Club Duplicate - England

[Vampyr]

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?

When I needed to rule on this situation I received guidance from DWS by phoning him. I think that interpretations such as this do need to be promulgated in a more systematic way. Jeffrey is right that it should be in the White Book.

[campboy]

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.

Yes, that'll do :)

 

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.

One might equally well say that Law 73C can only apply in a very limited subset of the situations where Law 25A applies.

 

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.

What? The alert was -- you say yourself -- unexpected. 73C says an unexpected alert is UI. Socrates is mortal.

 

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?

Of course there is. If he had not seen the alert he may well not have noticed in time to correct it, and so he is likely to get a better score (after correcting it) than he would have done without the alert.

[pran]

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.

Yes, that'll do :)

 

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.

One might equally well say that Law 73C can only apply in a very limited subset of the situations where Law 25A applies.

The only time (and "situation") Law 25A applies is during the auction when a player claims he has just made an inadvertent call.

 

Law 73C applies whenever during the auction or the play in any "situation" where the question arises if a player has used unauthorized information to his own advantage regardless of what kind of action is involved.

 

I should like so see an elaboration on exactly how Law 73C can be seen as more specific than law 25A.

 

And as I have stated several times: The very first clause in 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. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.

makes it clear that the important condition is for the Director to be convinced the first call was inadvertent, not how or when the player became aware of his mistake (except of course that it must have been in time)

[Pict]

And as I have stated several times: The very first clause in 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. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.

makes it clear that the important condition is for the Director to be convinced the first call was inadvertent, not how or when the player became aware of his mistake (except of course that it must have been in time)

The difficulty I would have with reading 25A1 as Pran suggests, is the phrase 'without pause for thought'.

 

If I mentally walk through partner alerting, my wondering what he is talking about, looking at the table, thinking whoops, I'd struggle to persuade myself on a basis of unaided logic that I had not paused for thought.

 

So I think that despite what Pran argues, we should have a written statement of guidance, so that issues of Law 73 and pause for thought can be set aside and Law 25 can be applied as the authorities intend (if indeed this is what they intend).

[campboy]

I don't think there is any question of not allowing a change of call. We don't go about preventing players from breaching 73C; rather, we adjust the score after the hand if they do. Of course, if we think that it is legal to do that (and the EBU tells me it is not, so for the purposes of directing that is my opinion) then we should advise the player of the implications of 73C at the time.

[Pict]

I don't think there is any question of not allowing a change of call. We don't go about preventing players from breaching 73C; rather, we adjust the score after the hand if they do. Of course, if we think that it is legal to do that (and the EBU tells me it is not, so for the purposes of directing that is my opinion) then we should advise the player of the implications of 73C at the time.

This is an odd statement, if you look back at dburn's contribution that triggered this part of the discussion. He seemed to think that a player could not ask to replace his bid after an alert wakes him up, rather than later facing an adjustment.

[Vampyr]

If I mentally walk through partner alerting, my wondering what he is talking about, looking at the table, thinking whoops, I'd struggle to persuade myself on a basis of unaided logic that I had not paused for thought.

Yes, and before partner's call you may have been thinking about what colour your girlfriend's underwear was, but the "pause for thought" described here is thought about the bid you have made. It "starts ticking" when you have noticed what bid you actually have in front of you, not when you physically make the bid.

[Pict]

If I mentally walk through partner alerting, my wondering what he is talking about, looking at the table, thinking whoops, I'd struggle to persuade myself on a basis of unaided logic that I had not paused for thought.

Yes, and before partner's call you may have been thinking about what colour your girlfriend's underwear was, but the "pause for thought" described here is thought about the bid you have made. It "starts ticking" when you have noticed what bid you actually have in front of you, not when you physically make the bid.

In which case it would appear the pause for thought phrase adds nothing to the Law (would better have been omitted) and Pran was right to ignore it, and concentrate on correction 'in time'.

 

Is that what you are implying?

[Vampyr]

I don't think there is any question of not allowing a change of call. We don't go about preventing players from breaching 73C; rather, we adjust the score after the hand if they do. Of course, if we think that it is legal to do that (and the EBU tells me it is not, so for the purposes of directing that is my opinion) then we should advise the player of the implications of 73C at the time.

This is an odd statement, if you look back at dburn's contribution that triggered this part of the discussion. He seemed to think that a player could not ask to replace his bid after an alert wakes him up, rather than later facing an adjustment.

