Club Duplicate - England

[gordontd]

In that situation I am not allowed to change my play, correct? If that is correct, what makes that any different from the situation in the bidding?

It's covered by a different law. There's no law for defenders that allows them to change an unintended legal play. There is one that allows players (within certain parameters) that allows them to change an unintended call.

[pran]

Stefanie tells me that there was a WBFLC pronouncement on this. Essentially, the auction is always AI, and a Law 25A correction is allowed however you discovered you had made a mechanical error. I must admit that it is not necessarily the conclusion I would have reached either.

That is the law.

 

Not because of a WBFLC interpretation but simply from the clause in Law 25A: "until his partner makes a call".

 

If the "pause" should be measured from the moment the unintended call was actually made this clause would be meaningless. Thus the "pause" is measured from the moment the player becomes aware of his mistake regardless of how he became aware of it. (AI or UI is not a relevant question in this situation.)

Sorry, I don't understand that reasoning. Following that logic, in any competitive auction, if West bids something and North passes slowly, it is always legal for South to double on the basis of Law 19A1 alone. I was under the impression that South has to consider Laws 73 and 16A as well when selecting his choice of call.

Sorry I just do not see the relevance of this.

 

But anyway: The auction is AI, but the (special) manner in which calls are made is of course UI to the respective partners.

[jdonn]

In that situation I am not allowed to change my play, correct? If that is correct, what makes that any different from the situation in the bidding?

It's covered by a different law. There's no law for defenders that allows them to change an unintended legal play. There is one that allows players (within certain parameters) that allows them to change an unintended call.

So the laws are random and arbitrary or is there a good reason they are different?

 

TimG gave an answer that I was already aware of and dismissed since I don't think it should matter.

[blackshoe]

I don't think the laws are random and arbitrary, so if the only other choice is that there's a good reason for the difference, then there's a good reason for the difference. If you want to know what that is, ask the WBFLC.

[jdonn]

I don't think the laws are random and arbitrary, so if the only other choice is that there's a good reason for the difference, then there's a good reason for the difference. If you want to know what that is, ask the WBFLC.

I thought we had a forum for discussion here, to learn things and such. I guess I won't post here any more, I'll just send all my questions to them?

[blackshoe]

You're welcome to speculate on the reasons the laws are as they are. All I'm saying is that I don't know why they did what they did — and I don't think anyone else here knows either, unless they're on the LC, which I don't think anyone is (I could be wrong about that).

[pran]

I don't think the laws are random and arbitrary, so if the only other choice is that there's a good reason for the difference, then there's a good reason for the difference. If you want to know what that is, ask the WBFLC.

I thought we had a forum for discussion here, to learn things and such. I guess I won't post here any more, I'll just send all my questions to them?

Are you pretending being ignorant here?

 

There is a major difference between exposing a card from your hand and making a call that may or may not correctly describe some features of your hand.

 

The laws are very clear about the consequences when a defender (incorrectly) exposes a card to be seen by his partner regardless of whether such exposure was accidental or intentional. The only situations such exposure goes without consequences for the defending side is when they are the result of a previous irregularity by the declaring side.

 

It is worth noting that the laws allow declarer to expose card(s) from his hand without any consequence unless such exposure is considered being a play, a claim or a concession. The obvious reason is that he has no partner who can gain from seeing such cards.

 

The general rule about inadvertent calls is that they may be retracted under Law 25A, a law that essentially is as old as the game of bridge itself. The reason behind this law is that a truly inadvertent call gives away no information about that player's hand and therefore can be corrected without any consequence (other than the information that the player had a slip of his tongue).

 

added after seeing the last from blackshoe:

I am not, and has never been an active member on any LC. The above is part of my general knowledge and understanding of the laws from having close contact with the Norwegian LC. I am confident that what I express here is correct.

[gordontd]

So the laws are random and arbitrary or is there a good reason they are different?

When you want to bid 1S and pull out the 1NT card by mistake, all it tells your partner is that you have a 1NT card in your bidding box, and that it's close to the 1S card.

 

When you want to play the D7 and pull out the D4, you tell your partner that you have the D4 in your hand, so it's dealt with in exactly the same way as any other occasion when you expose your D4.

[Oof Arted]

Too late to change the call also UI appiles.

Thiis (and other posts by you) pose a small concern

 

I was planning to play in a "proper" tournament in India next year. But if there are TD calls, can I trust the TD to get it right?

;)

 

 

perhaps with this comment you should not go

 

it is quite uncalled for to write this

 

:)

[jdonn]

I don't think the laws are random and arbitrary, so if the only other choice is that there's a good reason for the difference, then there's a good reason for the difference. If you want to know what that is, ask the WBFLC.

