Change of Call after partner had bid

[blackshoe]

Please clarify why because Law 25A2 specifies that no change is allowed, Laws 27 etc. do apply?

 

Why couldn't I uphold that the attempt at correction is not allowed, Full Stop? After which Law 16 applies (as it would after applying Laws 27 etc). Opener has not made a second call, he has corrected his first one. I see no difference between what he has done now and an outcry of: "OMG, I made a terrible mistake, I should have opened hearts."

 

Heh. Maybe this thing does belong in Simple Rulings after all. I was beginning to wonder. :lol:

[blackshoe]

Physically he has changed his call from 1♠ to 1♥. This is equivalent to making a new call and we have to treat it as a call and not only as a remark. As this happened after his partner's subsequent call Law 25 can no longer apply, the modified call is a call at RHO's turn to call, and we should go to Law 29. If instead we go to Law 27 (because the new call is also an insufficient bid) then Law 27A2 directs us straight to Law 31 which is where we would come also from Law 29.

 

Hm. I don't know about that. 25A2 says "no substitution is permitted after partner has called". It doesn't say an attempted substitution becomes a new call, or is equivalent to a new call. I think it (25A2) applies after partner has called, or it wouldn't be there. So, 25A2, 1♥ is cancelled, responder has UI. WTP? B)

 

I know, I keep bouncing from one side to the other. Suffice it to say I have other things on my mind right now. :ph34r:

[pran]

Hm. I don't know about that. 25A2 says "no substitution is permitted after partner has called". It doesn't say an attempted substitution becomes a new call, or is equivalent to a new call. I think it (25A2) applies after partner has called, or it wouldn't be there. So, 25A2, 1♥ is cancelled, responder has UI. WTP? B)

 

I know, I keep bouncing from one side to the other. Suffice it to say I have other things on my mind right now. :ph34r:

Law 25A2 is there to define the absolute time limit between Law 25A and Law 29. See also the cross reference in law 31 footnote.

(Law 25B needs no such explicit time limit definition because of the same footnote.)

[blackshoe]

Sorry, Sven, but that doesn't explain how you justify the leap from "it's not allowed under 25A" to "therefore it's a call out of turn". Why shouldn't we just make it go away?

[pran]

Sorry, Sven, but that doesn't explain how you justify the leap from "it's not allowed under 25A" to "therefore it's a call out of turn". Why shouldn't we just make it go away?

Because a call (1♥) has been made.

 

If the player had said something like "Oh *****, that's not what I wanted to bid" then we have no call, only an extraneous remark. But once he has identified a (replacement) call then we must treat it as such.

 

I suppose you might see this logic easier if you recognize that once a player has made his call then it is his LHO's turn to call, and any (change of) call he indicates now (or until it again becomes his turn to call) is a call out of turn.

 

Law 25 opens the door for treating such calls out of turn as change of call rather than a new call on certain conditions, but when these conditions are not met then we are back to treating them as call out of turn.

[bluejak]

Having read Sven's stuff very carefully I am beginning to be convinced that this is a Law 25 case. Forget the "Law 25 cannot apply bit": that is just not true. Law 25 covers changes that are allowed and changes that are not.

 

Let us go back to basics: what happened? Was there a call out of turn? No, there was no additional call. Was there an attempt to change a call already made? Yes. Is there a Law on legal and illegal changes of call? Yes, Law 25. Simple, it is - must be - a Law 25 case.

[pran]

Having read Sven's stuff very carefully I am beginning to be convinced that this is a Law 25 case. Forget the "Law 25 cannot apply bit": that is just not true. Law 25 covers changes that are allowed and changes that are not.

 

Let us go back to basics: what happened? Was there a call out of turn? No, there was no additional call. Was there an attempt to change a call already made? Yes. Is there a Law on legal and illegal changes of call? Yes, Law 25. Simple, it is - must be - a Law 25 case.

 

And the resulting rectifications are ???

 

Now let me make a very minor change in OP story and say that instead of removing the 1♠ bid card ("changing" the original bid to 1♥) the player in exactly the same situation adds the 1NT bid card after his partner has called but before RHO calls.

 

What if he adds bid cards "changing" his original bid to 2♥ or 2♠?