It's not an odd statement. I think that what campboy means is that there is no question as to the legality in EBU-land, rather than claiming that there is no one in England who is unaware that it is so.

[Vampyr]

In which case it would appear the pause for thought phrase adds nothing to the Law (would better have been omitted) and Pran was right to ignore it, and concentrate on correction 'in time'.

 

Is that what you are implying?

Not quite. Because the "time" could be spent thinking "oh, shi t, I forgot the system -- that bid is not correct". This, obviously, is not legal. It does require a bit of mind-reading if a player chooses to lie, but there must be a reaction of genuine surprise -- eg what the %$!@ is that bid doing on the table in front of me? In practice there may still be a pause if the player doesn't know what he is supposed to do about it, and no action may be taken anyway, because I would think that Mr. Burn's misapprehension is fairly common.

[Pict]

In which case it would appear the pause for thought phrase adds nothing to the Law (would better have been omitted) and Pran was right to ignore it, and concentrate on correction 'in time'.

 

Is that what you are implying?

Not quite. Because the "time" could be spent thinking "oh, shi t, I forgot the system -- that bid is not correct". This, obviously, is not legal. It does require a bit of mind-reading if a player chooses to lie, but there must be a reaction of genuine surprise -- eg what the %$!@ is that bid doing on the table in front of me? In practice there may still be a pause if the player doesn't know what he is supposed to do about it, and no action may be taken anyway, because I would think that Mr. Burn's misapprehension is fairly common.

OK so we have reasoned away 'pause for thought' and replaced it with 'did you mean to make the bid'.

 

Actually that's fine by me. I would generally prefer openness about things in the Laws that we want to de-emphasise or reinterpret, but I understand it's an imperfect world where transparency can create controversy and muddling through feels more comfortable.

[pran]

And as I have stated several times: The very first clause in 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. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.

makes it clear that the important condition is for the Director to be convinced the first call was inadvertent, not how or when the player became aware of his mistake (except of course that it must have been in time)

The difficulty I would have with reading 25A1 as Pran suggests, is the phrase 'without pause for thought'.

 

If I mentally walk through partner alerting, my wondering what he is talking about, looking at the table, thinking whoops, I'd struggle to persuade myself on a basis of unaided logic that I had not paused for thought.

 

So I think that despite what Pran argues, we should have a written statement of guidance, so that issues of Law 73 and pause for thought can be set aside and Law 25 can be applied as the authorities intend (if indeed this is what they intend).

Such guidance has been made long ago (first time I came across it was in the Danish commented law book issued in 1980 if I remember correct): "Pause for thought" is to be "measured" from the moment the player becomes aware of his mistake until he indicates that his call was not what he intended. (It is not required at that time that he indicates what call he actually intended.) And this period may even stretch along several seconds if it is apparent that his "pause" is not for thought, that is thought to decide on an alternative call.

 

The important judgement required by the Director is whether the call was really inadvertent or if the player in fact did change his mind.

 

Once the Director is convinced that the original call was inadvertent he should allow a law 25A change of the call (except when the player's partner has made a subsequent call).

[pran]

Not quite. Because the "time" could be spent thinking "oh, shi t, I forgot the system -- that bid is not correct". This, obviously, is not legal.

That would indeed not have been an inadvertent call.

 

Why not?

 

The player apparently intended the call he made when he made it because he had forgotten his system agreements.

 

It does require a bit of mind-reading if a player chooses to lie, but there must be a reaction of genuine surprise -- eg what the %$!@ is that bid doing on the table in front of me?

Precisely.

[pran]

OK so we have reasoned away 'pause for thought' and replaced it with 'did you mean to make the bid'.

 

Actually that's fine by me. I would generally prefer openness about things in the Laws that we want to de-emphasise or reinterpret, but I understand it's an imperfect world where transparency can create controversy and muddling through feels more comfortable.

Isn't that precisely the meaning of the word "inadvertent"?

[Pict]

OK so we have reasoned away 'pause for thought' and replaced it with 'did you mean to make the bid'.

 

Actually that's fine by me. I would generally prefer openness about things in the Laws that we want to de-emphasise or reinterpret, but I understand it's an imperfect world where transparency can create controversy and muddling through feels more comfortable.

Isn't that precisely the meaning of the word "inadvertent"?

Pran

 

I'll do you the courtesy of replying.

 

It's easy to see, historically, how bid correction worked.

