Can West remove his pass and make another call?

[jules101]

W dealer, Game all

 

EW were playing 15-17 NT with 5-card puppet Stayman

 

NB in England 2♣ Stayman bids are "announced" while 2♣ 5-card puppet Stayman bids are alerted

 

W   N    E    S

1N (P) 2♣* (P)**

P***

 

 

* West alerted (no questions asked) and left alert card on table next to his 1N bid

 

** South waited a short moment for alert card to be removed. It wasn't removed so she passed in tempo. No question was asked about why the 2♣ bid was alerted rather than announced.

 

*** West started looking over his left shoulder (not sure at what). Whilst looking away from the table he dipped his right hand into the bidding box picked up a pass card and placed it on the table. He then looked back to his table and went to pick up the alert card and realised he had passed.

 

West now wishes to remove his pass and make a different bid.

 

Clearly passing wouldn't have been his original intention, but this was carelessness while he wasn't concentrating, and definitely not a mechanical error.

 

How do you rule?

[bluejak]

No, he cannot change it.

 

If it is not a mechanical error, Law 25A does not apply, and the call has been made. C'est fini.

[Free]

Isn't there some law where you're allowed to change your call if you accept a score of at most 40%? Not sure if it still exists, but I remember something like that from the past.

[TylerE]

Pretty sure that law got struck the last go around.

[RMB1]

Are we even sure the Pass was made: was it withdrawn "with apparent intent"?

 

If it is not a mechanical error, Law 25A does not apply, and the call has been made.  C'est fini.

Law 25A does not use the words "mechanical error". It seems clear from the description that Pass was not his intended call, it seems very likely that he did not have an intended call at the point he displayed the Pass card.

 

Was there a pause for thought? This is less clear. It is possible that he attempted to retract the Pass as soon as he became aware he had displayed it, without pause for thought.

 

Law 25A1

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. ...

 

Does Law 25A1 prohibit pause for thought before the intended call is substituted? Or does it just require no pause for thought before the attempting to withdraw the unintended call. If the sequence of events is:

 

[unintended call]-(no pause)-[Attempt to subsubstitute by removing unintended call]-(pause for thought)-[intended call]

 

is that a legal change of call under Law 25A1?

[mrdct]

It may depend on the bidding box regulations in your jursidiction, some of which are extremely harsh and some of which are extremely lenient.

 

18 months ago in Australia west would've been able to have been change his bid as back then a bid or call using bidding boxes needed to be be made with intent, but the regulations have since been changed to be similar to the rules for played cards; i.e held on or near the table, etc.

 

Where are you?

[jules101]

The event was in England.

[RMB1]

Where are you?

The OP mentions England (re announcing/alerting 2♣).

My reference to "with apparent intent" is from the English regulations.

 

7 B 2

Starting with the dealer, players place their calls on the table in front of them, from the left and neatly overlapping, so that all calls are visible and faced towards partner. Players should refrain from touching any cards in the box until they have determined their call. A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent (but the TD may apply Law 25).

[blackshoe]

In England…

We do ask posters to put the jurisdiction in the Topic Description, rather than bury it in the body of the post. :)

 

The relevant law is 25A, which has been quoted. 25B says

1. A substituted call not permitted by A above 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 B1 above, a substitution not permitted by A above is canceled. The original call stands and the auction continues.

3. Law 16d applies to a call withdrawn or canceled.

Free, you're remembering the 1997 Law.

 

The bidding box regulation in the OB at 7B says

A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent (but the TD may apply Law 25).

I'm inclined to think he's not entitled to a 25A change of call, but I'd want to ask him what the heck he was doing.

 

I don't think the scenario you propose is a legal 25A change Robin, as the "no pause for thought" clause applies to the substituting of the "new" call. Put it another way: for 25A to apply, the player must have had a different call in mind all along, so he needs no time to think what call to substitute.

[jules101]

Deleted - not relevant given post above now edited! :(

[blackshoe]

Okay, my bad, I misread the OP. Post edited to delete irrelevancy.

[bluejak]

Yes, well, I tend to answer questions as they are asked. Perhaps they are inconsistent and I do not notice!

