Mechanical error

[blackshoe]

And me. Although I'd still like to know if "pause for thought" includes trying to remember how the auction went (absent bidding boxes).

[awm]

My example wasn't best but the principle holds.

 

1: I pull the wrong card from hand and play it. Even if I notice instantly (well before leftie plays) I am out of luck. Even if I am declarer (so no ui possible) it is a played card. Mechanical error? Doesn't matter.

 

2: I pull out the wrong bid from box and play it. Even if leftie has already called I can correct it. No penalty (except leftie call is ui). Of course I must convince director it was mechanical error but this is rarely hard. In fact the old laws even let me change call when NOT mechanical error; good change IMO.

[PeterE]

Although I'd still like to know if "pause for thought" includes trying to remember how the auction went (absent bidding boxes).

No, Ed, definitely not.

"Unintended" means, that the player knew (at the moment he called) what call he was going to make - totally "independent" of the previous bidding.

Any attempt to remember to previous bidding (or it's meanings) is - per definition and per dictionary meaning of the Englisch language - a pause for thought.

[blackshoe]

Although I'd still like to know if "pause for thought" includes trying to remember how the auction went (absent bidding boxes).

No, Ed, definitely not.

"Unintended" means, that the player knew (at the moment he called) what call he was going to make - totally "independent" of the previous bidding.

Any attempt to remember to previous bidding (or it's meanings) is - per definition and per dictionary meaning of the Englisch language - a pause for thought.

First you say "no, 'pause for thought' does not include trying to remember how the auction went", and then you say it does. One of us is confused. :(

 

I was referring to the possiblity that he can't remember his last bid. Unlikely, sure, but I'm trying to find a boundary here, not suggesting that I think this a likely scenario at the table.

 

"Unintended call" means he didn't intend to make that call. How can he know whether the call he made is the one he intended if (for whatever reason) he doesn't know what call he made? And if he doesn't, what can he do to find out? What can he not do?

[McBruce]

North has hesitated for quite some time, more than would be necessary in an unusual auction. This is an infraction of L74B4 ("...acting during the auction or play so as to call attention to a significant occurrence..."), and the evidence is overwhelming that North's behavior is designed to prevent damage to his side through an unintended bid. North is clearly aware as he performs his act ("at the time of his irregularity") that it is likely to cause the opponents to get a poorer score. Law 23 is the remedy. If South wishes to correct to 5♠, let it happen, but apply Law 23 and adjust the score if the opponents receive a poorer score because of the change. A PP to North is certainly reasonable as well.

 

Oddly enough, an ethical South will elect NOT to make the change if woken up by partner's act to comply with L73C. A practical ethical South will say "isn't it amazing how clean the 5NT card is compared to the others that get more usage," thereby showing that he is aware he bid 5NT and establishing pause for thought if he tries to change it. Now North's timewasting is not getting him anywhere. :(

[iviehoff]

If you ask "Was that a mechanical error?" and it wasn't, he'll say so. Likewise, if it was a mechanical error, but he noticed some time ago and decided not to try to change it, he will, one assumes, persist with this plan.

Of course I'm not happy about the mechanical error not being corrected. I'd rather not win like that.

 

But asking the question would be worse. It could well be an irregularity, and I am much less happy to put myself at risk of committing an irregularity to help the opponent out of his mistake.

 

I have the right to draw attention to an opponent's irregularity. A mechanical error is an irregularity, so I can draw attention to it. But I am not sure that it is a mechanical error. If I am not reasonably confident that there has been an irregularity I must keep my mouth shut, and there is a good reason for that.

 

For example, the answer to the question may be "no", in which case North must not answer my question. Even worse, the answer might be "yes, but it is not correctable". Again, North must not say that, he must keep his mouth shut. Only in the situation that it is a correctable mechanical error may North answer my question. In other situations, North may not answer the question, but even his silence is problematic.

 

So it really is best not to ask.

 

As campboy says, most "mistakes" of this nature are uncorrectable, eg, a mechanical error in pulling the wrong card out of your hand and tabling it is not correctable. Even a bidding mechanical error is only correctable in specific conditions. It really is not my responsibility to try and maximise my opponent's possibility of finding himself within those conditions. But what I'm certainly not going to be doing is doubling as fast as possible to limit his possibility of benefiting from those conditions.