 

I say "One club, no I mean One spade". Minimal punctuation implying no time spent thinking. No problem with people's obsessions about how far things are apart in the 'bidding box'.

 

But now you, experienced TDs, have decided that although the words haven't changed, the requirement for immediacy has. I am allowed, competitively, to slip off into Vampyr's fantasies and awake some time later when partner says:

 

'You seemed a bit distrait when you bid there, my old friend. Are you sure you bid what you intended to bid. I know diamonds are not close to NT, but maybe you were thinking of the song about diamonds and friends".

 

As I say, this is all fine for me, because the main thing, apparently, is to have the TD do moral judgements on the players and decide from their relative state of apoplexy. So much for rules that level the playing field for all players.

[blackshoe]

That's not Vampyr's fantasy, Pict, it's yours. And it's not TDs you should be attacking, it's the lawmakers — but this is not the place for that (or for the other, for that matter).

[Pict]

That's not Vampyr's fantasy, Pict, it's yours. And it's not TDs you should be attacking, it's the lawmakers — but this is not the place for that (or for the other, for that matter).

Stern stuff, but you need to read back a bit to understand what you are supposed to be talking about - which you don't.

[blackshoe]

That's not Vampyr's fantasy, Pict, it's yours. And it's not TDs you should be attacking, it's the lawmakers — but this is not the place for that (or for the other, for that matter).

Stern stuff, but you need to read back a bit to understand what you are supposed to be talking about - which you don't.

If you want to start a flame war, go do it somewhere else.

[NickRW]

That's not Vampyr's fantasy, Pict, it's yours. And it's not TDs you should be attacking, it's the lawmakers — but this is not the place for that (or for the other, for that matter).

Stern stuff, but you need to read back a bit to understand what you are supposed to be talking about - which you don't.

Personally, I'd be quite happy to see the law changed to "no change of call allowed", just as it is (mostly) in the play of a card. If nothing else it would encourage clubs to replace their old sticky bidding boxes. However, regardless of what you think, that isn't what the current law says.

 

Nick

[gordontd]

OK so we have reasoned away 'pause for thought' and replaced it with 'did you mean to make the bid'.

 

Actually that's fine by me. I would generally prefer openness about things in the Laws that we want to de-emphasise or reinterpret, but I understand it's an imperfect world where transparency can create controversy and muddling through feels more comfortable.

Isn't that precisely the meaning of the word "inadvertent"?

L25 uses the word "unintended" rather than "inadvertent" in the 2007 version of the Laws, I am told because of the difficulty of translating "inadvertent" into some languages.

[Vampyr]

I know diamonds are not close to NT, but maybe you were thinking of the song about diamonds and friends".

A bid that was in any way a mental slip-up is not an inadvertant call.

 

TD do moral judgements on the players and decide from their relative state of apoplexy.

 

No, the TD will investigate, and will tend to believe a player who says the call was inadvertant, no matter what "state" they are in.

[bluejak]

If I mentally walk through partner alerting, my wondering what he is talking about, looking at the table, thinking whoops, I'd struggle to persuade myself on a basis of unaided logic that I had not paused for thought.

Yes, and before partner's call you may have been thinking about what colour your girlfriend's underwear was, but the "pause for thought" described here is thought about the bid you have made. It "starts ticking" when you have noticed what bid you actually have in front of you, not when you physically make the bid.

In which case it would appear the pause for thought phrase adds nothing to the Law (would better have been omitted) and Pran was right to ignore it, and concentrate on correction 'in time'.

 

Is that what you are implying?

I am not sure why you think it adds nothing to the Law. You are wondering what to have for dinner, when you realise through some way or another that the call in front of you is not the one you intended. If you immediately attempt to change it you are in time: if you think and try to change it, you are not in time. That hardly seems irrelevant.

[pran]

OK so we have reasoned away 'pause for thought' and replaced it with 'did you mean to make the bid'.

 

Actually that's fine by me. I would generally prefer openness about things in the Laws that we want to de-emphasise or reinterpret, but I understand it's an imperfect world where transparency can create controversy and muddling through feels more comfortable.

Isn't that precisely the meaning of the word "inadvertent"?

L25 uses the word "unintended" rather than "inadvertent" in the 2007 version of the Laws, I am told because of the difficulty of translating "inadvertent" into some languages.

My "Oxford" lists:

Inadvertent a. Unintentional.