 

The OP said it was not a mechanical error, and Robin points out that the term mechanical error does not appear in the Law. While that is true, there is an awfully large amount of Case Law that equates an unintended call using bidding boxes with a mechanical error. In my view, if it was not a mechanical error Law 25A does not apply.

 

But what was it? Robin read the OP a little more closely. Now I have. At the time the player dipped his hand into the bidding box, did he intend to make a different call? No, he did not. Just because he was thinking about the lady's legs at the next table does not help.

 

But was his pass unintended? Maybe so, but Law 25A does not help him. It says [inter alia] "a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call". Since he did not seem to have an intended call this Law does not apply.

 

So, no, he may not change his call.

[StevenG]

The OP said it was not a mechanical error, and Robin points out that the term mechanical error does not appear in the Law.  While that is true, there is an awfully large amount of Case Law that equates an unintended call using bidding boxes with a mechanical error.  In my view, if it was not a mechanical error Law 25A does not apply.

I remember an occasion when I decided to bid 2m. While my hand was making its way to the bidding box I heard a loud announcement of "Spades" from a neighbouring table. My hand automatically started heading towards the 2♠ card.

 

On that occasion I caught myself in time, and I knew what had happened. But, if the 2♠ card had found itself on the table, would that have been a Law 25A case? It was clearly inadvertent, and, equally clearly, not a pure mechanical error.

[RMB1]

When we use the phrase "mechanical error" (for bidding boxes) what do we mean?

 

Do we mean anything different than "took an unintended call out of the bidding box"?

[barmar]

Where are you?

The OP mentions England (re announcing/alerting 2♣).

My reference to "with apparent intent" is from the English regulations.

 

7 B 2

Starting with the dealer, players place their calls on the table in front of them, from the left and neatly overlapping, so that all calls are visible and faced towards partner. Players should refrain from touching any cards in the box until they have determined their call. A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent (but the TD may apply Law 25).

Notice that it says "apparent intent". So the question isn't whether he actually intended to make the call, but whether he made it in a manner that seems like he did.

 

The most likely cause for unintended calls are mechanical errors, usually pulling a card adjacent (horizontally or vertically) to the intended call. This is why pulling a card from a different section of the bidding box will generally be considered intentional.

 

Making an incorrect call like this is often a "brain fart". This is a mistaken intent, but not a lack of intent.

[peachy]

This is what is called a "senior moment" or a "brainfart", it was not "accidentally pulling the wrong bidding card". Not too long ago, this happened to me: I had no intention whatsoever of passing partner's forcing bid, but I did pull the Pass card out and put in the table... My own fault for losing focus. The laws, L25 in this case, do not protect players from their mental lapses, and IMO they never should. The call stands.

[gordontd]

The OP said it was not a mechanical error, and Robin points out that the term mechanical error does not appear in the Law. While that is true, there is an awfully large amount of Case Law that equates an unintended call using bidding boxes with a mechanical error. In my view, if it was not a mechanical error Law 25A does not apply.

There was some discussion about this in San Remo, and Ton presented a case (without gaining much support for it) where he argued that a call, which was not a mechanical error but due to a brief confusion, was unintended.

 

Presumably there was some purpose to changing the word "inadvertent" in the 1997 Laws for "unintended" in the current ones.

[barmar]

A friend had a similar brain fart, causing his team to lose a KO match in New Orleans last week. His partner made a splinter raise, and he decided not to look for slam. So he pulled out the Pass card. Needless to say, they didn't make 4♦ in their 3-1 fit.

 

I don't think it even occurred to him to try to get a TD to let him correct his call.

[jules101]

The Outcome

 

 

The TD ruled that West had not intended to pass, and therefore he could remove his pass and replace it with another call.

 

We indicated we were unhappy with the ruling.

 

(I suppose this is very bad form to indicate dissent, but it didn't seem quite right to us.)

 

TD asked us to wait while they went away and read some other documentation. TD returned with same ruling, but said we could appeal.

 

Opps reached 3N which can't be stopped. They can also make 9 tricks in 2C.