I thought we had a forum for discussion here, to learn things and such. I guess I won't post here any more, I'll just send all my questions to them?

Are you pretending being ignorant here?

I asked a question and the first answer I got was equivalent to "because that's how it is". So I asked again and the next answer I got was "if you want to know then ask the laws commission". So if I'm ignorant maybe I'm not pretending but I'm just having trouble learning anything?

[cherdanno]

In that situation I am not allowed to change my play, correct? If that is correct, what makes that any different from the situation in the bidding?

It's covered by a different law. There's no law for defenders that allows them to change an unintended legal play. There is one that allows players (within certain parameters) that allows them to change an unintended call.

So the laws are random and arbitrary or is there a good reason they are different?

 

TimG gave an answer that I was already aware of and dismissed since I don't think it should matter.

So TimG gave an obvious answer that you were already aware of. Your dismissal is obviously something people might disagree with (just because there are UI laws doesn't mean the laws should create more occasions where there is UI). The other obvious answer is that mechanical errors are probably more frequent in bidding than in the play. I am not sure what else you are looking for.

[blackshoe]

We get a lot of "the law is silly/stupid/wrong/whatever" here. In many cases there's no real answer to that, except to say "that's the way it is" and "go argue with the LC". And it does get old after a while. Still, I probably could have responded less testily. Sorry, Josh.

 

Sven has the right of it: two different situations, one of which can convey no UI, the other of which can convey UI, so two different laws.

 

I have some sympathy for David Burn's position that just as "a card laid is a card played", the same should apply to bids, but in their wisdom the lawmakers have given us a more complicated situation. I'm disinclined to worry about why that's the way it is — I'd rather just make my ruling and get on to the next case. :)

[jdonn]

It's alright I understand that they aren't identical therefore they could be different. I still have a problem that partner's alert could benefit me in any way but whatever!

[jallerton]

It's alright I understand that they aren't identical therefore they could be different. I still have a problem that partner's alert could benefit me in any way but whatever!

and Law 73 would suggest that you are right to have that concern.

[Vampyr]

It's alright I understand that they aren't identical therefore they could be different. I still have a problem that partner's alert could benefit me in any way but whatever!

I think that it is not really considered a "benefit", the idea being that in correcting a mechanical error you are just getting back to even.

 

This is one of the areas in which the laws are designed to, as frequently as possible, have a "normal" hand of bridge, and unlike in too many other areas, I do not believe that the lawmakers have gone way too far (of course this law is not of recent vintage). I do think the law could be tightened up a bit, however. It always amazes me when directors accept the explanation of "mechanical error" when the card came from a different section of the bidding box.

[NickRW]

In the UK, where I believe many weak NT players use natural major suit responses, it would seem the likelihood that someone momentarily forgot which they were doing with this partner is increased.

Where do you normally play? In the London area I have not seen players playing natural responses -- except, of course, at the rubber bridge clubs.

Off topic to the thread, but it is true that *very* few play other than 2C=stayman + red suit xfers (and 2S might mean one of a few things if they have an agreement about it). However it is not 100% universal. I have played, over a weak NT, 2C=weak in ♦/♥ or ♠, or inv no major interest, or inv some 6 card suit; 2D=stayman inv+; 2H/S=inv 5 cards; 2N=clubs weak or strong. Works really quite well. And I know one other player (quite a decent player) who does not like stayman and xfers over weak NT - and would play what I do if he could get anyone else to play it with him.

 

Nick

[bluejak]

Someone please humor me.

 

Suppose I'm defending and mean to discard the 9 of diamonds but play the 4 of diamonds instead by mistake. Declarer asks my partner "what does that mean?" My partner replies "Discarding an even card means he doesn't like that suit". The moment he says "even card" I look down and realize I did not play what I intended and without pause for thought say I didn't mean to play that card and my play was a mechanical error.

 

In that situation I am not allowed to change my play, correct? If that is correct, what makes that any different from the situation in the bidding?

 

(I see the one difference that partner knows I have the 4 of diamonds which he wouldn't otherwise know, but since by UI laws he can't take advantage of that knowledge anyway I don't think it should matter).

The Laws permit a mechanical error to be changed [subject to certain other restrictions] when it is a call or designation. They do not allow it to be changed when it is a play.

 

If you do not approve of the distinction please either start a thread to discuss it on Changing Laws or Regulations or write to the WBFLC.

 

;)

 

But didn't a recent EBL course recommend looking at the player's hand and determining the likelihood of the bid having been unintended? Wasn't the example given a case where the player had thought "hearts" and pulled out a ♥ card instead of a ♦ card to transfer with?

The recent EBL course did not change the general advice that you should not look at a player's hand, but they weakened it slightly: it was suggested that looking at a player's hand might be permitted if there is no other way to decide. When I gave my ruling I did so without looking at the player's hand and the person marking me did not mark me down for this. Furthermore he agreed that there was no agreement that anyone should ever look at the player's hand.

