Explained alert alerts North that her bid was "unintended"

[barmar]

Yes, it would be best if all interpretations were incorporated into the next revision of the Laws, but apparently that doesn't always happen. Are you suggesting that all interpretations that predate the current revision should be cancelled, i.e. they're presumed to have changed their mind about all these intpretations that weren't incorporated?

[blackshoe]

Ed … 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?

 

I was suggesting that the WBFLC had issued an interpretation of Law 25A, not Law 73C.

 

Yes, it would be best if all interpretations were incorporated into the next revision of the Laws, but apparently that doesn't always happen. Are you suggesting that all interpretations that predate the current revision should be cancelled, i.e. they're presumed to have changed their mind about all these intpretations that weren't incorporated?

 

I don't know what he's suggesting, but as I said, AFAIK, the WBFLC has said that this is not the case (that interpretations issued prior to the current version of the laws are no longer valid).

[jallerton]

Yes, it would be best if all interpretations were incorporated into the next revision of the Laws, but apparently that doesn't always happen. Are you suggesting that all interpretations that predate the current revision should be cancelled, i.e. they're presumed to have changed their mind about all these intpretations that weren't incorporated?

 

I'm suggesting that is what should happen (and you seem to agree with me); I don't know enough to tell you what does happen in practice. Common sense would tell us that some "interpretations" are no longer relevant, but I'm not aware of any WBFLC list of withdrawn/still relevant "interpretations".

[jallerton]

I was suggesting that the WBFLC had issued an interpretation of Law 25A, not Law 73C.

 

In that case, you might wish to revise your previous post of:

 

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.

 

Let's read Law 25A and the interpretation from eleven years ago:

 

LAW 25 - LEGAL AND ILLEGAL CHANGES OF CALL

A. Unintended Call

1. 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.

2. No substitution of call may be made when his partner has made a subsequent call.

3. If the auction ends before it reaches the player’s partner no substitution may occur after the end of the auction period (see Law 22).

4. If a substitution is allowed the LHO may withdraw any call he made over the first call. Information from the withdrawn call is authorised only to his side. There is no further rectification.

 

Law 25A: Correction of an unintended call [WBFLC]

The attempt to correct must immediately follow the realisation of the mistake when bidding boxes are in use.

For example, a player places a bidding card on the table, then gazes off into space. Eventually, he looks down and sees it is not the card he intended. So long as he attempts to change it now he is in time [if his partner has not subsequently called] even if it is quite some time after the call was originally placed. If LHO has called before this attempt to change he may withdraw his call without penalty [Law 25A4]. The withdrawn call is unauthorised to the side that originally made the wrong call but authorised to the other side [Law 16D].

 

There is nothing in Law 25A or the quoted interpretation to suggest that a player may use unauthorised information to wake himself up to the fact that he has made an unintended call (and Law 25A4 admits that the concept of unauthorised information exists).

 

On the other hand Law 73C demands that the player must carefully avoid taking any advantage from any unauthorised information received from partner's remark, question, explanation, gesture,mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, etc.

 

Conclusion: a player who has made an unintended call may exercise his rights under Law 25A but only as long as he complies with his obligations under other Laws, including Law 73C.

[blackshoe]

You apparently think the interpretation you quote leads to an assumption that if it is partner's action which gives rise to one's understanding that one's call was unintended, Law 73C applies. The interpretation does not, as I read it, say that.

[jhenrikj]

In the WBFLC minute quoted above, the information that is UI is the information from the withdrawn call from LHO of the uninteded call to the side who made the unintended call.

[jallerton]

You apparently think the interpretation you quote leads to an assumption that if it is partner's action which gives rise to one's understanding that one's call was unintended, Law 73C applies. The interpretation does not, as I read it, say that.

 

No, Law 73C is a general "must" Law which applies to all players for the whole of the auction and play. There is nothing in either Law 25A or the quoted "interpretation" to suggest that there is some magical exception to Law 73C in this situation. Therefore, Law 73C continues to apply.

[barmar]

Let's say you don't notice that RHO has bid. Then partner says "it's your turn to bid". Must you continue waiting for RHO to bid, because his reminder was UI that you must ignore? Or does that not count as "taking advantage"?

 

So I guess this comes down to what counts as taking advantage. Is noticing an unintended bid really taking advantage?

