Law 25B

[Barry]

I look at my hand and decide to bid one diamond ( I play five card majors) I then realise before my partner bids that I have an extra heart hidden behind another card. I have 5 hearts. Can I call the Director and ask to change the bid?

[helene_t]

You can always call the director but you are not allowed to change your bid on this basis.

 

You can only change your bid if the bid itself was a mechanical error, i.e. you meant to pull 1♥ out of the bidding box.

[Lanor Fow]

The law uses the term 'unintended call'

 

As your call was intended (with the information you had at the time, albeit the incorrect information about your hand) it cannot be replaced under law 25A.

 

If you were to attempt to substitue the call then your LFO can accept the substitution, but otherwise it is withdrawn.

[CamHenry]

Yes, you can change your call - if your LHO accepts it. Law 25B says:

 

B. Call Intended

 

1. 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then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues.

 

2. Except as in 1 a substitution not permitted by A is cancelled. The

original call stands and the auction continues.

 

3. Law 16D applies to a call withdrawn or cancelled.

 

Note that this refers to intended calls that you now wish to change. For example, suppose I've just passed as dealer, but then I find another ace. I can call the director, explain that I want to change my call, and my LHO will be given the option to accept my new call. It's probably best for my partner to leave the table at this stage; he's already got UI that I've changed my mind, but he doesn't know what I was planning to bid.

 

Of course, LHO is perfectly within his rights to say "I want your first call to stand".

[Vampyr]

Yes, you can change your call - if your LHO accepts it.  Law 25B says:

 

B. Call Intended

 

1. 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then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues.

 

2. Except as in 1 a substitution not permitted by A is cancelled. The

original call stands and the auction continues.

 

3. Law 16D applies to a call withdrawn or cancelled.

 

Note that this refers to intended calls that you now wish to change. For example, suppose I've just passed as dealer, but then I find another ace. I can call the director, explain that I want to change my call, and my LHO will be given the option to accept my new call.

I don't think so. This was covered in another thread. A substitute call is an infraction, and the director will not offer it to you as an option.

[iviehoff]

The law uses the term 'unintended call'

 

As your call was intended (with the information you had at the time, albeit the incorrect information about your hand) it cannot be replaced under law 25A.

 

If you were to attempt to substitue the call then your LFO can accept the substitution, but otherwise it is withdrawn.

Under the 2007 laws, there is no longer any provision for correcting a "stupid mistake" in the bidding. As Stephanie says, substituting a call other than an unintended call is an infraction, and 25B merely indicates what should happen in the case of that infraction. It is not a permission to attempt to change such a call.

 

To be clear, an "unintended call" is when the call that is made is not the one you thought you were making at the moment you made it. If you thought you were calling 1D at the moment you called 1D, that can never be an unintended call within the laws of bridge. Discovering that your hand is not what you thought it was, or miscalculating the correct call in your system, do not make a call unintended. "Brainfarts", where your brain temporarily miscalculates what is the correct bid with that hand, eg calling 5D as a response to Gerber when you "meant" 4D, do not count as "unintended" calls either. That is why the great majority of unintended calls will turn out to be mechanical errors with bidding boxes.

 

Attempting to change a call that is not "unintended" within the laws of bridge is usually a very bad idea. Your opponent will usually only accept the change if it is very convenient to him. And if the change is not accepted, as is usually the case, it frequently places your partner in an invidious position. It usually forces partner to strain to treat your bid as correct, as long as it plausibly could be, and make the most self-damaging possible of plausible responses, even when the legal auction is giving some strong messages that something has gone wrong somewhere.

 

As Helene says, you can always call the director. But doing so when no problem is visible, will make your partner wonder why you did call the director, and may place your partner under some restriction even if the information that you made a mistake is not publicly communicated. So now you know the law, you will realise that calling the director in this situation can't help and can only make things worse.

[mjj29]

I don't think so. This was covered in another thread. A substitute call is an infraction, and the director will not offer it to you as an option.