 

There was no example as you have given it. The actual example was a 1♣ opening on a flat 2-count.

 

:ph34r:

 

The fact that an alert or announcement (or lack of the same) drew the player's attention to what he had actually bid does not preclude the application of Law 25A.  It is not an illegal use of UI from the alert or announcement to attempt to change the call.

This is not clear to me at all. If the player realised only as a result of his partner's action (alert, announcement, whatever) that he had misbid, then as far as I can see he may not apply to change his call under Law 25A.

My memory is not what it was, so I cannot be sure. But the reason we rule this way, apart from the logic in the Laws and other things mentioned here, as I understand it, is because the EBU L&EC instructed the TDs to do so. Now I know we are both on that Committee, but the problem is that the instruction was made before I joined the Committee, ie a very long time ago, but still a time when I would have thought you were on that Committee.

 

I have read the interpretations given here. I am not sure they are really convincing. But an interpretation handed down from on high is to be followed. We might argue it if it is definitely seen as wrong by everyone, but where as often happens different people have different views, it seems reasonable to follow the authority's interpretation.

[jdonn]

Someone please humor me.

 

Suppose I'm defending and mean to discard the 9 of diamonds but play the 4 of diamonds instead by mistake. Declarer asks my partner "what does that mean?" My partner replies "Discarding an even card means he doesn't like that suit". The moment he says "even card" I look down and realize I did not play what I intended and without pause for thought say I didn't mean to play that card and my play was a mechanical error.

 

In that situation I am not allowed to change my play, correct? If that is correct, what makes that any different from the situation in the bidding?

 

(I see the one difference that partner knows I have the 4 of diamonds which he wouldn't otherwise know, but since by UI laws he can't take advantage of that knowledge anyway I don't think it should matter).

The Laws permit a mechanical error to be changed [subject to certain other restrictions] when it is a call or designation. They do not allow it to be changed when it is a play.

 

If you do not approve of the distinction please either start a thread to discuss it on Changing Laws or Regulations or write to the WBFLC.

 

:)

If you either do not know the answer to a question, do not understand what the question is asking, or only feel like answering a different question, please do not answer the question.

 

:ph34r:

[bluejak]

I did know the answer to the question so answered it. Sorry if you wanted an answer to a different question.

 

Whether you like it or not the difference between the two situations is that the lawmakers have decided on two different approaches.

[jallerton]

The fact that an alert or announcement (or lack of the same) drew the player's attention to what he had actually bid does not preclude the application of Law 25A.  It is not an illegal use of UI from the alert or announcement to attempt to change the call.

This is not clear to me at all. If the player realised only as a result of his partner's action (alert, announcement, whatever) that he had misbid, then as far as I can see he may not apply to change his call under Law 25A.

My memory is not what it was, so I cannot be sure. But the reason we rule this way, apart from the logic in the Laws and other things mentioned here, as I understand it, is because the EBU L&EC instructed the TDs to do so. Now I know we are both on that Committee, but the problem is that the instruction was made before I joined the Committee, ie a very long time ago, but still a time when I would have thought you were on that Committee.

 

I have read the interpretations given here. I am not sure they are really convincing. But an interpretation handed down from on high is to be followed. We might argue it if it is definitely seen as wrong by everyone, but where as often happens different people have different views, it seems reasonable to follow the authority's interpretation.

I agree with the principle of following the Regulatory Authority's interpretation when the meaning of the Law is unclear or ambiguous.

 

However, if the EBU has an official view on this matter, shouldn't it be disclosed in the EBU White Book? I have just had a look at the White Book sections on Law 25 and Law 73, and I cannot see any refernce to this situation.

 

So we only have the "Red Book" to go on. Laws 73A1, 73B1 and 73C seem clear to me: they imply that the mis-bidder can not use any information received from partner's alert or other communication.

 

No-one has yet answered my question as to why Laws 73A1, 73B1 and 73C do not apply; unless anyone can do so satisfactorily then Mr Burn's interpretaion must be the only legal one.

[bluejak]

When you make an unintended call you may change it if you realise in time. That is what the Law says, and Law 73 does not say differently.

 

Now, I know you can interpret Law 73 as meaning something different, but it is not a certain interpretation: it is just as easy to interpret it as saying nothing of the sort. Therefore, assuming the WBFLC's interpretation of their own Law as wrong seems the wrong way to go.

 

Or to put it another way, it seems clear to you, it does not seem clear to me, so let us leave it to the referee.

[jallerton]

How has "the WBFLC's interpretation of their own Law" been communicated to tournament directors? Is there a WBF Minute somewhere, or is this just an "interpretation" that spreads by word of mouth between leading TDs?

