Re-interpretation of Law 25A

[RMB1]

In a different topic, I suggested Law 25A should be interpreted so that a "pause for thought" starts when the call is made. This was contested, and I thought it had gone too off topic to continue there.

 

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.

 

So, delete "Until his partner makes a call", if it unnecessary.

 

But I will not concede that any proposed re-interpretation of any law is wrong, because it would mean the original law could have been better phrased. Many of us believe many of the laws could well be better phrased, even with their current interpretaions.

[lamford]

In a different topic, I suggested Law 25A should be interpreted so that a "pause for thought" starts when the call is made. This was contested, and I thought it had gone too off topic to continue there.

 

So, delete "Until his partner makes a call", if it unnecessary.

Under the current interpretation, we need both parts. Say it goes 1♠ - (2♠) - ?. The next person asks about the 2♠ and is told Michaels. Now the current interpretation is that the pause for thought begins when the person realises he has misbid. He substitutes his intended 1[he}, and the auction continues! If, however, partner has bid, that has to be tough luck.

 

So, the law should be:

Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call, howsoever he should discover it, but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought after he discovers his error.

[aguahombre]

So, the law should be:

Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call, howsoever he should discover it, but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought after he discovers his error.

Maybe it should say that, but I thought that is how it was applied by most TD's anyway.

[peachy]

Under the current interpretation, we need both parts. Say it goes 1♠ - (2♠) - ?. The next person asks about the 2♠ and is told Michaels. Now the current interpretation is that the pause for thought begins when the person realises he has misbid. He substitutes his intended 1[he}, and the auction continues! If, however, partner has bid, that has to be tough luck.

 

So, the law should be:

Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call, howsoever he should discover it, but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought after he discovers his error.

 

I see no reason to change "unintended" into "inadvertent", even if some other changes to the wording were to determined necessary. "Intended" and "unintended" have a clear meaning, IMO.

[lamford]

I see no reason to change "unintended" into "inadvertent", even if some other changes to the wording were to determined necessary. "Intended" and "unintended" have a clear meaning, IMO.

Sorry that change was unintended. I looked back to see what the old (1997) Laws said, and copied that wording; that had:

 

"Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought."

 

I agree that unintended is better than inadvertent, although the meaning is similar.

[bluejak]

Maybe it should say that, but I thought that is how it was applied by most TD's anyway.

I do not think so. For a start it is part of any training course. Secondly, many TDs read various things and get to hear of them. For example, it is not just readers of this forum, BLML, RGB and so on, who understand this, but also people in clubs whose friends/colleagues/enemies/annoyances have read them. Besides forums, both the EBU and ACBL - and probably many other jurisdictions - put simple rulings stuff in their magazines.

 

While the rare stuff may not permeate very far, ordinary rulings based on agreed international interpretations are quite likely to be well known.

[pran]

I do not think so. For a start it is part of any training course. Secondly, many TDs read various things and get to hear of them. For example, it is not just readers of this forum, BLML, RGB and so on, who understand this, but also people in clubs whose friends/colleagues/enemies/annoyances have read them. Besides forums, both the EBU and ACBL - and probably many other jurisdictions - put simple rulings stuff in their magazines.

 

While the rare stuff may not permeate very far, ordinary rulings based on agreed international interpretations are quite likely to be well known.

Would you please care to elaborate?

 

Aquahombre referred to a suggested modification of Law 25A, and I agree with him that the suggestion is nothing but a precise description on how we already are trained to interprete and use Law 25A.

 

So I feel puzzled about in what way you "don't think so"?

[gordontd]

Maybe it should say that, but I thought that is how it was applied by most TD's anyway.

 

 

I do not think so.

 

In what way does standard TD practice differ from that?

[Vampyr]

In what way does standard TD practice differ from that?

 

Wondering this myself.

 

Robin, do you really feel that a "pause for thought" should (presumably in a new version of the Laws) be deemed to have elapsed even if a player does not notice that he has pulled the wrong card? Why? And if so, how long should this "pause" be permitted to last?

