Don't Look !

[Chris3875]

I have noticed in a number of different threads the comment has been made "don't look at the players' hands" when called to the table to make a decision.

 

Assume you are called to the table by a player who has made an unintentional bid - wrote hearts when she clearly meant to write spades - a quck glance at her hand would show that she had 1 heart and 5 spades and the decision is simple.

 

How do you handle this? Do you take the player away from the table and ask her what she actually intended to write and accept her word? Do you check later by looking at the hand record or wait until the opposition scream because, in fact, she may not have been truthful. Sometimes players will tell you that they made an unintentional bid when, in fact, it was a change of mind. How can you know this unless you look at their hand?

[pran]

I have noticed in a number of different threads the comment has been made "don't look at the players' hands" when called to the table to make a decision.

 

Assume you are called to the table by a player who has made an unintentional bid - wrote hearts when she clearly meant to write spades - a quck glance at her hand would show that she had 1 heart and 5 spades and the decision is simple.

 

How do you handle this? Do you take the player away from the table and ask her what she actually intended to write and accept her word? Do you check later by looking at the hand record or wait until the opposition scream because, in fact, she may not have been truthful. Sometimes players will tell you that they made an unintentional bid when, in fact, it was a change of mind. How can you know this unless you look at their hand?

If you look at a hand and then make a ruling you implicitly reveal to the other three players at the table the characteristics of that hand to the extent that these affected your ruling.

 

The risk is very high that by doing so you create so much extraneous information to the players that no result can any longer be obtained on the board with normal calls and play.

 

What you should do is to judge the situation from body languages etc. without looking at any cards. My experience is that when I explain the applicable laws to the players and make it clear that I shall stand ready to judge the board after play is completed for my final ruling then all four players will themselves agree right away for instance whether it was an inadvertent call or a change of mind.

 

Taking the player away from the table for an interview could sometimes possibly have some merits, but I have never, ever found the need to do that.

[helene_t]

Interesting, I always thought you were supposed to look at the player's cards at that time, but what Sven says makes a lot of sense.

[bluejak]

If you look at the hand and see five hearts and five spades, what do you do then? Mutter to yourself? :)

 

No, it is awful to look at a player's hand for an unintentional bid, because whatever you say tells the other three people at the table what the player has - and that is a no-no.

 

There is no need to take a player away from the table either: you are not going to do any judgement based on the hand. Just ask the player what he intended at the point he reached for the bidding pad, and judge from his response. Do not worry about checking later - that is unnecessary.

[pran]

Do not worry about checking later - that is unnecessary.

I have never had to adjust later, but knowing that I am ready to do so seems an extremely strong stimulus for the players to reach the "correct" agreement in my presence.

[bluejak]

I am not saying you never check later, but in principle, like any other TD decision, you will check when the opposition draw your attention to something. So I do not worry about it.

[barmar]

Isn't the simple fact that the player wanted to change their call an indication that they don't have the hand that their first call showed? What additional information does their partner receive when you look at the hand and make your decision?

[pran]

Isn't the simple fact that the player wanted to change their call an indication that they don't have the hand that their first call showed? What additional information does their partner receive when you look at the hand and make your decision?

For instance your confirmation that the hand is in no way compatible with the call the player wants to change.

 

(The Don't look rule is not limited to possible law 25A rulings, it applies in every case where a Directcor's ruling might depend on the hand involved.)

[bluejak]

Isn't the simple fact that the player wanted to change their call an indication that they don't have the hand that their first call showed? What additional information does their partner receive when you look at the hand and make your decision?

There are millions of examples, so I shall merely give two.

 

A player opens 1♣ and immediately tries to change it to 1♠. If you look you will see five spades and five clubs. What do you do when you look? Look puzzled, and then, with brow clearing say "Oh, you are playing Precision, aren't you?".

 

A player opens 1♥ and immediately tries to change it to 1♠. If you look you will see five spades and a poor six card heart suit. What do you do when you look?

 

So, if you look and immediately say "That's ok, then" partner and opponents know it is not one of these two hands.

[Chris3875]

bluejak this will probably show my level of experience when directing, but with the 2 examples that you showed, I would think to myself, "hello, this is a change of mind" and probably not allow the bid to be changed.

 

(I stand ready to be pilloried)

[pran]

bluejak this will probably show my level of experience when directing, but with the 2 examples that you showed, I would think to myself, "hello, this is a change of mind" and probably not allow the bid to be changed.

