Change of call

[bluejak]

A player plays a 2♠ opening as very strong and natural, and plays the Multi 2♦. It goes pass pass pass to her, she opens 2♠. Reasonably immediately she indicates this is the wrong call. Her LHO suggests she changes it, she bids 2♦ since she holds a strongish weak two in spades, and scores 2♠ +2.

 

It is normal in British bridge for unintended calls to be changed under Law 25A without troubling the TD, since they are very common. I reckon at my table, partly because I am poor at taking the correct card out of the box, this happens 20 times a day.

 

After considering it for some time, LHO calls the TD after the next hand, suggestion that he had assumed it was a mechanical error, but the worry is growing that it was a mistake, a forgetting of the system and immediate correction.

 

The TD hears the facts, and invites comments from the lady and her partner. Her partner goes on about how the change was nearly instantaneous [which no-one disputed]. The lady says she has nothing to say.

 

The TD rules that since he was not called at the time, but the lady's LHO gave his own ruling, he sees no reason to change anything. As far as he was concerned it was an unintended call, changed in time.

 

LHO takes this to appeal on two grounds:

 

1 It is completely impractical to call the TD every time there is an unintended call. This event had 32 tables and two TDs. If you assume the average number of unintended calls is not the 20 quoted above, but say 12 a day, that is nearly 400 calls. It is different from an insufficient bid or the like when there is no excuse not to call the TD.

 

Note that in the EBU a call is made when it clears the box. So if someone lifts a 2♠ bid out of the box, immediately says "I meant 2NT" and adds the 2NT card, that is a Law 25A change: to call the TD every time is not practical.

 

2 While the lady's LHO believes her to be honest and ethical, the TD failed to ask her whether the call was unintended or not. The player felt that to make a correct ruling this needed investigation.

 

What do you think?

[jdonn]

Are there really 20, or 12, mistaken bids made per table per round? That is impossible to believe, I would have guessed there is about 0.25 or something like that, certainly fewer than 1.

 

Anyway if we go by the assumption that is it unrealistic in practice to call the director any time a certain violation or error occurs even though you technically should, then that's still not a valid reason to appeal.

[bluejak]

I do not know where you play, but I know of nowhere where players are always taking the right card out of the box. Now the ACBL has changed the rule as to when a call is made, so there are likely to be considerably fewer Law 25A changes there: even so, using the same logic, when a player has taken the wrong cards out of the bidding box, even in the ACBL the TD should be called to let him change them.

[mjj29]

Are there really 20, or 12, mistaken bids made per table per round? That is impossible to believe, I would have guessed there is about 0.25 or something like that, certainly fewer than 1.

Obviously you play in clubs with better-kept bidding boxes. Some I play with are sufficiently sticky (which is not very to be sufficient) or slightlly bent such that almost every time I pull out a bid the next card comes with it. With the EBU bidding box regulations all of these are L25A corrections.

 

Even without that enough people manage to reach slightly too far into the box regularly and pull out the wrong cards, particularly (no offence meant) the older player common in clubs around here.

[jdonn]

Wow it's like the twilight zone to me. For all the ACBL bashing on here I think we must admit people there are sure better at using the bidding box, as to not pull the wrong bid at a rate approaching once per board! This is not something I see occur noticeably more often than a revoke.

[jillybean]

This sounds like a problem of too many old people with sticky fingers. I rarely encounter mistaken bids and everyone is old where I play.

LHO needs to call the TD and resist making their own rulings.

[bluejak]

Wow it's like the twilight zone to me. For all the ACBL bashing on here I think we must admit people there are sure better at using the bidding box, as to not pull the wrong bid at a rate approaching once per board! This is not something I see occur noticeably more often than a revoke.

12 a day is once every 16 boards per person, not once per board. I have seen many cards taken out wrong in the ACBL when I have played there.

[jdonn]

Wow it's like the twilight zone to me. For all the ACBL bashing on here I think we must admit people there are sure better at using the bidding box, as to not pull the wrong bid at a rate approaching once per board! This is not something I see occur noticeably more often than a revoke.

12 a day is once every 16 boards per person, not once per board.

It would not have taken much time or effort to...

- figure out from where in this thread I got my claim (20 a day as opposed to 12 a day, which I did not realize is compiled of 2 sessions)

- state my claim without exaggerating it (I said "something approaching" once per board)

- dispute it in the same units I used for a fair comparison (I used instances per board, you used instances per player per board)

[Mbodell]

The ACBL versus England I think totally depends on when a call is made. I probably make close to a dozen "change of calls" a session using the England rules as it is not uncommon for a bidding card to stick to the one I've pulled or for me to have grabbed part of the wrong card. I usually then use my other hand to remove the bad bidding card and put it back in the box before placing the bid I want on the table (except if the sticky bid falls to the floor in which case I place the one I want on the table and retrieve the one from the floor).

 

Using the ACBL rules of me placing my bidding card on or near the table I make fewer than a dozen "change of calls" a year.

[jeremy69]

I reckon at my table, partly because I am poor at taking the correct card out of the box, this happens 20 times a day.

 

I'm sure I play in a different universe also because I find this rare in the clubs I play in despite the fact that in one of them the bidding cards have been specially treated by being marinaded in beer before use. If this is happening 20 times a day then perhaps some surgery to fit an Edward Scissorhands type attachment might help :)

[Pict]

If I was polled with a choice of numbers, I would estimate much lower than 12 or 20 (rightly or wrongly).

