Explained alert alerts North that her bid was "unintended"

[jules101]

NS play weak 2-suited 2s.

 

2♥ = 5H + another

2♠ = 5S + a minor

2N = minors

 

All pre announced.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj6hkq8da5cajt84&n=sa9753h763dkq873c&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=2n(mechanical%20error)p(asks%20about%202N)5cp5dppp]266|200[/hv]

 

 

North meant to open 2♠ (5S + minor], but makes mechanical error by pulling out 2N.

 

South alerts 2N. An alert is expected by N as 2♠ should be alerted. East asks South, and is told that 2N is weak with both minors.

 

 

It is her partner's explanation of North's bid (not the alert) that makes North realise she has made mechanical error.

 

ISSUE A

 

2N was an "Unintended Call" (Law 25A1), which "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."

 

North only realises the mechanical error once South explains the 2N bid.

 

 

Does Law 25A1 apply here?

 

May North call director and seek to change her bid for the intended call of 2♠, or is it too late given her partner has explained the bid?

 

South has not yet bid (Law 25A2).

 

 

Or given does the explanation given by South (even though it was before South bid) mean North now has to just leave her bid as it stands?

 

 

ISSUE B

 

North didn't attempt to apply Law 25A (cos she didn't know about it!).

 

She now bids 5♦ over 5♣.

 

Is 5♦ a logical alternative to pass?

 

Or is she compromised by her partner's explanation of 2N.

 

 

NB For info if 2♠ had been intended (and was alerted, but not explained), then 2♠ - 5♣ would be pass or convert, intending to play in North's minor.

 

Converting 5♣ to 5♦ with North hand would therefore be perfectly normal after a 2♠ opening.

 

 

ISSUE C

 

When 5♦ returns to South it looks as if the wheels have come off somewhere during the auction.

 

Given 2♥/♠/N are all weak bids then 5♦ can't be a forcing bid, suggesting extra values/extra length.

 

May South pass here, or should they take other action?

 

 

 

ISSUE D

 

3♦ is 2 off.

 

EW call director at end of the play and say they would have doubled if they realised what was happening.

 

Frankly it should be evident to both EW that the wheels have come off. East holds a 5-card ♣ suit, and West (who made the final pass in the auction) is holding ♠xx ♥xxx ♦J9xxx ♣Kxx.

 

What action should director take at this point if any?

 

Should West be allowed to apply a retrospective double instead of her final pass?

 

If West had doubled instead of passing then, it's unclear that this would have ended the auction.

 

It is possible (not sure how likely tho) that NS might declare 5♠ making or 5♠X making.

 

Deep Finesse tells us that:

• 
   
  
• 5♣ by South is 4 off
  
• 5♦ by North is 2 off
  
• 5♠ by North makes on the nose
  
• 3N makes up one by N/S.
  

 

 

As it happens 5♦-2 is a top anyway for EW, but it is the principles that we are interested in here!

 

 

Do you let the table result stand?

 

Over to you!

[pran]

NS play weak 2-suited 2s.

 

2♥ = 5H + another

2♠ = 5S + a minor

2N = minors

 

All pre announced.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj6hkq8da5cajt84&n=sa9753h763dkq873c&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=2n(mechanical%20error)p(asks%20about%202N)5cp5dppp]266|200[/hv]

 

 

North meant to open 2♠ (5S + minor], but makes mechanical error by pulling out 2N.

 

South alerts 2N. An alert is expected by N as 2♠ should be alerted. East asks South, and is told that 2N is weak with both minors.

 

 

It is her partner's explanation of North's bid (not the alert) that makes North realise she has made mechanical error.

 

ISSUE A

 

2N was an "Unintended Call" (Law 25A1), which "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."

 

North only realises the mechanical error once South explains the 2N bid.

 

 

Does Law 25A1 apply here?

 

May North call director and seek to change her bid for the intended call of 2♠, or is it too late given her partner has explained the bid?

 

South has not yet bid (Law 25A2).

 

 

Or given does the explanation given by South (even though it was before South bid) mean North now has to just leave her bid as it stands?

[...]

Yes, Law 25A may apply here. (Alert/explanation is not a subsequent call)

[campboy]

A. Yes, provided she attempts to change as soon as she notices the error North may change her call.

 

B. You seem to have answered your own question. Since 5♣ is pass-or-correct it is clear that there is no logical alternative to 5♦, so no foul.

 

C. From what you have told us, South has no unauthorised information, and so is free to draw any conclusion she sees fit. The only problem would be if South had (undisclosed) partnership experience to suggest that North had misbid; since it was a mechanical error rather than a misbid, that seems unlikely (though the TD should of course investigate).