 

We spoke to the TD after the match. They said decision had been close, and in hindsight maybe they should perhaps have ruled for us, and suggested West appealed. The TD encouraged us to appeal.

 

Partner and I discussed submitting an appeal, but with two more Swiss matches (the final two out of 12 overall) following immediately thereafter we felt it was impossible for us to put effort into an appeal as well as being able to focus on our final matches.

 

We thought we might have gain 1 or 2 VPs by winning the appeal, but could well a lose (or not win) greater number of VPs by not being 100% focused on final matches.

 

So we decided we had to let the appeal drop in order to focus 100% on the last 2 matches.

 

We needed good wins and achieved these. (It is doubtful we'd have done so well in these final two matches if we were completing an appeal form at the same time as playing.)

 

Had this "incident" taken place earlier in the overall event, or had there been a break period following, we would have pursued the appeal.

 

Our fault for not appealing I hear you cry….

 

… but this felt more like a possible "win some, but lose even more opportunity" that we should refuse at this point in the event.

 

There doesn't seem to be a solution.

 

Or is there?

[Ant590]

I get very tired with inconsistent rulings from the EBU on these matters.

 

I am on the board of a league where a player passed his partner's 2NT opening when he decided he was not going to try for slam, but to play in 3NT. Letters were written, and we eventually consulted a National level director, who allowed an adjustment to the board.

 

I had read threads previously on here and the old laws site which suggested that, in the UK at least, such "intended" brain farts could not be changed, but I kept quiet as I have no qualifications in opposition to a National director. In any respect, I do not even play in the League, so the ruling had no material effect for me.

 

I really think that there should be some education here, even to the well qualified directors.

 

Disclaimer: I may be mistaken with the exact specifics of the case as I only saw the letters, rather than the director's ruling or anything at the actual table.

[aguahombre]

Well, as a layman, it seems to me that the word INTENDED, or INTENTIONAL is interpreted differently, sometimes by the same person.

 

Unless there was a pass card stuck precisely in front of the bid card wanted, it would be very hard to convince me that a pass was ever unintentionally made, as opposed to a genuine brain fart.

 

Maybe "brain fart" and "mechanical error" should be incorporated into the laws. People understand the two terms.

[blackshoe]

The player was deliberately not paying attention to which card he pulled from the box (he was looking over his shoulder). I see no reason he shouldn't have to live with his call.

 

You have a right to appeal a TD ruling. You also have a right to decide whether appealing is likely to cost more in the long run than not appealing. Having made the decision, though, it makes no sense to agonize over whether it was the right one. I do wonder, though, if you would necessarily have had to take time away from your next match(es) to fill out appeal paperwork. If that's the established procedure, perhaps it needs a look. :P

[bluejak]

I would have appealed, but not filled any paperwork in during the next two matches: why should I?

 

:D

 

As for getting "very tired with inconsistent rulings from the EBU on such matters" I have no idea what this means. Vague comments about some undetailed ruling from some random TD hardly seems convincing.

[duschek]

Partner and I discussed submitting an appeal, but with two more Swiss matches (the final two out of 12 overall) following immediately thereafter we felt it was impossible for us to put effort into an appeal as well as being able to focus on our final matches.

Personally I put much less effort into appeals than most players put into post mortems between sessions. My suggestion to you would be to file the appeal, turn up and present your case, and stick with the committee ruling.

 

I suspect you mentally prepare for a trial as in the Hollywood movies :) A bridge appeal is of far less importance. It is no more important than any other board played. However, I rarely hear of anybody deciding not to analyse the present deal with reference to the ability to focus on the remaining hands.

[pran]

I don't like this "the player obviously did not intend to pass" (for instance a cue bid).

 

Somewhere I have read that the now abandoned law 25B was entered into the laws after a player (member of WBFLC?????) became so disappointed with his partner's response to a Blackwood 4NT that he even forgot to adjust to 5 in the agreed trump denomination.

 

Now that we have gotten away with that unfortunate law i cannot understand why we should enter into another unfortunate principle that a call apparently intended when it was made, however irrational and really due to some sudden brain failure, should be treated under Law 25A.