for thought, Law 25A is just irrelevant.

 

Besides how can the next player have bid and partner not bid within the time frame of "without pause for thought".

Easy. You put a call on the table. Next player calls. You look down and realise you have made an unintended call - so you say "Aaaaaaaaarrggggggggggghhhhhhhhh: I meant to bid 3♠". No pause for thought.

[peachy]

I believe that "without pause for thought" and mechanical errors are "apples and oranges". Besides how can the next player have bid and partner not bid within the time frame of "without pause for thought".

 

In my opinion mechanical errors can, and should, be corrected before partner bids. This restores some equity to the hand by allowing LHO to change his bid.

 

I really think the goal should be to get things back on track and not allow a hand result to be skewed for the rest of the field.

This seems to pop up from time to time. "hand result to be skewed for the rest of the field" is and must not be of any consideration when a TD is making a ruling. You say it should be the goal to not let a ruling skew the results for the field. IMO, it would be a bad goal. It will be impossible to remove luck factors that skew the results for the field [crazy bid 7NT that happens to make, for example] and if that is attempted, the laws need to be first changed to allow such considerations, but at that point the game ceases to be bridge.

[McBruce]

As I have written at least once before, there are many areas in the ACBL (and perhaps elsewhere) where many players believe that a "mechanical error" can always be corrected without penalty (at least before the next player calls), and they are surprised at the actual time limit (before partner calls) and especially by the additional requirements of Law 25A. My own location is one of them. I tell people that "mechanical error" is not a phrase used anywhere in the Laws -- although I think it was used in ACBL guidelines in the period when tournaments and many clubs switched from spoken bidding to using bid-boxes.

 

One would think that in VANCOUVER we would be well aware of Law 25A, but 1999 is a long time ago... :)

[aguahombre]

best of both worlds....Do we call it Sterber, or Gayman?

[JoAnneM]

The following is a quote direct from the ACBL Bidding Box Regulations. I apologize for using the word "error" instead of "irregularity".

 

"The onus is on the player to convince the director that a mechanical

irregularity has occured."

 

http://www.acbl.org/play/bidboxes.html

 

As to restoring equity. I believe that is actually the instruction to the director, in the Laws, when fielding a call for a revoke. So I don't think I said anything outrageous.

[relpar]

The original posting asked the question about whether or not a player can decline to provide information to the Director because it MAY be to his advantage to so do. In the case in question the 3♣ card was pulled from the Bidding Box by mistake. The player intended to pull out the 4♣ card. He thought he had indeed pulled out the 4♣ card. When the Director came to the table he declined to inform the Director that he had "pulled the wrong card". Is it ethical/legal to decline to provide this information to the Director BECAUSE it might be to his advantage to be able to play 3♣ rather than 4♣?

[bluejak]

I would say that the replies so far have made it clear that it is permissible. After all, what difference does it make? Once he did not try to change it Law 25A is irrelevant, so there is no information that the TD needs.

 

As someone else has pointed out, you are not required to change a mechanical error, legally or ethically.

[blackshoe]

"The onus is on the player to convince the director that a mechanical

irregularity has occured."

This simply means that the director should not, without ensuring that it was (probably) a mechanical error irregularity, just let the player change his call whenever he (the player) likes.

As to restoring equity.  I believe that is actually the instruction to the director, in the Laws, when fielding a call for a revoke.  So I don't think I said anything outrageous.

 

Not sure what you said, but it probably wasn't outrageous. Might have been unclear, though, or even wrong. :P

 

The Scope of the Laws says

The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage.

 

This is the genesis of the "restore equity" approach to the laws. As for revokes,

 

When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

 

So this law recognizes that in some cases the rectification (transfer of some number of tricks) provided in earlier parts of law 64 may not "restore equity" to the non-offending side (or, in other words, "sufficiiently redress damage"), in which case the TD shall adjust the score. It does not mean that every revoke should result in a score adjustment.

[barmar]

When the Director came to the table he declined to inform the Director that he had "pulled the wrong card". Is it ethical/legal to decline to provide this information to the Director BECAUSE it might be to his advantage to be able to play 3♣ rather than 4♣?

So he lied when the Director asked "Did you pull the 3♣ card intentionally or did you pull the wrong card?" or some similar quesiton? I'm not sure if the Laws ever say so explicitly, but I don't think lying to the TD is ethical.

[jnichols]

So he lied when the Director asked "Did you pull the 3♣ card intentionally or did you pull the wrong card?" or some similar quesiton? I'm not sure if the Laws ever say so explicitly, but I don't think lying to the TD is ethical.

Don't see in the OP that the Director ever asked.

[Rossoneri]

The TD did not ask I believe, hence I don't think there is any unethical situation here.

 

And as an aside, the example that bluejak gave about mechanical irregularities is very true.

[bluejak]

When the Director came to the table he declined to inform the Director that he had "pulled the wrong card". Is it ethical/legal to decline to provide this information to the Director BECAUSE it might be to his advantage to be able to play 3♣ rather than 4♣?

So he lied when the Director asked "Did you pull the 3♣ card intentionally or did you pull the wrong card?" or some similar quesiton? I'm not sure if the Laws ever say so explicitly, but I don't think lying to the TD is ethical.

Nor do I , which is why competent TDs do not ask embarrassing questions to which they do not need to know the answer.

 

Law 25A requires a change or attempt to change. So if there is an insufficient bid, and no mention of a change or attempt to change, there is no reason for the TD to find out the player's intention.