 

D. E/W have been correctly informed so there is no reason to adjust.

[iviehoff]

B. You seem to have answered your own question. Since 5♣ is pass-or-correct it is clear that there is no logical alternative to 5♦, so no foul.

B is slightly interesting. I agree with the conclusion but I'm interested in the line of reasoning, which I am not so certain about. On this occasion the alternative line of reasoning I have in mind gives the same answer, but often that will not be the case.

 

People normally misbid by thinking that that actual bid they made has the mistaken meaning they attribute to it. When that happens, and they notice their misbid from partner's alert or explanation, we legally "don't allow them to wake up": they have to carry on in their misperception of the meaning of the bid, and hence the consequent meaning of the responses to it. The argument you have given here is like that situation. If N had thought that 2N had the meaning that 2S actually has, then 5C would be pass or correct, so N must think that.

 

But North did not misbid in that fashion. Rather N mispulled and failed to take advantage of the opportunity to correct it. We allow N to become aware of the mispull from the UI of the explanation, at least for the purpose of correcting the mispull. So N does not think that 2N means spades and a minor, N knows perfectly well that 2N is for the minors, and is perfectly aware that 5C means what 5C means in response to 2N.

 

Now the question is, if N is allowed to know that there has been a mispull for the purpose of attemptiong to correct it under 25A, is N also allowed to know that there is a mispull for the purpose of continuing the auction? In other words, must North continue thinking that a 2S card lies on the table when 2N is in plain view. It seems to me that this is a rather different question from if N had bid 2N thinking it had the meaning 2S has, one often does not wake up to such mistakes. But a bidding card lying in plain view in front of one on the table, I think one nearly does always wake up to that before making the next bid. It would seem to me to be odd to require N to carry on thinking 2S is what they bid.

 

I therefore think that N is allowed to realise that 5C has the meaning ascribed to it in response to a bid of 2N, not the meaning in response to 2S. In the present case it makes no difference, N will bid 5D in either case. But in other situations the conclusion might vary, so the approach might matter.

 

Incidentally we are told that 2N was a mispull for 2S, and I don't wish to question that. But I will say there are other occasions where I would be sceptical of a claim that one 2-suited bid had come out instead of another, be it ever so adjacent, as a result of a mispull, especially if this were not identified until time of explanation.

 

I agree whole-heartedly with Campboy's other parts. I will note that in case D, EW were in fact given the information to notice the misunderstanding - S noticed it on precisely the same information, it was entirely transparent that 5D was an unexpected bid. So EW's complaint is even more lacking in merit that this particular complaint usually is.

[blackshoe]

The laws treat misbid and mispull differently. In the former case, there may be UI constraints. In the latter, there aren't. In fact, Law 25A4 specifically says so ("there is no further rectification").

[barmar]

But 25A4 is about what happens after a substitution. The Laws are silent about your rights and obligations if you notice a mispull but don't attempt to change it (or you don't notice until after partner has called, in which case it's too late to change it).

[blackshoe]

Your rights and obligations should you have mispulled and either not noticed until too late, or decided not to try to change the call, are the same as they are if you'd meant to make the call in question.

[SimonFa]

A. Yes, provided she attempts to change as soon as she notices the error North may change her call.

 

 

 

So would this apply to a recent situation I had?

 

RHO bid 1NT, weak, and I went to bid 2[diamonds, Astro, to show Spades and another. After a brief pause LHO asked partner if she was going to alert? Partner looked at my bid, racked her brains and said no.

 

At this point I looked down and realised I had pulled out the 2H card which is natural.

[pran]

So would this apply to a recent situation I had?

 

RHO bid 1NT, weak, and I went to bid 2[diamonds, Astro, to show Spades and another. After a brief pause LHO asked partner if she was going to alert? Partner looked at my bid, racked her brains and said no.

 

At this point I looked down and realised I had pulled out the 2H card which is natural.

Yes, Law 25A should apply provided you immediately (when you looked down and became aware of your actual bid) reacted in a way that convinced the other players at the table that you never intended to bid 2♥.

[SimonFa]

Yes, Law 25A should apply provided you immediately (when you looked down and became aware of your actual bid) reacted in a way that convinced the other players at the table that you never intended to bid 2♥.

Thanks, that's a valuable lesson learned, we ended up in a ridiculous contract for a bottom.

[campboy]

I therefore think that N is allowed to realise that 5C has the meaning ascribed to it in response to a bid of 2N, not the meaning in response to 2S. In the present case it makes no difference, N will bid 5D in either case. But in other situations the conclusion might vary, so the approach might matter.