[RMB1]

Robin, do you really feel that a "pause for thought" should (presumably in a new version of the Laws) be deemed to have elapsed even if a player does not notice that he has pulled the wrong card? Why? And if so, how long should this "pause" be permitted to last?

 

I think the laws (that is, the current interpretation) try too hard to allow recovery from mistakes, in a way that players find inconsistent, and TDs operate inconsistently.

 

I think that "pause for thought", or the lack of, should start when the call is made (is released on the table). This would be the same as for spoken bidding: the only chance to realise what you had said (and to change it) was as you had said it. It would be a mistake to make a call without looking at what call you had actually put on the table, and if you did not look at the time the call was made then the mistaken call would be irrevocable. I think such an approach would be much more satisfactory and more uniformly applied.

 

So here is a proposed rewording of Law 25.

 

A.

1. A player may change his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought from the point the call was made. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.

 

Except:

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

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

 

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

 

B.

A change of call not permitted by A is treated as a call out of rotation, see Laws 28-32.

 

The exceptions remain for definiteness: it is not expected that they could apply because there would invariably have been time for a "pause for thought" to have elapsed.

 

It would be necessary to delete "if the offender has not previously called" and the footnote, from Law 31B.

[barmar]

The types of errors people make, and how they notice them, are very different. It's very rare that one makes a slip of the tongue and doesn't notice it immediate, e.g. "1 club - oops, I mean 1 diamond"; you can't help hearing what you're saying. But it's not uncommon to put bidding cards on the table without looking at them carefully; if your fingers slipped or cards stuck together, you might not notice it immediately.

 

But maybe we SHOULD pay more attention, and that's what your change would require. Perhaps the leniency was originally a reaction to the novelty of bidding boxes; we didn't want to penalize players for mechanical difficulties with a relatively unfamiliar mode of bidding (there was presumably a significant delay between them becoming common in tournaments versus clubs). But now they're common everywhere, so there's little excuse for players not knowing how to use them properly, and we should expect better care.

[AlexJonson]

If I have understood RMB1, then his is a version of Law 25 I would agree with.

 

It should be my responsibility (IMO), barring immediate mechanical error correction, to look at the card I take/will take from the bidding box and make sure it is correct.

[jallerton]

I do not think so. For a start it is part of any training course.

 

What is said about Law 25A situations in these training courses?

[Zelandakh]

It's very rare that one makes a slip of the tongue and doesn't notice it immediate, e.g. "1 club - oops, I mean 1 diamond"

 

You say that and yet, as an Englishman living in Germany, I have problems sometimes saying Coeur (Hearts) instead of Karo (diamonds) or vice versa. Luckily this is less of a problem with bidding boxes and, so far, each time it has happened dummy has had no cards remaining in the incorrectly named suit!

 

On the subject at hand, I think I agree with RMB that this would be a good change and it could even be argued that not looking at the bidding card that one puts on the table as one does it is not paying sufficient attention to the game.

[bluejak]

Maybe I misunderstood aqua.

 

:ph34r:

 

As to the whole approach I think that once a call is made or a play designated it should not be changeable. But it would be a major change in thinking. What happens now is that because so many changes are allowed players expect to change everything. They play the ♥A, change their mind, and are shocked you do not allow the change.

[iviehoff]

So here is a proposed rewording of Law 25.

In that wording, if you really mean that the correction has to occur more or less immediately after the release of the call, then the "except" part of clause 1 is unnecessary and misleading. These exceptions can't occur (normally) without it already being too late (and if you are only talking about an immediate call out of turn by partner, then you ought to say so). So even to mention them as possible exceptions I think would be misleading. Clause 2 you do need, just, because a permissible correction and LHO's call may occur more or less simultaneously.

[barmar]

In that wording, if you really mean that the correction has to occur more or less immediately after the release of the call, then the "except" part of clause 1 is unnecessary and misleading. These exceptions can't occur (normally) without it already being too late

Didn't he acknowledge that when he wrote:

The exceptions remain for definiteness: it is not expected that they could apply because there would invariably have been time for a "pause for thought" to have elapsed.