 

On the other hand, the spirit of 73C seems to be that you should bid and play as if you were never even aware of partner's remarks, gestures, mannerisms, etc.; we're often told to imagine you're playing with screens. If you were playing with screens, you'd never hear the alert or explanation, and would not get woken up to the fact that you made an unintended bid.

 

Although this isn't quite compatible with other UI Laws. They prohibit you from taking the action suggested by the UI if there's another LA. So you can't simply ignore the UI, you must note it and do the opposite of what it suggests.

[pran]

Let's say you don't notice that RHO has bid. Then partner says "it's your turn to bid". Must you continue waiting for RHO to bid, because his reminder was UI that you must ignore? Or does that not count as "taking advantage"?

 

So I guess this comes down to what counts as taking advantage. Is noticing an unintended bid really taking advantage?

 

On the other hand, the spirit of 73C seems to be that you should bid and play as if you were never even aware of partner's remarks, gestures, mannerisms, etc.; we're often told to imagine you're playing with screens. If you were playing with screens, you'd never hear the alert or explanation, and would not get woken up to the fact that you made an unintended bid.

 

Although this isn't quite compatible with other UI Laws. They prohibit you from taking the action suggested by the UI if there's another LA. So you can't simply ignore the UI, you must note it and do the opposite of what it suggests.

And the latter leads to an interesting question:

For the sake of argument let us accept that the player has UI awakening him to the fact that he has made an unintended call.

 

We have two relevant laws on this situation:

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

and

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

Assuming that Law 16B1a prevails then we must rule that the inadvertent call was, and still is no logical alternative for the player to his intended call. Consequently he may replace his unintended call with his intended call (provided the conditions in Law 25A are satisfied).

 

What if Law 73C prevails? Then the following scenario becomes a reality (it has happened more than once): A player receives UI which demonstrably suggests one particular action over another, so he selects an action other than the suggested one. Subsequently this selected action turns out to having been very advantageous to the player as compared to the outcome had he instead selected the (illegaly) suggested action.

 

Shall we adjust the result based on Law 73C, or shall we let the table result stand because the player has complied with Law 16B and just been unexpected lucky?

 

It is clear to me that trying (Law 25A) to correct an unintended call is not taking advantage of unauthorized information even if he became aware of his mistake because of some action by his partner.

[campboy]

Why should either law "prevail"? The fact that 16B does not forbid something is no bar to ruling that law 73C does.

 

I agree with JAllerton. It seems clear to me that it is advantageous to become aware of your unintended call in time to correct it.

[pran]

Why should either law "prevail"? The fact that 16B does not forbid something is no bar to ruling that law 73C does.

 

I agree with JAllerton. It seems clear to me that it is advantageous to become aware of your unintended call in time to correct it.

"Does not forbid"?????

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information

[campboy]

Let me spell it out for you. You wrote

Assuming that Law 16B1a prevails then we must rule that the inadvertent call was, and still is no logical alternative for the player to his intended call. Consequently he may replace his unintended call with his intended call (provided the conditions in Law 25A are satisfied).

Now I agree that there is nothing in 16B which prevents the player from making the correction, but it does not follow that he may do so. If the correction breaks 73C then it does not matter that it doesn't break 16B.

[blackshoe]

It would seem, if those who are advocating invoking 73C in this case are correct, that the only time 25A is applicable is when the player, without help from his partner, realizes his call was unintended on his own, or possibly with help from opponents. Is that your position?

[RMB1]

It would seem, ..., that the only time 25A is applicable is when the player, without help from his partner, realizes his call was unintended on his own, or possibly with help from opponents.

 

I am "unhappy" that partner's alert can lead to a Law 25A change. But my "position" is that it can: because that is how I have been instructed..

 

I would be happy if a Law 25A change were only permitted if there had been no help from anyone (partner or opponents). I do not like a change being permitted after an opponent asks "is that natural?"

 

I am not sure who interpreted "without pause for thought" as starting from when a player realised what they bid, rather than (the obvious interpretation :)) from when the call was made; but I think they did the game a disservice.

[blackshoe]

Clearly if a player is thinking about what to have for dinner, or admiring Wendy's legs, he's not thinking about the bidding, and so is not going to realize he's not made the call he intended. I don't think interpreting "pause for thought" as "pause for thought about the bidding" or "pause for thought from the time he realizes he screwed up" is a bad thing.