I agree with you. I don't think ruling otherwise would be consistent with permitting a 25A change.

[jallerton]

Yes, Law 25A may apply here. (Alert/explanation is not a subsequent call)

 

The problem is that Law 73C also applies, because Law 73C applies during the entire hand.

 

Now the question is, if N is allowed to know that there has been a mispull for the purpose of attemptiong to correct it under 25A, is N also allowed to know that there is a mispull for the purpose of continuing the auction? In other words, must North continue thinking that a 2S card lies on the table when 2N is in plain view. It seems to me that this is a rather different question from if N had bid 2N thinking it had the meaning 2S has, one often does not wake up to such mistakes. But a bidding card lying in plain view in front of one on the table, I think one nearly does always wake up to that before making the next bid. It would seem to me to be odd to require N to carry on thinking 2S is what they bid.

 

That's a good question, which highlights the problem with "interpretations" which pretend that Law 73C does not exist.

[pran]

Yes, Law 25A may apply here. (Alert/explanation is not a subsequent call)

The problem is that Law 73C also applies, because Law 73C applies during the entire hand.

 

I have a strong feeling that in this situation Law 73C (and the associated Law 16B) must be considered general while Law 25A is more specific (relevant only when attempting to change inadvertent calls).

 

If this view is accepted then Law 73C/Law 16B does not exclude the application of Law 25A when inadvertency of a call is uncontested.

[blackshoe]

A player makes a call that he never intended to make. He changes it to the call he did intend to make. Where is the UI?

 

If there's no UI, 73C does not apply.

[gordontd]

We had an interesting thread about this topic just about a year ago.

[jallerton]

A player makes a call that he never intended to make. He changes it to the call he did intend to make. Where is the UI?

 

If there's no UI, 73C does not apply.

 

Most often when an unintended call is made, there is no UI, because the player notices that he has pulled out the wrong bidding card before any other player has reacted. Then the player is free to make a correction under Law 25A. However, we are talking about the situation where a player has available to him "unauthorised information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or heitation, an unexpected or failure to alert" (to quote Law 73C).

 

I have a strong feeling that in this situation Law 73C (and the associated Law 16B) must be considered general while Law 25A is more specific (relevant only when attempting to change inadvertent calls).

 

If this view is accepted then Law 73C/Law 16B does not exclude the application of Law 25A when inadvertency of a call is uncontested.

 

I didn't mention Law 16B because I'm not sure it's relevant to the correction of an unintended call. On the other hand, Law 73C states that players in receipt of unauthorised information "must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorised uninformation". If, without the UI, a player would not (or might not) have noticed that he had made an unintended call in time to correct it, then when he does receive UI, the only way to carefully avoid taking any advantage of it is to not correct the unintended call.

 

There is no conflict between Law 25A and Law 73C,any more than there is a conflict between Law 73C and other "may" Laws.

 

Law 19A says that a player "may" double the last preceding bid as long as it has been made by an opponent. But if the player is in posession of UI and doubling would not carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI, Law 73C directs that the player "must" not double.

 

Law 25A says that a player "may" correct an unintended call as long as his partner has not yet called. But if the player is in posession of UI and correcting the unintended call would not carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, Law 73C directs that the player "must" not make the correction.

[blackshoe]

Law 25A says that a player "may" correct an unintended call as long as his partner has not yet called. But if the player is in posession of UI and correcting the unintended call would not carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, Law 73C directs that the player "must" not make the correction.

 

Maybe, but it's contrary to the way I understand the laws to be interpreted. Perhaps you can convince the WBFLC to issue a new interpretation, but until then I think we should not involve Law 73C in a 25A situation.

[lamford]

Law 25A says that a player "may" correct an unintended call as long as his partner has not yet called. But if the player is in posession of UI and correcting the unintended call would not carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, Law 73C directs that the player "must" not make the correction.

This is the interpretation I prefer, but I think that the player may change an unintended call, howsoever he learns of his error. I recall that gordontd offered the view that the player had originally decided on another call, and therefore he is not taking advantage of the UI, as the decision to make the call was earlier than the UI. That was also a valid argument, and I think is the one the WBFLC adopts.

[pran]

[...]I didn't mention Law 16B because I'm not sure it's relevant to the correction of an unintended call. On the other hand, Law 73C states that players in receipt of unauthorised information "must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorised uninformation". [...]

Law 73C and Law 16B are not separable.

