Change of call

[bluejak]

A problem from a top Romanian TD:

 

1♦ P 1♠ P

2♦ P 2♥ P

P P

 

At this point dealer starts complaining: he meant to bid 2♠ over 2♥. The TD decides that it is not a mechanical error.

 

So he rules under Law 25B, and the next player decides to accept the 2♠ bid even though he knows it is likely to be bad for his side.

 

Any problems, legal or ethical?

[aguahombre]

This is just a question out of my usual ignorance:

 

Isn't what happened exactly what 25B1 allows?

 

If so, I guess you are asking if --given the stated facts -- LHO is acting against his best interests, and therefore against the spirit of competition. Given only what is given in the OP, this seems to be the case.

 

However, LHO was at the table the whole time, and might strongly disagree with the TD's ruling ("not unintended"), for whatever reason --and is trying to be sportsmanlike. If that is the case, then you might add "disrespectful" to the questions about legal and ethical.

[mycroft]

Interesting - I was about to give the wrong answer! Hidden:

I wonder if the removal of "Until LHO calls" in the new L25B was deliberate or this case was just missed.

 

 

Speaking of which, I believe that I *have* given the wrong ruling a couple of times since late 2008.

 

Ethically, as long as the opponent in question isn't benefiting his buddies *and* would make a different decision to someone he didn't know, I think everything's fine - "if it's legal, it's ethical" and all that. My own personal ethics say that if I'd do it playing against my friends, and I'd do it playing against John Q. Random (or I'd do it playing against inexperienced players that fit the above two categories), but those I happen to dislike (or those known as Rules Lawyers themselves) get "letter of the law'ed", that's all well and good, too (which is why I phrase the above the way I did).

[RMB1]

Did dealer actually change his call to 2♠?

 

If not then I don't think the TD should "offer" Law 25B; a change of call under Law 25B is an infraction and the TD should not give a player the option of changing a call under Law 25B (in the hope that LHO might accept) - any more than the TD should offer a player the option of making an insuffient bid.

 

If dealer did actually change his Pass to 2♠ then the bidding in the original post shows that LHO has already passed, in which case 2♠ is a bid out of turn after the end of the auction and Law 39 applies, 2♠ is cancelled and there is no further penalty.

 

Robin

[blackshoe]

I agree, mostly, with Robin, except that "out of turn" is not relevant - the auction is over, so there is no "turn". Law 39 applies, and the call is canceled.

 

It appears though, that what actually happened is that the dealer stated, either before or after calling the TD, that he wished to change his call to 2♠. Whether it was before or after doesn't really matter, because again apparently if he didn't call the TD first, the TD was called immediately after the comment. So we don't have a "substituted call" here, we have an extraneous comment. That comment is UI to dealer's partner, but that may not matter, since he is likely to be declarer. OTOH, he may not be, since the TD erroneously (IMO) reopened the auction. I would rule TD error, but the exact ruling depends on what happened after dealer's LHO accepted 2♠, and on what results might have obtained with a correct ruling, and we need more information for that.

 

One interesting question occurs to me: is 25A2 applicable only in the event the TD is contemplating allowing a change under 25A? If so, then there appears to be no restriction in 25B wrt disallowing a change of call after someone else has called - it would seem then that a player could make a 25B call anytime before the auction has ended. I doubt very much the lawmakers intended that, but I'm not sure that they intended 25A2 to apply in 25B situations either.

[pran]

Did dealer actually change his call to 2♠?

 

If not then I don't think the TD should "offer" Law 25B; a change of call under Law 25B is an infraction and the TD should not give a player the option of changing a call under Law 25B (in the hope that LHO might accept) - any more than the TD should offer a player the option of making an insuffient bid.

 

If dealer did actually change his Pass to 2♠ then the bidding in the original post  shows that LHO has already passed, in which case 2♠ is a bid out of turn after the end of the auction and Law 39 applies, 2♠ is cancelled and there is no further penalty.

 

Robin

If dealer actually changed (or wanted to change) his pass to 2♠ this would have been in time for a possible law 25A ruling.

Law 25A3: If the auction ends before it reaches the player’s partner no substitution may occur after the end of the auction period (see Law 22).

From Law 22: The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead.

 

Consequently when TD rejected Law 25A we are in Law 25B1 territory: A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender’s LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues.

 

I agree that TD should not offer a Law 25B ruling, but he should apply law 25B when he denied a Law 25A ruling on a de facto change of call.

 

Law 39 cannot apply when the offender clearly indicated that he intended a change of his call already made.

[pran]

One interesting question occurs to me: is 25A2 applicable only in the event the TD is contemplating allowing a change under 25A? If so, then there appears to be no restriction in 25B wrt disallowing a change of call after someone else has called - it would seem then that a player could make a 25B call anytime before the auction has ended. I doubt very much the lawmakers intended that, but I'm not sure that they intended 25A2 to apply in 25B situations either.

Law 25B applies only to changes of calls that are in time for a possible law 25A ruling. Other changes of calls are not changes, they are calls out of turn.

 

(See also Laws 30B3 and 31B note **)

[bluejak]

How could someone accept a change to 2♠ anyway once he has passed over the previous call?

[axman]

Did dealer actually change his call to 2♠?

 

If not then I don't think the TD should "offer" Law 25B; a change of call under Law 25B is an infraction and the TD should not give a player the option of changing a call under Law 25B (in the hope that LHO might accept) - any more than the TD should offer a player the option of making an insuffient bid.

 

If dealer did actually change his Pass to 2♠ then the bidding in the original post shows that LHO has already passed, in which case 2♠ is a bid out of turn after the end of the auction and Law 39 applies, 2♠ is cancelled and there is no further penalty.