[campboy]

I am "unhappy" that partner's alert can lead to a Law 25A change. But my "position" is that it can: because that is how I have been instructed.

This describes my attitude too. My personal opinion is that the interpretation the EBU tells me to follow is wrong, but that does not stop me following it when I am directing.

[lamford]

This describes my attitude too. My personal opinion is that the interpretation the EBU tells me to follow is wrong, but that does not stop me following it when I am directing.

The whole approach of the Laws seems to have been to become more and more lenient with infractors. 27B is an example. Certainly in the bidding, the penalties for carelessness have become less. I think if someone opens 1S and his partner announces "12-14", as in the old example on here, then the 1S bidder will pause for thought before correcting it. He will think "why did my partner say that? Ah, I realise now, I must have misbid; I can correct that I think." If that is not pause for thought, I do not know what is, so the TD should rule that it is not "without pause for thought", and we then do not need to involve 73C. However, the WBFLC have decided that this is not regarded as pause for thought either. There is an argument that the information that you have misbid is AI because it is "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws" but then you can argue it is UI as it is "an unexpected alert (or announcement, it matters not)". I agree with jallerton that this is yet another example of inadequate Laws.

[pran]

I am "unhappy" that partner's alert can lead to a Law 25A change. But my "position" is that it can: because that is how I have been instructed..

 

I would be happy if a Law 25A change were only permitted if there had been no help from anyone (partner or opponents). I do not like a change being permitted after an opponent asks "is that natural?"

 

I am not sure who interpreted "without pause for thought" as starting from when a player realised what they bid, rather than (the obvious interpretation :)) from when the call was made; but I think they did the game a disservice.

Law 25A begins: 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

 

It would be interesting to know how this (enhanced by me) condition can ever apply if "pause for thought" is to be considered beginning when the unintended call was made rather than when the player became aware of his mistake.

 

On the other side: If a player has obviously made a mistake with his call and there is no doubt that he never intended the call he actually made, why should it be disservice to the game of bridge if he is allowed to correct his call so long as his partner has not revealed anything about his own hand subsequent to the unintended call?

[AlexJonson]

It seems to me that if the law makers had wanted to say that an unintended bid could be changed so long as partner has not bid and has not alerted, they could have done just that. But they didn't.

 

I don't particularly like the current rules in this area, but I don't imagine they are unclear in this narrow respect.

 

As to pauses, in this specific case a pause for total puzzlement seems much more likely than a pause for thought.

[pran]

It seems to me that if the law makers had wanted to say that an unintended bid could be changed so long as partner has not bid and has not alerted, they could have done just that. But they didn't.

[...]

Which implies that an unexpected alert (or missing alert) does not terminate the "tolerance" period for a player to discover his mistake?

[AlexJonson]

I generally take the law makers to have said what they mean, and to have omitted obvious potential cross-references deliberately.

 

If I were a regulator, despite my dislike of the current Law 25, I would not try to override it by sleight of hand via 73C.

[aguahombre]

The whole approach of the Laws seems to have been to become more and more lenient with infractors. 27B is an example. Certainly in the bidding, the penalties for carelessness have become less. I think if someone opens 1S and his partner announces "12-14", as in the old example on here, then the 1S bidder will pause for thought before correcting it. He will think "why did my partner say that? Ah, I realise now, I must have misbid; I can correct that I think." If that is not pause for thought, I do not know what is, so the TD should rule that it is not "without pause for thought", and we then do not need to involve 73C. However, the WBFLC have decided that this is not regarded as pause for thought either.

There must be some kind of thinking involved when a person realizes he pulled the wrong card. Lamford has pointed out that "pause for thought" is ambiguous; the TD (or the players, if they believe it was a mispull) is/are actually deciding what the thinking was about.

 

It is possible for the 1S opener to be thinking as Lamford states (replace unintended bid); it is also possible that opener with 5-3-3-2 and in that range would realize he should have opened 1NT (intended bid, not replaceable).

 

I don't know how to reword "pause for thought" to solve this apparent discrepancy; would rather just trust that the TD's can work out whether the bid was intended or not.

[gordontd]

I've just seen the Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Koningshof on 18th October 2011.

 

They include the following:

The committee confirmed once again that if a player’s attention is diverted as he makes an unintended call the ‘pause for thought’ should be assessed from the moment when he first recognizes his error. It was decided to add to the Laws a footnote to Law 25A as follows:  

“A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error.”