Maybe not, but if a player calls the director and says "I would like to change my call" I firmly believe that the director should offer LHO the option to accept it and thus rule under 25B. The reason for this is somewhat pragmatic. If it is the case that you only get the option to change it then the only possible advice to players is "try changing it without calling the director first, you might get to, and you won't if you call the director" and I do _not_ want to encourage people making their own rulings without calling the director. It's hard enough convincing them that they should call the director without creating situations where it's in their best interests not to do so.

[PeterE]

Sorry, wrong=illegal approach.

 

The TD will never give you an option to change your call - at least he may not do it. Law 25 B is only for those cases where the substitution already has taken place.

Maybe you don't like this approach - but it is the law.

[Vampyr]

the only possible advice to players is "try changing it without calling the director first, you might get to, and you won't if you call the director" and I do _not_ want to encourage people making their own rulings without calling the director. It's hard enough convincing them that they should call the director without creating situations where it's in their best interests not to do so.

This way lies madness. A change of an intended bid is an infraction. There are lots of other infractions that LHO has the option to accept, such as insufficient bids and calls and plays out of rotation. Should we call the director when we wish to commit one of these infractions?

[blackshoe]

A player who has made a call might

 

1. Change that call. As doing so may be an infraction, attention should (and almost certainly will) be drawn to it, so the TD should be called.

 

2. Indicate a desire to change his call. As changing his call may be an infraction....

 

3. Indicate a desire to call the director. No one should take any other action than calling the TD.

 

4. Call the director. No one should take any other action than calling the TD.

 

When the TD arrives at the table, he will first find out if the call was unintended, and if so apply Law 25A. If not, he will apply Law 25B. In case one, that means offering the player's LHO the opportunity to accept the change. In the other three cases, the TD should tell the player no, he may not change his call.

 

Seems simple enough. The hard question is "what should we teach players to do?" I think we should teach them to call the TD, and leave the first situation as a (hopefully) rare case where the player either doesn't know he should call the TD, or doesn't think of doing so at the time.

 

A subset of case 2: if a player asks the table "is it too late to change my call?" the correct answer is "Let's ask the TD". :(

[bluejak]

The hard question is "what should we teach players to do?"

Teach them that intended calls may not be changed.

[blackshoe]

The hard question is "what should we teach players to do?"

Teach them that intended calls may not be changed.

Sure. But there seems to me an awful lot of players who cannot, at the table, distinguish between an intended call and an unintended call. Or perhaps will not. :(

[mjj29]

The hard question is "what should we teach players to do?"

Teach them that intended calls may not be changed.

I do not like this approach (and I got half way through writing this post then accidentally closed the window, so apologies if it seems rushed!). If we try and ignore L25B then people who have read the laws in detail have an advantage over those that have not, because they know about L25B. I don't really want to deal with someone saying "The director told me I could never change an intended call, but I saw Mrs X do so on the next table and he let her". I already have someone who believes it's in her interests to always ask about opponents bids because if it generates UI for them when they have a mistake they are more likely to get a good ruling from it.

 

I'm not saying we should offer it to them out of the blue, but I do think that as with L25A corrections I think we should treat "Director, I wanted to bid something else" as an attempt to change the call, even if there was no physical attempt to change.

[pran]

The hard question is "what should we teach players to do?"

Teach them that intended calls may not be changed.

I do not like this approach (and I got half way through writing this post then accidentally closed the window, so apologies if it seems rushed!). If we try and ignore L25B then people who have read the laws in detail have an advantage over those that have not, because they know about L25B. I don't really want to deal with someone saying "The director told me I could never change an intended call, but I saw Mrs X do so on the next table and he let her". I already have someone who believes it's in her interests to always ask about opponents bids because if it generates UI for them when they have a mistake they are more likely to get a good ruling from it.

 

I'm not saying we should offer it to them out of the blue, but I do think that as with L25A corrections I think we should treat "Director, I wanted to bid something else" as an attempt to change the call, even if there was no physical attempt to change.

The Director must never offer a player to change his call under Law 25B (no more than he may offer a player for instance to lead out of turn).

 

The fact that in both cases a player's LHO may accept such an irregularity if it has been made does not change this.