 

Do you consider these events as being attempted changes of the original bid or do you treat them as bids at RHO's turn to call?

 

What if he apparently (to everybody!) attempts to change his call after RHO has also called? Is this also a law 25 case or is it a new call in proper rotation?

 

And the final and most important question: Where (and how) exactly do you draw the line between when to use Law 25 and when to use Law 29?

[bluejak]

If a player attempts to change a call he has made previously that is a change of all and treated as such.

 

If a player makes a call when it is not his turn to call that is a call out of rotation and treated as such.

[pran]

If a player attempts to change a call he has made previously that is a change of all and treated as such.

 

If a player makes a call when it is not his turn to call that is a call out of rotation and treated as such.

Did you forget, or didn't you bother to specifically tell us how you would apply Law 25 in the OP case (what rectifications you would impose), preferably also in my added variations of this case?

 

And do I understand you correct that if you are summoned to a table because of a call at partner's or RHO's turn to call and the offender claims that he actually regretted his original call and tried to change it you will just apply Law 25 (and not at all Law 29)?

[bluejak]

Sorry, did I forget to say that if it is a Law 25 case I apply Law 25? Did I need to?

 

As to your second point, TDs make decisions as to what happened. That is basic TD practice and I am surprised you suggest otherwise. Players do not make decisions for TDs.

[pran]

Sorry, did I forget to say that if it is a Law 25 case I apply Law 25? Did I need to?

 

As to your second point, TDs make decisions as to what happened. That is basic TD practice and I am surprised you suggest otherwise. Players do not make decisions for TDs.

 

The Auction:

1♠ pass 2♣

 

Opener now sees to his horror that while he meant to open 2♠ * he has bid 1♠ and adds the necessary pads to his pile of bidding cards.

 

* At least that is what he says when the Director is now summoned to the table because of the 2♠ bid at RHO's turn to call.

 

As the rectification under law 25 is just that of a little UI while the rectification under Law 29 quite often will be forcing partner to pass for at least one round of the auction the selection of which law to use can be quite important.

 

I shall be disappointed if we must inspect the offender's cards in order to make the correct ruling.

 

Note that "adding pads to the pile" is just the way many players carelessly make subsequent bids, so this is no good indication of whether there was a change of the first call or making a second call. So how would you rule?

[bluejak]

I decide what has happened and rule accordingly per the Law book.

 

I am surprised at your suggestion that you are unable to make decisions because players ignore the rules totally. That may be so in Norway but elsewhere it is certainly not so.

 

Your idea that you should use the wrong Law because you do not like the correct Law is contrary to Law 12B2.

[pran]

I decide what has happened and rule accordingly per the Law book.

 

I am surprised at your suggestion that you are unable to make decisions because players ignore the rules totally. That may be so in Norway but elsewhere it is certainly not so.

I described a scenario to illustrate the problem on which I have tried to focus all the time.

This is an ordinary irregularity (although one that I have never encountered myself) with which I did not expect any problem. Players (accidentally) "ignore" rules all the time, that is one of the reasons we have a job to do.

 

Your insult against Norway just matches your previous insults in other threads and deserves no further comment.

Your idea that you should use the wrong Law because you do not like the correct Law is contrary to Law 12B2.

We obviously have a different opinion on what is the correct law, I have no problem with that. And if I find that I am wrong then I shall certainly adjust my opinion.

 

However, blindly going straight to Law 25 whenever a player says he wanted to change a call even when it is far too late for such change raises problems like the one illustrated by my hypothetical (but not unlikely) example.

 

In this example you have all the information that is available, there is no way you can find out more except by looking at the cards and judge if the offender's cards corroborate his statement. I believe we agree that this is no good procedure for the Director because if he does so he at the same time with his ruling reveals too much information about the offender's cards to the other three players at the table.

 

So how do you proceed in order to decide what has happened and whether to use Law 25 or Law 29? Toss a coin?

 

(That the Director after the board is completed can inspect the cards and award justified adjustments and/or impose penalties is obvious, but does not answer the question on how the director shall handle the situation there and then.)

[AndreSteff]

The Auction:

1♠ pass 2♣

 

Opener now sees to his horror that while he meant to open 2♠ * he has bid 1♠ and adds the necessary pads to his pile of bidding cards.