 

(I stand ready to be pilloried)

And that too will give the other three players so much extraneous information about the hand that a result on the board can most probably no longer be obtained from "normal" calls and play.

[Chris3875]

Sorry pran - I really just don't follow that.

 

Take bluejak's example 2 - the player opens 1♥ with 6 scraggy hearts and 5 spades (presumably of better quality). In my opinion he SHOULD open 1♥, so I would consider that he INTENDED to open 1♥ but then changed his mind.

 

Same with example 1 - although with 5 spades and 5 clubs he SHOULD open 1♠ did he INTEND to open 1♣ and then realise with 5 and 5 he should open the higher suit. Are these both changes of mind and should they be allowed to be changed?

 

And why would my coming along and disallowing the change of bid give any more information than the player has given anyway? Help !

[helene_t]

Aren't partner as well as opps supposed to assume that it was a mechanical error so that they have no information from the original call?

 

Partner obviously must not make use of the UI that the player made a different call first.

 

Opps can do what they want, but in the event that it turns out afterwards that the retraction was not allowed, they are going to get am adjusted score if they were damaged. So they might as well base their play on the assumption that the retraction is allowed.

 

So I would think that whether the TD looks at the hand and says "OK", or whether he doesn't look at the hand, everyone is going to play based on the same assumptions.

 

OTOH there is a difference between the director saying OK immediately, and the director having to think about it (or even asking questions, ie "are you playing Precision?")

 

Suppose the TD instructs the player that he can only retract if it was a mechanical error, i.e. not if he forgot the system for a second, missorted his hand, failed to notice a call made by another player, or changed his mind. Then the player refrains from retracting. Then everyone has the same UI as if the TD had looked at the player's hand and disallowed the retraction, don't they?

[VixTD]

Take bluejak's example 2 - the player opens 1♥ with 6 scraggy hearts and 5 spades (presumably of better quality). In my opinion he SHOULD open 1♥, so I would consider that he INTENDED to open 1♥ but then changed his mind.

But isn't it also possible that he intended to open 1♠ all along and the 1♥ opening was every bit as inadvertent as it would have been had he been dealt only one heart?

 

Law 25A is there to allow correction of unintended calls that just "slipped out" by mistake, to make allowances for the fact that bidding cards sometimes stick together, or players sometimes say or write one thing when they intend another. Many people wish the law didn't exist, but I don't think its application should be influenced by how plausible the unintended call would be with the cards held.

[bluejak]

There still seems to be no understanding of this. It does not matter what the TD decides, he is telling everyone what is on the player's hand.

 

Chris: you say that in the first case you would decide it is not an unintended call. Why? Some people always open 1♠ with that hand.

 

Suppose you show doubt?

 

You cannot and must not decide based on what is in the player's hand because you are telling the other three what is in the player's hand.

 

As to UI, that is irrelevant: it was an unintended call then there is no information from such a call, unauthorised or not: the only information given is by the TD if he looks in the player's hand before deciding.

[pran]

Aren't partner as well as opps supposed to assume that it was a mechanical error so that they have no information from the original call?

 

Partner obviously must not make use of the UI that the player made a different call first.

 

Opps can do what they want, but in the event that it turns out afterwards that the retraction was not allowed, they are going to get am adjusted score if they were damaged. So they might as well base their play on the assumption that the retraction is allowed.

 

So I would think that whether the TD looks at the hand and says "OK", or whether he doesn't look at the hand, everyone is going to play based on the same assumptions.

 

OTOH there is a difference between the director saying OK immediately, and the director having to think about it (or even asking questions, ie "are you playing Precision?")

 

Suppose the TD instructs the player that he can only retract if it was a mechanical error, i.e. not if he forgot the system for a second, missorted his hand, failed to notice a call made by another player, or changed his mind. Then the player refrains from retracting. Then everyone has the same UI as if the TD had looked at the player's hand and disallowed the retraction, don't they?

If the player states that his first call was an accidental misbid (corroborated by his body language) and changes it then the misbid "has not been made" and conveys no information.

 

If the player states that he didn't want to make that call, but everything else indicates that he has changed his mind rather than made an accidental misbid then he is giving away extraneous information to the other players. We have laws to deal with that.

 

If the Director looks at a hand and then makes a ruling, apparently influenced by what he has seen, then the Director is giving away extraneous information about that hand to the other players. This is an error for which more often than not no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, so we shall have to end up using Law 82C: Director’s Error

[Chris3875]

..... so, if I am reading all the posts correctly, you are asking me to make a judgment as TD on whether a person is being truthful about his "intention" when making a bid, based on my perception of his body language and demeanour.