 

On the other hand, I think that Bluejak has posed a good problem, and I would be interested to hear the views of experienced Directors/Appeal committee members.

 

IMO on the face of it the bidder has taken advantage of the opponent's good nature and desire to get on with the game in an actively ethical way. To say 'tough luck call the TD next time' doesn't feel right to me in this commonplace situation.

[shintaro]

I'm sure I play in a different universe also because I find this rare in the clubs I play in despite the fact that in one of them the bidding cards have been specially treated by being marinaded in beer before use. If this is happening 20 times a day then perhaps some surgery to fit an Edward Scissorhands type attachment might help :D

:D

 

Jeremy you must realise this is in the 'Wirral or its environs :P :)

[gordontd]

I do not know where you play, but I know of nowhere where players are always taking the right card out of the box. Now the ACBL has changed the rule as to when a call is made, so there are likely to be considerably fewer Law 25A changes there: even so, using the same logic, when a player has taken the wrong cards out of the bidding box, even in the ACBL the TD should be called to let him change them.

I played 24 boards last night and don't recall anyone at my table changing a call. I think I do it about once every four or five sessions.

[bluejak]

Ok, some of you think I am right, some of you don't think I know what I am talking about. Would you really just go on and on about this if your were an AC, or might you consider the problem?

 

One thing that is clear to me is that some people are more susceptible than others to taking the wrong card out, so I do not doubt that some people never do, Gordon, nor that you do rarely.

[iviehoff]

Either it was an unintended call and can be changed.

 

Or else it was a change of call condoned (indeed in this case incited) by LHO under 25B1, in which there is no penalty to the OS or come-back for the NOS.

 

NOS say they can't call the Director for every unintended call. That is a practical rather than theoretical judgment. Commonly players, for practical convenience, but at their own risk, make self-made rulings for straightforward cases of unintended calls, ie, obvious mechanical errors. They should realise the need to call the director for more complex cases. Because if they don't call the director at the time, then it is probably too late. So, if on reflection they decide this was a more complex case requiring director involvement, then, sorry, it is too late, they made their own ruling, and should stick by it.

 

A director might interfere afterwards if there was strong evidence that LHO was deliberately misleading the NOS. But I think we would need very firm evidence of malpractice before doing that. But I see no clear evidence of that. In fact on bluejak's wording, it sounds like she was quite honest, she indicated she "made the wrong call". Such an admission is actually quite risky, because if the director was called, as many players would insist, and decided it was not a 25A case, as seems likely, then there would be unpleasant UI consequences.

[helene_t]

Do I understand this correctly? It sounds like a wtp so probably not:

 

- LHO accepted the change of call. Case closed.

- LHO wasn't damaged since the 2♠-lady now missed game.

[Trinidad]

Agree with Helene.

 

And, in case this wasn't obvious, think about changing the bidding box regulations, so that infractions do not occur continuously.

 

Rik

[Pict]

No thoughts of a warning to the bidder?

 

I have occasionally made a wrong bid - thinking about the last hand, thinking about my next bid after partner's response.

 

I just bite my tongue and hope I haven't given any UI.

 

Seems like I am too naive. I should blurt out 'I've made the wrong bid'.

[Vampyr]

No thoughts of a warning to the bidder?

 

I have occasionally made a wrong bid - thinking about the last hand, thinking about my next bid after partner's response.

 

I just bite my tongue and hope I haven't given any UI.

 

Seems like I am too naive. I should blurt out 'I've made the wrong bid'.

I think that it is relatively easy to get away with claiming an inadvertent bid when a mistaken bid is made. I don't think anybody on this list would consider it, but I would not be surprised if it happens all the time.

[bluejak]

One of my main worries with this case is that the TD did not ask the player whether it was unintended or not, so she did not have to claim anything.

[bluejak]

Do I understand this correctly? It sounds like a wtp so probably not:

 

- LHO accepted the change of call. Case closed.

- LHO wasn't damaged since the 2♠-lady now missed game.

Sorry, I did not want to go into detail because I was interested in the principles. If 4♠ is played from the other hand, as it would be after a 2♠ opening, it will pretty certainly make nine tricks.

[Phil]

Is the "strong and natural" 2♠ alertable in EBU-land?

[Echognome]

Is the "strong and natural" 2♠ alertable in EBU-land?

I believe it's announceable and you have to add whether it's forcing or non-forcing. However, it's been a few years, so I'll digress to those that are current.

[mjj29]

Is the "strong and natural" 2♠ alertable in EBU-land?

I believe it's announceable and you have to add whether it's forcing or non-forcing. However, it's been a few years, so I'll digress to those that are current.

It is indeed. All natural 2 level openings are announceable with some or all of the words "weak", "intermediate", "strong" and also "forcing" or "non-forcing" in the latter case. If you don't fit neatly into one of those you should probably say "intermediate to strong" or "weak to truly awful"

[bluejak]

Anyway, eventually, it went to appeal, and they did not agree with the logic behind not calling the TD for every Law 25A case.

 

More importantly, they asked the player whether her call was unintended, and she made it clear it was. Why the TD could not have asked this I do not know! So the result stood.