 

* At least that is what he says when the Director is now summoned to the table because of the 2♠ bid at RHO's turn to call.

 

As the rectification under law 25 is just that of a little UI while the rectification under Law 29 quite often will be forcing partner to pass for at least one round of the auction the selection of which law to use can be quite important.

 

I shall be disappointed if we must inspect the offender's cards in order to make the correct ruling.

 

Note that "adding pads to the pile" is just the way many players carelessly make subsequent bids, so this is no good indication of whether there was a change of the first call or making a second call. So how would you rule?

 

I will try to go with your example.

First: it is a lot more unlikely that opener will correct his mistaken opening bid of 1♠ to 2♠ once partner has made a response other than pass. A bid of 2♠ meant as correction of a mistaken 1♠ will make partner's 2♣ response insuffcient, whereas a correction to 1♥ does not.

 

Then you pose that a player with malintent could try to convince the TD that his actual 2♠ rebid out of turn was an attempt at correction of a mistaken 1♠ opening, in order te prevent the rectifications of Law 31. I would say to that, that I do not think we should presume malintent, but that we should believe a player's statement. In the case given it would be very easy to check the truthfulness of the player's statement, indeed by looking at his cards. But that can just as well be done after the play has finished. As a 2♠ rebid will almost always describe a different hand than an original 2♠ opening, it will be easy to unmask the deliberate deception of the TD and then we will act accordingly... :angry:

[pran]

I will try to go with your example.

First: it is a lot more unlikely that opener will correct his mistaken opening bid of 1♠ to 2♠ once partner has made a response other than pass. A bid of 2♠ meant as correction of a mistaken 1♠ will make partner's 2♣ response insuffcient, whereas a correction to 1♥ does not.

 

Then you pose that a player with malintent could try to convince the TD that his actual 2♠ rebid out of turn was an attempt at correction of a mistaken 1♠ opening, in order te prevent the rectifications of Law 31. I would say to that, that I do not think we should presume malintent, but that we should believe a player's statement. In the case given it would be very easy to check the truthfulness of the player's statement, indeed by looking at his cards. But that can just as well be done after the play has finished. As a 2♠ rebid will almost always describe a different hand than an original 2♠ opening, it will be easy to unmask the deliberate deception of the TD and then we will act accordingly... :angry:

 

The opener may have intended a (weak) 2♠ opening bid all the time and tries, but fails to make his correction before partner bids.

Or his (intended) 1♠ was stretching his hand and he just hasten to signoff in 2♠, forgetting to wait for RHO to call.

 

If we inspect the offender's hand we might very well find a hand that is compatible with both alternatives: A weak 2♠ opening near the upper strength limit or an optimistic 1♠ opening bid with a signoff 2♠ bid to partner's round forcing bid.

 

Just take your pick.

[AndreSteff]

The opener may have intended a (weak) 2♠ opening bid all the time and tries, but fails to make his correction before partner bids.

Or his (intended) 1♠ was stretching his hand and he just hasten to signoff in 2♠, forgetting to wait for RHO to call.

 

If we inspect the offender's hand we might very well find a hand that is compatible with both alternatives: A weak 2♠ opening near the upper strength limit or an optimistic 1♠ opening bid with a signoff 2♠ bid to partner's round forcing bid.

 

Just take your pick.

 

In this case it is better to have the the TD apply Law 31,then to having the 'Law 25' TD telling partner that he may not use the information that opener has a hand, that is in retrospect too weak to qualify as a one level opening (and thus that he may not pass, given his earlier 2♣ call)

 

But that is beside the point: Foregoing Law 25 because it enables cheating is, for me, not a good reason to pick a different Law. It may well be, that the WBFLC follows your advice and changes this, but at the moment it is not obvious that we should do so.

[pran]

In this case it is better to have the the TD apply Law 31,then to having the 'Law 25' TD telling partner that he may not use the information that opener has a hand, that is in retrospect too weak to qualify as a one level opening (and thus that he may not pass, given his earlier 2♣ call)

 

But that is beside the point: Foregoing Law 25 because it enables cheating is, for me, not a good reason to pick a different Law. It may well be, that the WBFLC follows your advice and changes this, but at the moment it is not obvious that we should do so.