[Trinidad]

So are we agreed that Law 25A applies, but partner gets fined?

Count me in.

 

Rik

We might be over-doing the fining bit here.

If I thought we had agreed spades but were clearly not going to slam, and my partner bid 5NT, I would try not to look it, but I would certainly _be_ surprised and puzzled.

 

In particular, it would take me a long time to call over the double. Not because I am trying to 'wake partner up' but because I am trying to work out what on earth 5NT meant.

I agree with you that it will take South some time to understand the 5NT bid. I also agree that South' face may (will!) be expressions of surprise. I don't have any problem with a player who tries to work out what 5NT means. That is all natural, sincere and without the intention to wake up partner.

 

But the way I read the original post is that South was actively trying to draw North' attention and my reply is given in that context. From the original post:

 

South now looked surprised, puzzled, worried, grunted, grimaced, looked pointedly at the bidding sequence, checked his hand, put his head on one side, and ....

 

Eventually North woke up

 

This description leaves the possibility that South was just thinking what 5NT meant. But I don't think that I am "seeing things that aren't there" when I read this as "South was acting with the intent to wake up North.".

 

--------

Assuming that South indeed tried to wake up his partner, I have a lot more sympathy for a South player who simply asks: "Did you mean to bid that?". This would just show that the player doesn't know better. But a player who uses "Antics at the table" knows that he is not supposed to wake up partner, and then tries to do it anyway. He only does it in such a way that he thinks that he has deniability.

 

Rik

[pran]

What if South just said "Partner, is that the call you intended?" ?

Surely that is a breach of Law 73B1 [no A this time, Sven :P ]?

 

I believe bridge is a game of mistakes, and I see no problem with gaining from opponents' mistakes, and I think stopping partner making a mistake should only be done in specified situations where it is allowed.

A or no A

I think the bottom line must be that North is entitled to correct his mechanical error but South is "entitled" to some penalty for seriously improper activity at the table.

 

That penalty could be anything from a warning to a penalty that brings the North/South result back to what an uncorrected mechanical error would have resulted in.

 

regards Sven

[PeterE]

First you say "no, 'pause for thought' does not include trying to remember how the auction went", and then you say it does. One of us is confused. B)

Yes, sorry :P this time it was me who couldn't read :( :blink: B)

[axman]

A mechanical error is an irregularity, so I can draw attention to it.

There is some misconception.

 

To be an irregularity, 5N must be an IB, a breach of L16/73, a BOOT, a failure to satisfy an enforced pass, or failure to repeat a call as required. Absent these, calling different than intended is not an irregularity, as of now.

 

However, to be thorough, when a player corrects his call that is an irregularity if the opponents believe that all the the conditions of L25A weren't satisfied.

[iviehoff]

A mechanical error is an irregularity, so I can draw attention to it.

There is some misconception.

 

To be an irregularity, 5N must be an IB, a breach of L16/73, a BOOT, a failure to satisfy an enforced pass, or failure to repeat a call as required. Absent these, calling different than intended is not an irregularity, as of now.

 

However, to be thorough, when a player corrects his call that is an irregularity if the opponents believe that all the the conditions of L25A weren't satisfied.

If you are correct, then gnasher's question is always extraneous, and my argument is reinforced.

 

But I think you are confusing infraction and irregularity. The things you mention are all infractions. An irregularity "is a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player". I think a mechanical error is a deviation from the correct procedure for making the intended call. I believe Bluejak has argued as such in the past.

[bluejak]

We might be over-doing the fining bit here.

If I thought we had agreed spades but were clearly not going to slam, and my partner bid 5NT, I would try not to look it, but I would certainly _be_ surprised and puzzled.

 

In particular, it would take me a long time to call over the double.  Not because I am trying to 'wake partner up' but because I am trying to work out what on earth 5NT meant.

South now looked surprised, puzzled, worried, grunted, grimaced, looked pointedly at the bidding sequence, checked his hand, put his head on one side, and ....

I believe the suggestions of a PP are because of the actions by which South attempted to communicate with partner, not the slowness of his call.

 

If you are know, or are almost certain, that your LHO has made a mechanical error and hasn't noticed it, but you bid over it anyway without saying anything, you are attempting to replace the bridge result that was still possible with an artificial result that favours your side. Can you really not see anything wrong with that?