 

Robin

I found a curious provision of law under L39B:

 

..... if the infraction is .............. any call by the future declarer or dummy there is no further rectification.

 

which begs the question, when, say early in an auction there is an infraction, is someone supposed to know who the future declarer is so as to know to do no further rectification?

 

I bring this up because someone had the temerity to write such rubbish into law. But having had the practice there was so little additional effort to fabricate L25A3 which some seem to believe [and I suggest erroneously so] provides for the auction to proceed after the third in rotation pass even though L39A provides that all calls after an auction ending pass be canceled.

 

It seems to me there is, should be, ought to be some principle that an auction that has ended not proceed further; or that it does proceed further- but at least don't call the auction ended, so as to not instill confusion amongst the masses.

 

In the subject case there has been an auction ending pass and L39 specifies that any subsequent call be canceled- which I should think includes those made at the insistence of the TD. The facts suggest that dealer wanted to continue the auction but did not, however the TD told the dealer to call "OOT" [had the auction indeed been alive] so he did.

 

What ought to be obvious is that for dealer to make any further call to this auction, the auction must be reopened and the last two calls canceled, FIRST. It is notable that the law provides for only one occasion for such a feat- MI from an opponent. And the facts suggest no such occurrence.

[blackshoe]

Law 25B applies only to changes of calls that are in time for a possible law 25A ruling.

I expressed doubt on this point. You do not. You assert, in effect, that Law 25A2 applies to all law 25 situations. What is the basis for this assertion?

 

Other changes of calls are not changes, they are calls out of turn.

 

(See also Laws 30B3 and 31B note **)

 

A call out of turn is a call out of turn; a change of call is a change of call. Possibly something might be both a change and out of turn. But if a player changes his call (even though the TD might later disallow it) it is still a change of call, and saying it is not simply confuses the issue.

 

In the instant case, there was, imo, neither a change of call nor a call out of turn. In fact, there wasn't a call at all — there was an assertion that a player would like to change his call.

 

This case makes me leery of the position in another thread where a player, instead of changing or attempting to change an allegedly unintended call, called the TD instead. This case makes me lean away from allowing a 25A change in such a case. Or is an assertion that one would like to change one's call equivalent to an attempt to change it?

[pran]

I expressed doubt on this point. You do not. You assert, in effect, that Law 25A2 applies to all law 25 situations. What is the basis for this assertion?

It's unconditional text (not limiting it to inadvertent calls) combined with the logical nonsense resulting if any old call could be changed at a later time during the auction.

 

I agree that the law could have been even clearer with Laws 25A2 and 25A3 being placed ahead of Law 25A (as a preamble in Law 25), but to me this difference is not important.

[mjj29]

Or is an assertion that one would like to change one's call equivalent to an attempt to change it?

I think it must be, or we should stop telling people to call the director whenever there is anything wrong. If someone did not know they were entitled to change an unintended call having made one (particularly after LHO called, since I believe many people do _not_ know that), we should not be denying them the chance when they call the TD to ask.

 

I also agree with people about the UI issues which are prevented by calling the director instead of revealing the proposed changed call when it is not possible.

 

Fundamentally, it's always a struggle to make people call the director and not make their own rulings, telling them there is a situation where they must try and change it and _not_ call the director is not going to help matters.

[bluejak]

Any attempt to change is good enough, and calling the TD in an attempt to change has always been considered an attempt to change it.

 

Perhaps that should be in the White book?

[iviehoff]

Any attempt to change is good enough, and calling the TD in an attempt to change has always been considered an attempt to change it.

 

Perhaps that should be in the White book?

Looks like just the kind of thing that ought to be.

[MBV53]

A TD is powered to change the bidding when auction is alive. He permitts to with draw one of each side's call if intention was shown to change the call by the offender.It is too late to chage the call. Law 25.

A. Unintended Call

 

1. 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. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.

 

2. No substitution of call may be made when his partner has made a subsequent call.

 

3. If the auction ends before it reaches the player’s partner no substitution may occur after the end of the auction period (see Law 22).

MBVSubrahmanyam.

Senior National director, India,

Chief TD , India.

[blackshoe]

It is too late to chage the call.

 

Is it? The auction has ended, not having reached opener's partner before there were three passes. But the auction period has not ended, since the opening lead has not been faced, so per 25A3, it's not too late.

[peachy]

His partner has made a call so too late. No change of call allowed far as I understand 25A. When it is too late, does it matter what took place, mechanical or not mechanical?

[Vampyr]

This case makes me leery of the position in another thread where a player, instead of changing or attempting to change an allegedly unintended call, called the TD instead. This case makes me lean away from allowing a 25A change in such a case. Or is an assertion that one would like to change one's call equivalent to an attempt to change it?

I thought this was covered in another thread. For most players, it would not occur to them that there was a possibility of trying to change their call that did not involve first calling the director (if, in fact, it occurred to them that it was even possible to do so).

 

Why, in this kind of situation, would a player even call the director if he weren't intending to change his call? Why doyou keep insisting that calling the TD is the wrong way to resolve this irregularity?

[bluejak]

I don't understand this, Steffie, do you really play in a different country from me?

 

In any club I play in, in any EBU or WBU event, there are always people who take the wrong card out of the bidding box, say sorry, and change it. Opponents did it about a dozen times over the weekend.

 

Are you really saying this never happens when you play?

[Vampyr]

At this point dealer starts complaining: he meant to bid 2♠ over 2♥.  The TD decides that it is not a mechanical error.

The second sentence should be the last one in the post. Alas...

 

So he rules under Law 25B, and the next player decides to accept the 2♠ bid even though he knows it is likely to be bad for his side.

 

Any problems, legal or ethical?

The TD put the NOS in a really difficult position. But he probably didn't realise that 25B corrections are infractions; perhaps this should be made more explicit in the Laws.