[Vampyr]

If we try and ignore L25B then people who have read the laws in detail have an advantage over those that have not, because they know about L25B.

I do not think that this is true (nothwithstanding that I am not sure what you mean by "ignore"). I think that people know that they cannot change an intended bid. When they were offered the option to change it under the 1997 25B, they reacted with astonishment. At that time people with a greater knowledge of the laws could indeed profit.

 

Perhaps you are thinking of the old Laws where a change could in fact have been offered? It is not that way anymore.

[mjj29]

If we try and ignore L25B then people who have read the laws in detail have an advantage over those that have not, because they know about L25B.

I do not think that this is true (nothwithstanding that I am not sure what you mean by "ignore"). I think that people know that they cannot change an intended bid.

That is definitely not true. L25B says they _can_ change it _if_ LHO accepts it. Even the current one.

[Vampyr]

If we try and ignore L25B then people who have read the laws in detail have an advantage over those that have not, because they know about L25B.

I do not think that this is true (nothwithstanding that I am not sure what you mean by "ignore"). I think that people know that they cannot change an intended bid.

That is definitely not true. L25B says they _can_ change it _if_ LHO accepts it. Even the current one.

Similarly they can lead out of turn or make an insufficient bid. Players "can" do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that these things are all in compliance with the Laws. The idiosyncratic interpretation you have of this Law is an error, pure and simple. I really think it would be best to concede defeat in this matter.

 

That being said, it wouldn't hurt for the Law to mention that a 25B change is an infraction, precisely to prevent this kind of misreading.

[pran]

If we try and ignore L25B then people who have read the laws in detail have an advantage over those that have not, because they know about L25B.

I do not think that this is true (nothwithstanding that I am not sure what you mean by "ignore"). I think that people know that they cannot change an intended bid.

That is definitely not true. L25B says they _can_ change it _if_ LHO accepts it. Even the current one.

Don't put the cart before the horse!

Law 25B doesn't allow any player to change an intended call he has made, but it allows the offender's LHO to choose between certain alternative actions after such an irregularity.

[RMB1]

Law 25B does not give a player the right to change his call any more than Law 27 gives a player the right to make an insufficient bid or Law 30 gives a player the right to bid out of turn. In all cases, LHO can accept the bid but that does not make the original action legal.

[Phil]

Sorry I'm unearthing this thread again because this situation came up today.

 

I'm reading 25A:

 

 

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.

 

My question is unless LHO makes a very fast call over the person making the unintended call, how can a change of call from an unintended party ever be 'without pause for thought'?

 

Thanks

[RMB1]

My question is unless LHO makes a very fast call over the person making the unintended call, how can a change of call from an unintended party ever be 'without pause for thought'?

Good question.

 

For no obvious reason, there is an established interpretation to read the law as if it said "... but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought following his realisation that he had not made his intended call.

 

So a possible scenario is: the player makes an unintended call but does not look at the call he has put on the table; LHO calls; the player looks down, realises he has not made his intended call, and changes for his intended call (without pause for thought from the moment of realisation).

 

!

[pran]

Sorry I'm unearthing this thread again because this situation came up today.

 

I'm reading 25A:

 

 

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.

 

My question is unless LHO makes a very fast call over the person making the unintended call, how can a change of call from an unintended party ever be 'without pause for thought'?

 

Thanks

Because pause for thought is to be measured from the moment the player becomes aware of his "misbid", not from the time he actually made it.

 

Say that his LHO (West) makes a call, East alerts and North asks about the call. If the explanation then given by East is what makes the player (South) realize that he has accidentally misbid and then immediately tries to announce this fact he is still within the conditions for allowing a Law 25A correction of his call.

[bluejak]

I think it is not just accepted interpretation: I also think it logical. If I make a bid, look at the legs of the girl at the next table, come back to earth, glance down, see I have not made the bid I thought I had, and immediately try to change it, then there has been no pause for thought. I cannot be thinking of whether I have made the correct bid or not when I do not realise what the bid in front of me is. Yes, I am pausing while looking at the legs, but not "for thought", or at least not for thought relevant to the bid I made or intended to make.