The only thing wrong with that is I do not think it is true. I am trying to take advantage of an opponent's error to get a favourable bridge result, which is the normal reaction to an opponent's error.

 

I was referring to the possiblity that he can't remember his last bid. Unlikely, sure, but I'm trying to find a boundary here, not suggesting that I think this a likely scenario at the table.

 

"Unintended call" means he didn't intend to make that call. How can he know whether the call he made is the one he intended if (for whatever reason) he doesn't know what call he made? And if he doesn't, what can he do to find out? What can he not do?

Like Peter [i think] I believe that this is not what I thought you were saying. The 'pause for thought' is from the realisation: if you do not know what call you made you have not yet realised you have made an unintended call.

[blackshoe]

However, to be thorough, when a player corrects his call that is an irregularity if the opponents believe that all the the conditions of L25A weren't satisfied.

More correctly, I think, "when a player corrects his call, that is an irregularity for which rectification, if any, will be determined by the Director".

 

IOW, what the opponents believe is not relevant — the determination is solely the TD's.

[blackshoe]

That penalty could be anything from a warning to a penalty that brings the North/South result back to what an uncorrected mechanical error would have resulted in.

It is my view that awarding procedural penalties in an amount designed to "rectify" the score is not just bad practice, it's illegal. If you have a legal justification for adjusting the score, do so in accordance with Law 12. Once that's done, it's done. Awarding of PPs is a separate issue, and the size of the PP should be based solely on guidance from higher authority, local practice, and the TD's judgement of the severity of the offense, without any consideration of whether the rectification provided in the laws for the offense concerned is "adequate".

[blackshoe]

I was referring to the possiblity that he can't remember his last bid. Unlikely, sure, but I'm trying to find a boundary here, not suggesting that I think this a likely scenario at the table.

 

"Unintended call" means he didn't intend to make that call. How can he know whether the call he made is the one he intended if (for whatever reason) he doesn't know what call he made? And if he doesn't, what can he do to find out? What can he not do?

Like Peter [i think] I believe that this is not what I thought you were saying. The 'pause for thought' is from the realisation: if you do not know what call you made you have not yet realised you have made an unintended call.

Sorry for the confusion, then. But my questions remain. Given that he is not aware that he has made an unintended call, what can he do or not do (in situations where the call is not obviously displayed so that he — and presumably everyone else — can see it) in search of determining what call he made?

[barmar]

Sorry for the confusion, then. But my questions remain. Given that he is not aware that he has made an unintended call, what can he do or not do (in situations where the call is not obviously displayed so that he — and presumably everyone else — can see it) in search of determining what call he made?

Suppose he intends to pass, but has a brain fart and the word "double" comes out of his mouth without him realizing it, and LHO redoubles. He then says, "How can you redouble when I passed?" Everyone at the table confirms that they heard him say "double", and he then says "but I meant to pass."

 

Now you call the TD and let him sort it out in accordance with the laws on inadvertent calls.

[pran]

That penalty could be anything from a warning to a penalty that brings the North/South result back to what an uncorrected mechanical error would have resulted in.

It is my view that awarding procedural penalties in an amount designed to "rectify" the score is not just bad practice, it's illegal. If you have a legal justification for adjusting the score, do so in accordance with Law 12. Once that's done, it's done. Awarding of PPs is a separate issue, and the size of the PP should be based solely on guidance from higher authority, local practice, and the TD's judgement of the severity of the offense, without any consideration of whether the rectification provided in the laws for the offense concerned is "adequate".

I agree.

 

And I consider the severity of the offence to be tightly connected to the expected gain from the offence.

 

Thus I grade my PP when applicable according among other premises also to the expected gain.

 

That allows me to issue a simple warning to a newbie who doesn't know better while for the same offence I can hit an experienced player with the full force of for instance Law 23 or a PP if no other law applies directly.

 

I suppose we can all agree that there was a very specific and unwarranted expected gain behind South's irregular activity in the situation discussed here?

 

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

Are you talking about the degree of expected gain (where an expectation of gaining say 1 matchpoint is different from an expectation of gaining 5 matchpoints) or about the expectation there is any gain at all?

 

I would be very surprised if any player considers "expected gain" in anything like numerical terms.