 

You can't have it both ways. Either you accept statements that the offender tried to change his call, but alas overlooked that he was too late, or you don't.

 

In (I suppose) most cases what happened will be obvious, but there are too many possibilities where you cannot decide without inspecting the offender's cards, and in fact some times you cannot decide honestly even after such inspection.

 

My prime argument for avoiding Law 25 all together when it is too late for a correction is not a question of possible cheating, it is to avoid problems when you simply cannot determine the facts properly, and I feel sufficient foundation for giving Law 29 precedence over Law 25 when applicable can be found in Law 74B1: (As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:) paying insufficient attention to the game.

[blackshoe]

If I ask a player why he put 2♠ on the table, and he tells me he was trying to correct an unintended call, I am disinclined to disbelieve him without some pretty solid evidence. So I will rule under Law 25 in most cases. If it later turns out he was lying to me, well, now he has deeper problems. For one thing, I have no disinclination to disbelieve a proven liar whatever he tells me, so he places all future rulings at his table in jeopardy.

 

Frankly, unless he says something at the table before I arrive, I expect that it will be an opponent who called, and that opponent will likely tell me "bid out of turn", because that's what it will look like to him. Unless the player who bid 2♠ now tells me he was trying to correct an unintended call, I will rule under Law 29.

 

Either way, the first thing to ask him is "what were you doing?"

[bluejak]

Your insult against Norway just matches your previous insults in other threads and deserves no further comment.

Oh, I don't believe it: you are the one who suggested players do this, not me. My experience of Norwegian players is that they place bidding cards correctly and I was surprised you said otherwise.

[axman]

If I ask a player why he put 2♠ on the table, and he tells me he was trying to correct an unintended call, I am disinclined to disbelieve him without some pretty solid evidence. So I will rule under Law 25 in most cases. If it later turns out he was lying to me, well, now he has deeper problems. For one thing, I have no disinclination to disbelieve a proven liar whatever he tells me, so he places all future rulings at his table in jeopardy.

 

Frankly, unless he says something at the table before I arrive, I expect that it will be an opponent who called, and that opponent will likely tell me "bid out of turn", because that's what it will look like to him. Unless the player who bid 2♠ now tells me he was trying to correct an unintended call, I will rule under Law 29.

 

Either way, the first thing to ask him is "what were you doing?"

 

When a player tells the table why he put 2S on the table this is an extraneous remark forbidden by L73B1 and he must be thus punished for doing so.

 

There is a footnote to L31B: **Later calls at LHO’s turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 applies.

 

As there are no other exceptions thus provided- does not the footnote make clear that so-termed 'changes of call' at any other time are treated as COOT?

[blackshoe]

nope.

[pran]

When a player tells the table why he put 2S on the table this is an extraneous remark forbidden by L73B1 and he must be thus punished for doing so.

 

There is a footnote to L31B: **Later calls at LHOs turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 applies.

 

As there are no other exceptions thus provided- does not the footnote make clear that so-termed 'changes of call' at any other time are treated as COOT?

 

 

nope.

 

Interestingly I have received this suggestion from other sources as well and tend to find it both wise and not in conflict with law:

 

Law 25A takes precedence over Law 29 and Law 29 takes precedence over Law 25B (except for the specific condition in the footnote to Law 31B).

[bluejak]

Very good.

 

But there is one major problem with that.

 

Either

1. it is from an official source, such as the WBFLC, or your Zonal or National organisation, in which case it is to be followed within the jurisdiction of the organisation saying so, or
   
2. it is from someone else and is an opinion to be followed or not
   

[pran]

Interestingly I have received this suggestion from other sources as well and tend to find it both wise and not in conflict with law:

 

Law 25A takes precedence over Law 29 and Law 29 takes precedence over Law 25B (except for the specific condition in the footnote to Law 31B).

 

 

Very good.

 

But there is one major problem with that.

 

Either

1. it is from an official source, such as the WBFLC, or your Zonal or National organisation, in which case it is to be followed within the jurisdiction of the organisation saying so, or
   
2. it is from someone else and is an opinion to be followed or not
   

 

So far it is "from someone else" and thus an opinion.

I still like it, and I still consider it not in conflict with law.