[pran]

The fact that an alert or announcement (or lack of the same) drew the player's attention to what he had actually bid does not preclude the application of Law 25A.  It is not an illegal use of UI from the alert or announcement to attempt to change the call.

This is not clear to me at all. If the player realised only as a result of his partner's action (alert, announcement, whatever) that he had misbid, then as far as I can see he may not apply to change his call under Law 25A.

My memory is not what it was, so I cannot be sure. But the reason we rule this way, apart from the logic in the Laws and other things mentioned here, as I understand it, is because the EBU L&EC instructed the TDs to do so. Now I know we are both on that Committee, but the problem is that the instruction was made before I joined the Committee, ie a very long time ago, but still a time when I would have thought you were on that Committee.

 

I have read the interpretations given here. I am not sure they are really convincing. But an interpretation handed down from on high is to be followed. We might argue it if it is definitely seen as wrong by everyone, but where as often happens different people have different views, it seems reasonable to follow the authority's interpretation.

I agree with the principle of following the Regulatory Authority's interpretation when the meaning of the Law is unclear or ambiguous.

 

However, if the EBU has an official view on this matter, shouldn't it be disclosed in the EBU White Book? I have just had a look at the White Book sections on Law 25 and Law 73, and I cannot see any refernce to this situation.

 

So we only have the "Red Book" to go on. Laws 73A1, 73B1 and 73C seem clear to me: they imply that the mis-bidder can not use any information received from partner's alert or other communication.

 

No-one has yet answered my question as to why Laws 73A1, 73B1 and 73C do not apply; unless anyone can do so satisfactorily then Mr Burn's interpretaion must be the only legal one.

Let me try then:

 

Law 73 is a general law about communication.

Law 25A is a specific law about inadvertent calls.

 

Nobody has (or should have) claimed that Law 73 does not apply, but when there is a (possible) conflict between a general law and a more specific law then the more specific law takes precedence.

 

Is this good enough?

[campboy]

[...] when there is a (possible) conflict between a general law and a more specific law then the more specific law takes precedence.

[citation needed]

 

Additionally:

 

i) The introduction to the laws makes it clear that "must" (in 73C) is much stronger than "may" (in 25A), so we might reasonably argue from that that if either law "takes precedence" then it should be the more strongly worded.

 

ii) The introduction to the laws also says that the omission of a cross reference (such as, I presume, a reference to 73C in 25A) does not limit the application of any law.

 

iii) I do not believe 73C is a general law at all: it is a specific law about what to do when you have UI.

[pran]

[...] when there is a (possible) conflict between a general law and a more specific law then the more specific law takes precedence.

[citation needed]

 

Additionally:

 

i) The introduction to the laws makes it clear that "must" (in 73C) is much stronger than "may" (in 25A), so we might reasonably argue from that that if either law "takes precedence" then it should be the more strongly worded.

 

ii) The introduction to the laws also says that the omission of a cross reference (such as, I presume, a reference to 73C in 25A) does not limit the application of any law.

 

iii) I do not believe 73C is a general law at all: it is a specific law about what to do when you have UI.

The principle (as far as I know) is universal in law theory and not questioned by any law-educated person.

 

However, since you ask for a citation; what about this from WBFLC minutes Sao Paulo 2009-09-08:

Law 24 is a specific law and, where it applies (the card may be visible to partner) it overrides the generality of Law 16.

 

It seems to me as if your reference to Law 73C reveals a major misunderstanding both on the generality of a law and also on taking advantage from UI.

 

Law 73C concerns taking advantage of UI during any phase of the auction and play, Law 25A concerns rectifying an inadvertent misbid by a player who discovers that he has made one. So Law 25A can only apply in a very limited subset of the situations where Law 73C applies. This IMHO clearly leaves Law 25A a specific law and Law 73C a far more general law.

 

Now to the question of UI itself: The alert that awoke the player was unexpected because it related to the inadvertent call. Had the player intended this call the alert would not at all have been unexpected. Thus it is not "unauthorized information" as referred to in law 73C. But as I have already stated: This question is completely irrelevant as far as the application of Law 25A is concerned.

 

Because even if we rule that the information that awakens a player of an inadvertent misbid is unauthorized: Is there any foundation for ruling that he is taking "advantage from that unauthorized information" when rectifying his misnomer?

 

Everybody at the table will be alerted that he indeed had a misnomer from his reaction when he discovered his mistake. How is he having an advantage and his opponents having a corresponding disadvantage by being allowed to inform the table of his intended call?

 

The alternative is that everybody knows he had a misnomer but not what he really intended to call. Will that be of any advantage to anybody, and in particular to the game itself?

 

I don't think so.