 

But I think you're talking about the second situation - and clearly the player (South, was it?) expected to gain by all his shenanigans. And from your latest post, apparently we're in agreement that the "size" of the PP should depend on how far down the pike between "clueless noob" and "fully cognizant that what he's doing is wrong" South is. If he's at one end, the PP (a warning, at most) will do nothing to "bring the NS result back to what an uncorrected mechanical error would have resulted in", while if he's anywhere near the other end of that road their (NS's) result will be considerably less than that - at least if law 12 does its ideal job, and the adjustment gets back to "equity". But if there's no adjustment — because under law 25A (in this case) the TD has to allow the change of call — that makes no difference to the size of the PP. In fact, it may be best to determine the PP before considering what rectification the law provides. I don't know, I'll have to think more about that idea. :)

[gnasher]

The only thing wrong with that is I do not think it is true.  I am trying to take advantage of an opponent's error to get a favourable bridge result, which is the normal reaction to an opponent's error.

Here are some other ways to gain an advantage from an opponent's error:

 

- An opponent holds his hand in a position where I can see it without effort. I look at it rather than asking him to hold his cards up.

 

- An opponent drops a card on the floor, face-up but in a position where only I can see it. I look at it rather than looking away.

 

- An opponent reaches for the bidding box when it's not his turn. I don't try to stop him, because I want to benefit from a bid out of turn.

 

- An opponent seems to think that he won the last trick, whereas in fact I won it. It looks as though he's about to lead to the next trick. I don't warn him that he's not on lead, because I want to benefit from a lead out of turn. [Edit: my first version of this probably wasn't legal, so I changed it.]

 

I believe that these are all legal (though I'm prepared to be corrected).

 

I hope you're going to tell me how these differ from the original scenario. I really hope you're not going to say that each of these is also a normal reaction to an opponent's error.

Edited September 17, 2009 by gnasher

[pran]

Are you talking about the degree of expected gain (where an expectation of gaining say 1 matchpoint is different from an expectation of gaining 5 matchpoints) or about the expectation there is any gain at all?

 

I would be very surprised if any player considers "expected gain" in anything like numerical terms.

 

But I think you're talking about the second situation - and clearly the player (South, was it?) expected to gain by all his shenanigans. And from your latest post, apparently we're in agreement that the "size" of the PP should depend on how far down the pike between "clueless noob" and "fully cognizant that what he's doing is wrong" South is. If he's at one end, the PP (a warning, at most) will do nothing to "bring the NS result back to what an uncorrected mechanical error would have resulted in", while if he's anywhere near the other end of that road their (NS's) result will be considerably less than that - at least if law 12 does its ideal job, and the adjustment gets back to "equity". But if there's no adjustment — because under law 25A (in this case) the TD has to allow the change of call — that makes no difference to the size of the PP. In fact, it may be best to determine the PP before considering what rectification the law provides. I don't know, I'll have to think more about that idea. :D

Just tell me: What is equity on the board absent any infraction of laws; i.e. is if South (as he should have done) had called in tempo without any noticeable reaction to the mechanical error made by North?

 

South here probably had an expectation of a solid bottom score if North's call were not corrected, and the expected gain by his irregularity is to instead obtain a reaonable score at least around average. South also probably was aware that North could be allowed to correct his error so long as South made no subsequent call.

 

Thus my impression is that South was experienced enough to know his laws, making his activity unacceptable, and consequently I should vote for a PP around 50% or maybe even 100% of a top score depending on whether South could have expectations to just save a reasonable score with his irregularity or that they were on their way to a top score contract.

 

I don't know anything that makes it illegal for me as a Director to vary a PP depending upon the outcome of an irregularity once a PP is warranted?

 

regards Sven

[bluejak]

I don't know anything that makes it illegal for me as a Director to vary a PP depending upon the outcome of an irregularity once a PP is warranted?

No, Sven, it is not illegal [despite someone earlier, Ed I think, suggesting it is]. But a lot of people, me included, think it undesirable. I believe the level of PP should depend on the level of offence, not on the effect of the offence.

 

Here are some other ways to gain an advantage from an opponent's error:

 

- An opponent holds his hand in a position where I can see it without effort. I look at it rather than asking him to hold his cards up.

 

- An opponent drops a card on the floor, face-up but in a position where only I can see it. I look at it rather than looking away.