 

In other words, if I disallow a change, I am saying that I think he is telling lies which means that I am going to allow the change every time!

 

I think I would be happier to NOT look at the cards but to take the person away from the table and ask him what his intended bid was and why he bid 1H (or 1C or whatever).

 

As we use written bidding pretty much exclusively the problem of "mechanical error" is not such an issue. When these situations arise they are usually brain farts !

[pran]

..... so, if I am reading all the posts correctly, you are asking me to make a judgment as TD on whether a person is being truthful about his "intention" when making a bid, based on my perception of his body language and demeanour.

In one word: YES

 

However, I have never had to disallow a change. But I have many times experienced players voluntarily withdrawing their "request" for a change of call once I explained Law 25 to them.

 

And as said before, I have never seen any reason to take a player away from the table in such cases.

[bluejak]

..... so, if I am reading all the posts correctly, you are asking me to make a judgment as TD on whether a person is being truthful about his "intention" when making a bid, based on my perception of his body language and demeanour.

No, Chris, no.

 

Let us try again.

 

You believe players. Players do not lie, except in self-serving situations, where they look at things through rose-tinted spectacles, and you should not assume they do.

 

And who suggested body language and demeanour? Certainly not me!

 

When a player wants to make a change under Law 25A, you ask him what he intended when he reached for th bidding pad [or box]. Disbelieve him? Why?

 

If you look at his hand you are going to be a bad TD by not following good TD practice and call him a liar when his hand does not fit your preconceived notions! :)

 

As we use written bidding pretty much exclusively the problem of "mechanical error" is not such an issue. When these situations arise they are usually brain farts !

Eh? Is not that what a mechanical error is? Ok, you are confusing yourself with terminology and the new word in the law book is a good one: was the call intended or unintended?

[Chris3875]

OK I'm going to try this - I must say that when you get to a table here, most people will say "I didn't mean to bid that" all the while flashing their cards in your face. SO, I will say "put your cards away - tell me what you meant to bid" - I will explain Law 25 - and see what happens.

 

Thanks for your patience guys !! :rolleyes:

[helene_t]

If the Director looks at a hand and then makes a ruling, apparently influenced by what he has seen, then the Director is giving away extraneous information about that hand to the other players. This is an error for which more often than not no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, so we shall have to end up using Law 82C: Director’s Error

Good point. Thanks.

[VixTD]

And as said before, I have never seen any reason to take a player away from the table in such cases.

I often find it useful to take offender away from the table (at least for some sorts of offender), as it allows a much more free and open and honest discussion about their motives in making the first call. I'm not suggesting that many players are dishonest, but I do think that many of them worry about what they can say in front of the other players, and that you are more likely to get the whole story if the conversation is held privately.

 

I know that in theory all you need to do is ask the offender "What call were you trying to make when you bid 1♥?", but the erroneous notion that an "unintended call" really means one that you wouldn't dream of making if you were thinking straight at the time is so strong among some players that I don't think you always get a straight answer to that simple question.

 

I recall a case where I took offender away from the table, was assured that he was trying to make the second call all the time, that the idea of the first call had never entered his head, and then as we set off back to the table he said in all innocence "I'd got ahead of myself there."

 

I stopped and asked him what he had meant by that remark, went over the matter again and decided I was no longer convinced that his original call was inadvertent, so I disallowed the change.

[iviehoff]

OK I'm going to try this - I must say that when you get to a table here, most people will say "I didn't mean to bid that" all the while flashing their cards in your face. SO, I will say "put your cards away - tell me what you meant to bid" - I will explain Law 25 - and see what happens.

I think a good question for written bidding is

"What bid did you think you were writing on the pad at the moment you wrote it"

It think that distinguishes nicely between intention at the moment of making the bid and intention at some other time.

[duschek]

For me it usually works well when I ask a question such as "why did you bid 1♥?" This practically forces the player to explain what went on in his head, which may help me decide whether to apply Law 25A or 25B.

[Vampyr]

I know that in theory all you need to do is ask the offender "What call were you trying to make when you bid 1♥?", but the erroneous notion that an "unintended call" really means one that you wouldn't dream of making if you were thinking straight at the time is so strong among some players that I don't think you always get a straight answer to that simple question.

Yes. You can see this clearly when the original call is insufficient -- "Of course I didn't mean to bid 1♥ -- it's insufficient!"

 

I have to admit that I do think that people lie sometimes; can one really mean to take the 4♥ card out of the box and take out a double instead?