Perhaps instead of saying "except", it should say "in particular", since these clauses reinforce the original statement, they aren't exceptions to it.

[jallerton]

I think the laws (that is, the current interpretation) try too hard to allow recovery from mistakes, in a way that players find inconsistent, and TDs operate inconsistently.

 

I think that "pause for thought", or the lack of, should start when the call is made (is released on the table). This would be the same as for spoken bidding: the only chance to realise what you had said (and to change it) was as you had said it. It would be a mistake to make a call without looking at what call you had actually put on the table, and if you did not look at the time the call was made then the mistaken call would be irrevocable. I think such an approach would be much more satisfactory and more uniformly applied.

 

So here is a proposed rewording of Law 25.

 

A.

1. A player may change his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought from the point the call was made. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.

 

Except:

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

b. If the auction ends before it reaches the players partner no change may occur after the end of the auction period (see Law 22).

 

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

 

B.

A change of call not permitted by A is treated as a call out of rotation, see Laws 28-32.

 

The exceptions remain for definiteness: it is not expected that they could apply because there would invariably have been time for a "pause for thought" to have elapsed.

 

It would be necessary to delete "if the offender has not previously called" and the footnote, from Law 31B.

 

As you say, it is not expected that the exceptions could apply, so perhaps the "Except:" after subsection 1 could be replaced with "Note:"

 

Alternatively, you could achieve much the same effect by sticking with the current law 25A, and asking the WBFLC to issue a revised interpretation saying that "without pause for thought" should be taken to mean "without pause for thought".

[Vampyr]

I think the laws (that is, the current interpretation) try too hard to allow recovery from mistakes,

 

I agree with you, but somehow not in this particular instance. Maybe this seems simpler than other situations and doesn't appear to have a downside.

 

I would be happy with your version, though, if it came in a package with improved and much more stringent laws relating to insufficient bids and revokes.

[lamford]

I think the laws (that is, the current interpretation) try too hard to allow recovery from mistakes, in a way that players find inconsistent, and TDs operate inconsistently.

I think the Laws are inconsistent; and too complicated. I would be draconian. If partner could have seen the bid as it exits the bidding box, it should stand, a bit like a played card. Insufficient bids can be changed but partner is silenced throughout (I recall a dBurn proposal that partner would not be silenced but the IB would just be UI; too complicated, but good in theory). The Lawmakers are fixated with trying to get a normal result, and they have produced laws that are difficult to apply.

[campboy]

The problem with forcing any call made to stand is that it is very common for the bid one step above the bid being taken out to stick to it, and the bidding-box regulations currently say that a call is made once removed from the bidding box with apparent intent. I think it is much better to allow this situation to be corrected than not, and I think it is much better if it can be dealt with without a TD call, as at present.

 

I would welcome Robin's proposed change. If the call made is genuinely not the call intended, I find it hard to believe that the player would not notice immediately anyway.

[bluejak]

Alternatively, you could achieve much the same effect by sticking with the current law 25A, and asking the WBFLC to issue a revised interpretation saying that "without pause for thought" should be taken to mean "without pause for thought".

Very clever. However, the reason for the WBFLC interpretation is that is what most people think it means once they have thought about it, assuming they are not overly pedantic. The point is that, apart from pedants who do not wish to apply Laws with sense, "without pause for thought" means "without pause for relevant thought". Pausing while you consider whether to have fish or meat for dinner is not really the point. Now, you cannot pause for relevant thought until you realise something is wrong. Thus their interpretation fits in with what most people believe the Law means once they have thought about it.

 

That does not mean that the Law is right, of course, just that your "solution" is the worst of evils.

 

:ph34r:

 

My own personal preference is to remove all Laws that allow changes, but make the rules for when a call is made follow the ACBL interpretation, which is roughly speaking the same as a played card for declarer.

[axman]

In a different topic, I suggested Law 25A should be interpreted so that a "pause for thought" starts when the call is made. This was contested, and I thought it had gone too off topic to continue there.