 

- An opponent reaches for the bidding box when it's not his turn. I don't try to stop him, because I want to benefit from a bid out of turn.

 

- An opponent seems to think that he won the last trick, whereas in fact I won it. It looks as though he's about to lead to the next trick. I don't warn him that he's not on lead, because I want to benefit from a lead out of turn. [Edit: my first version of this probably wasn't legal, so I changed it.]

 

I believe that these are all legal (though I'm prepared to be corrected).

 

I hope you're going to tell me how these differ from the original scenario. I really hope you're not going to say that each of these is also a normal reaction to an opponent's error.

Perfectly normal. A lot of people, probably a majority, see no problem with taking advantage of an opponent's error: you believe that some errors and not others should be taken advantage of. While I do not object to you acting the way you seem to believe, of course, I doubt that you can have any legitimate complaint against the people who do not. It is the subject I keep hammering away at: personal/active ethics against legal ethics. Your personal ethics are nowhere near universally followed.

[campboy]

Isn't the first of those -- looking at an opponent's hand in order to see cards -- a violation of 74C5?

[gnasher]

Perfectly normal.  A lot of people, probably a majority, see no problem with taking advantage of an opponent's error:

I'm pleased to see that it's now "probably a majority" rather than "about 99.9% of bridge players". However, I think you're still very wrong about the proportion of players who would deliberately do any of the things I've described.

 

you believe that some errors and not others should be taken advantage of.  While I do not object to you acting the way you seem to believe, of course, I doubt that you can have any legitimate complaint against the people who do not.  It is the subject I keep hammering away at: personal/active ethics against legal ethics.

I didn't say I had any complaint against such people, and I certainly didn't suggest that such actions were against the rules. I said, "I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time in East's company. What sort of bridge player doubles 5NT rather than asking whether North actually meant to bid that?"

 

Your personal ethics are nowhere near universally followed.

Even if you are right about this, so what? A contemptible action still merits contempt, regardless of how many other people would take the same action.

[barmar]

Here are some other ways to gain an advantage from an opponent's error:

 

- An opponent holds his hand in a position where I can see it without effort. I look at it rather than asking him to hold his cards up.

 

- An opponent drops a card on the floor, face-up but in a position where only I can see it. I look at it rather than looking away.

 

- An opponent reaches for the bidding box when it's not his turn. I don't try to stop him, because I want to benefit from a bid out of turn.

 

- An opponent seems to think that he won the last trick, whereas in fact I won it. It looks as though he's about to lead to the next trick. I don't warn him that he's not on lead, because I want to benefit from a lead out of turn. [Edit: my first version of this probably wasn't legal, so I changed it.]

 

I believe that these are all legal (though I'm prepared to be corrected).

 

I hope you're going to tell me how these differ from the original scenario. I really hope you're not going to say that each of these is also a normal reaction to an opponent's error.

Perfectly normal. A lot of people, probably a majority, see no problem with taking advantage of an opponent's error: you believe that some errors and not others should be taken advantage of. While I do not object to you acting the way you seem to believe, of course, I doubt that you can have any legitimate complaint against the people who do not. It is the subject I keep hammering away at: personal/active ethics against legal ethics. Your personal ethics are nowhere near universally followed.

I've never seen anyone who didn't actively try to avoid taking advantage of any of the above types of errors. If I warn someone that I can see their cards, and then they do it again, I may joke that the next time I'll look, but I never mean it. If a card drops on the floor, everyone else instinctively averts or covers their eyes, in my experience.

 

I feel bad for you if the people you play bridge against (I hope not with) see no problem with punishing opponents for these types of errors.

 

I'm not sure what makes these different from some other bridge errors, but I think most people naturally treat them differently. There's a gut feeling that these types of accidents are not "part of the game". Perhaps anything goes in cut-throat rubber bridge, but duplicate bridge is expected to be more civilized.

 

Maybe it's a cultural thing, so it depends on where you play.

[campboy]

Well, I would certainly avoid looking in the first two cases, and in my experience the overwhelming majority would do the same.

 

In the last two cases, if I was sufficiently aware to know that it wasn't their turn, I would say so without really thinking, but I would not expect others to do the same.

 

Bidding or playing out of turn and making insufficient bids are certainly errors of bridge, and it seems right for them to cost. Dropping cards is an error of coordination.