 

Law 73C specifies what actions are not permissible in possession of UI from partner. Law 16B dictates the consequences if a player takes any such action as is forbidden by Law 73C.

 

Law 25A does not limit the ways in which a player may (legally) become aware of his unintended misbid. If his misbid is accepted as a genuinly unattempted misbid then Law 25A allows it to be corrected provided that the other conditions in Law 25A are also satisfied.

[jallerton]

Law 73C and Law 16B are not separable.

 

Law 73C specifies what actions are not permissible in possession of UI from partner. Law 16B dictates the consequences if a player takes any such action as is forbidden by Law 73C.

 

No, Law 16 is self-contained. Law 16B1 specifies what actions are not permissible in possession of UI from partner. Law 16B2 and Law 16B3 dictate the consequences if a player takes any such action as is forbidden by Law 16B1.

 

True, a breach of Laws 16 is usually also a breach of Law 73C, but there are situations such as the one here where the difference in wording is significant.

 

There's no substitute for reading what the Law actually says!

[jhenrikj]

I've asked two EBL Chief TD's and one Assistent Chief TD about this and they all agreed that we always allow 25A substitution if the conditions in 25A are met no matter how the player was made aware of his misbid.

 

One of the two CTD's is also a member of WBFLC.

 

So if the knowledge that you have made an unintended call is AI (as it must be since we are allowed to use it) before partner has bid, it must be AI also after partner has bid.

[jallerton]

Law 19A says that a player "may" double the last preceding bid as long as it has been made by an opponent. But if the player is in posession of UI and doubling would not carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI, Law 73C directs that the player "must" not double.

 

Law 25A says that a player "may" correct an unintended call as long as his partner has not yet called. But if the player is in posession of UI and correcting the unintended call would not carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, Law 73C directs that the player "must" not make the correction.

 

This is the interpretation I prefer, but I think that the player may change an unintended call, howsoever he learns of his error. I recall that gordontd offered the view that the player had originally decided on another call, and therefore he is not taking advantage of the UI, as the decision to make the call was earlier than the UI. That was also a valid argument, and I think is the one the WBFLC adopts.

 

....but the decision to correct the unintended call was made after receiving the UI.

 

Maybe, but it's contrary to the way I understand the laws to be interpreted. Perhaps you can convince the WBFLC to issue a new interpretation, but until then I think we should not involve Law 73C in a 25A situation.

 

Has the WBFLC issued one of its statements pretending that the Laws say something else "interpretations" on this issue? If so what does it say?

 

I am only aware of the one from the year 2000 which converts "without pause for thoguht" to "without pause for thought once he becomes aware that he has made an unintended call" (though the fact that this wording was not incorporated into the 2007 Laws suggests that it may no longer be in point).

 

and of the following definitions in the Introduction to the Laws:

 

"may" do: failure to do so is not wrong.

 

"must" do: the strongest word, a serious matter indeed.

[blackshoe]

AFAIK, the WBFLC has said that unless they explicitly cancel an old interpretation, it's still valid.

[bluejak]

I am only aware of the one from the year 2000 which converts "without pause for thoguht" to "without pause for thought once he becomes aware that he has made an unintended call" (though the fact that this wording was not incorporated into the 2007 Laws suggests that it may no longer be in point).

So what are you suggesting? That we do not rule the way that everyone has learnt to do, in the way that all authorities are agreed?

 

I do not understand the point in challenging agreed interpretations.

[jallerton]

I'm suggesting that if the WBFLC considers the wording of a particular Law to be sufficiently unclear that it needs to issue an "interpretation", then it makes jolly sure that the wording of the Law in question is altered to become unambiguous when the next edition of the Laws is published.

 

I'm suggesting that if the WBFLC decides that it would prefer the Law said something else, then it alters the wording of the Law accordingly when the next edition of the Laws is published.

 

I'm suggesting that if an intelligent club TD wants to make a 'book' ruling, he should be able to deduce the correct ruling by consulting a book known as "The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007". It should not be necessary to know two Chief EBL TDs (or even to know that there could be more than one 'Chief' EBL TD!) to ask if some unwritten rules exist, every time a club TD wants to make a 'book' ruling.

 

Anyway, that's a slightly off-topic diversion.

 

Ed stated:

 

Maybe, but it's contrary to the way I understand the laws to be interpreted. Perhaps you can convince the WBFLC to issue a new interpretation, but until then I think we should not involve Law 73C in a 25A situation.

 

which seemed to imply that the WBFLC had issued an interpretation regarding Law 73C in unintended call situations. Can he (or anybody else) enlighten us as to what exactly this says?