 

 

 

So, delete "Until his partner makes a call", if it unnecessary.

 

But I will not concede that any proposed re-interpretation of any law is wrong, because it would mean the original law could have been better phrased. Many of us believe many of the laws could well be better phrased, even with their current interpretaions.

 

 

It is imbecilic for law to give permission to take a do-over. For instance, if a player corrects his call the law ought to provide for what is to happen.

 

The business of inadvertency, being otherwise a matter of mind reading, should be directed toward the ethics of the player: in other words, if his call was not inadvertent he shouldn’t consider attempting to change his call.

 

A whole lot of people believe that the correct point of measuring for too much time having elapsed being the time when the play ‘says he noticed’ needs to be ‘the point in time when he first should have noticed’.

 

For instance, in voice bidding that point is when the words were uttered; for bidding boxes it is at least by the time the hand starts coming down towards the table, and certainly not after the bidding cards have been released; when an opponent commit a distraction coincident with bidding- after the smoke has cleared; when partner mentions that Wendy is particularly daring tonight- the same as when there was no distraction; when some one yells fire- after the smoke clears.

[jallerton]

I agree with you, but somehow not in this particular instance. Maybe this seems simpler than other situations and doesn't appear to have a downside.

 

I would be happy with your version, though, if it came in a package with improved and much more stringent laws relating to insufficient bids and revokes.

 

I think it was you, Stefanie, who observed on another thread some time ago that the current 'interpretation' can cause problems for the TD when a player claims his bid was unintended. The poor TD has to judge both whether the original call actually was unintended and when the player first realised that he had made the wrong call.

 

Furthermore, when the next player has already called over the unintended call, a UI minefield is created as this next player's call is unauthorised information to two players at the table.

 

The problem with forcing any call made to stand is that it is very common for the bid one step above the bid being taken out to stick to it, and the bidding-box regulations currently say that a call is made once removed from the bidding box with apparent intent. I think it is much better to allow this situation to be corrected than not, and I think it is much better if it can be dealt with without a TD call, as at present.

 

I would welcome Robin's proposed change. If the call made is genuinely not the call intended, I find it hard to believe that the player would not notice immediately anyway.

 

My own personal preference is to remove all Laws that allow changes, but make the rules for when a call is made follow the ACBL interpretation, which is roughly speaking the same as a played card for declarer.

 

You both raise a good point. The optimal wording of Law 25A should perhaps depend on wording of the bidding box regulations in force. That would in turn suggest that we should have standard bidding box procedures written into the Laws. I'm sure Nigel will agree here!

 

Very clever. However, the reason for the WBFLC interpretation is that is what most people think it means once they have thought about it, assuming they are not overly pedantic. The point is that, apart from pedants who do not wish to apply Laws with sense, "without pause for thought" means "without pause for relevant thought". Pausing while you consider whether to have fish or meat for dinner is not really the point. Now, you cannot pause for relevant thought until you realise something is wrong. Thus their interpretation fits in with what most people believe the Law means once they have thought about it.

 

I think you are confusing "what most people believe the Law means once they have thought about it" with "what some people think the Law ought to say once they have thought about it".

 

When a player pulls a batch of bidding cards out of the bidding box, it just common sense for the player to check immediately that the correct bidding cards have come out. If the player can't be bothered to check until ten seconds later because he is more interested in considering whether to have meat or fish for dinner, why on earth should the Laws (or any 'interpretations' thereof) permit the player to change his call at this late stage? If a late change is permitted, he has just wasted the other three players' time and mental energy.

[lamford]

The problem with forcing any call made to stand is that it is very common for the bid one step above the bid being taken out to stick to it <snip>

That is not a problem. They have to stick with the bid. They will be more careful next time. A snooker player whose tie brushes a ball concedes a foul, even though this was an obvious "mechanical" error. A golfer whose ball moves while he addresses it concedes a penalty, even if there was nothing he could have done about it. Why have special rules for mistake at bridge?