Re-interpretation of Law 25A

[bluejak]

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".

No, I am not.

[blackshoe]

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.

 

Some years ago, as I was cleaning up after a game, I passed two ladies conducting a post-mortem. What I heard as I went by was this: "I didn't come here to think, I came here to play bridge!" It's stuck with me because it's funny, and also because it accurately describes the way many people approach the game. I doubt it would be good for the game in the long wrong run if we told these players "sorry, that's not good enough".

 

As for wasting the other three players' time and energy, where do the laws say anyone should care about that?

Edited September 9, 2011 by blackshoe
change one word

[pran]

[...]

As for wasting the other three players' time and energy, where do the laws say anyone should care about that?

L74B4 ?

[StevenG]

Some years ago, as I was cleaning up after a game, I passed two ladies conducting a post-mortem. What I heard as I went by was this: "I didn't come here to think, I came here to play bridge!" It's stuck with me because it's funny, and also because it accurately describes the way many people approach the game. I doubt it would be good for the game in the long wrong if we told these players "sorry, that's not good enough".

 

If we forced those players out of the local clubs, they would all be down to two tables. The vast majority of duplicate bridge played is played for social reasons, not competitive, and the laws reflect that.

[StevenG]

deleted

[StevenG]

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?

 

You might change your mind on that when your eyesight starts ro fail and your motor control becomes unreliable.

[shintaro]

If we forced those players out of the local clubs, they would all be down to two tables. The vast majority of duplicate bridge played is played for social reasons, not competitive, and the laws reflect that.

 

 

mmmm Steven do you actually think the Law Makers or Proponents of Care about CLUB bridge ;)

[campboy]

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?

Mainly because this specific problem is caused by the use of bidding boxes, which are not fundamental to the game and so only worth using so long as they solve more problems than they cause.

 

Anyway, to continue your snooker analogy, why am I not permitted to ask the TD to clean my bidding cards to avoid this?

[Vampyr]

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.

 

 

 

If a change were made, we would definitely to change the regulation so that a call is not made until it is on the table.

 

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.

 

So if the bidding card one bid above your intended one is stuck to the bidding card of your intended bid, you would not allow a player to snatch it off the top? This seems a bit harsh.

[blackshoe]

L74B4 ?

 

Nope.

[jnichols]

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?

 

Snooker and Golf are primarily phosical (mechanical) games. There is thought involved in choice of shot and what club to use, but the primary aspect of these games is the ability to execute the mechanics of the game.

 

Bridge, on the other hand, is primary a mental game. The mechanics are Incedental.

 

That is a reason to have special rules for mechanical mistakes at Bridge.

[AlexJonson]

Snooker and Golf are primarily phosical (mechanical) games. There is thought involved in choice of shot and what club to use, but the primary aspect of these games is the ability to execute the mechanics of the game.

 

Bridge, on the other hand, is primary a mental game. The mechanics are Incedental.

 

That is a reason to have special rules for mechanical mistakes at Bridge.

 

I think you are right to dismiss the snooker and golf comparisons.

 

But I sometimes wonder if we flatter ourselves by introducing too much philosophy into a relatively straightforward card game.

[jallerton]

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.

 

As for wasting the other three players' time and energy, where do the laws say anyone should care about that?

 

In this thread we are discussing what the Laws should say, but if you are asking about the current Laws, I would suggest you consider Laws 74A1, 74A2, 74A3 and 74B1. Unless asking players to follow the letter and spirit of these Laws is considered to be "overly pedantic" of course!

[blackshoe]

I did consider those laws. I suppose if we follow the letter of law 74A2, winning a trick is illegal. But never mind. You guys continue what you're doing — I'm going to go take a nap.

[Finch]

If we forced those players out of the local clubs, they would all be down to two tables. The vast majority of duplicate bridge played is played for social reasons, not competitive, and the laws reflect that.

 

I am not convinced that having rules such as 25A (and the old part of 25 that allowed you to change a call and get av- and the new 27b and other similar ones) is good for 'social reasons' players either. The game would actually be easier to teach, and easier to play, if the rule was just 'if you play a card or make a call you cannot change it', or 'if you revoke you are given an automatic 10 trick penalty'. Everyone would understand that easily and there would be fewer TD calls and fewer arguments. Most players don't get upset when mechanical errors cause them to get a bad result; they get upset when there appears to be judgement or guesswork or prejudice involved in whether the error gets them a bad board or not.

 

p.s. I would also change the bidding box regulations to the ACBL ones to allow 'unsticking' of cards

 

p.p.s I play bridge very competitively. I still believe I do it for 'social reasons' i.e. I play with my friends because I enjoy it.

[paulg]

If we forced those players out of the local clubs, they would all be down to two tables. The vast majority of duplicate bridge played is played for social reasons, not competitive, and the laws reflect that.

mmmm Steven do you actually think the Law Makers or Proponents of Care about CLUB bridge ;)

I know this was tongue in cheek, but the ACBL and the EBU are two organisations that I often feel put club bridge on a par with, if not ahead of, tournament bridge when considering their regulations. My feeling is that the SBU is more focused on the tournament game in this regard.

 

On topic, I will say that the club players really hate, because they get confused, being able to change a bidding card but not a played card unless they are declarer and misspeak. Consistency across 'played cards' and 'bids made' would be easier for club players to handle.

[bluejak]

So if the bidding card one bid above your intended one is stuck to the bidding card of your intended bid, you would not allow a player to snatch it off the top? This seems a bit harsh.

Yeah, sure. And if you make the wrong response to Blackwood, realise, and wish to change it, it is a bit harsh not to allow you to change it. If you lead the fourth highest, realise you are playing third and lowest, and want to change it, it is a bit harsh not to allow it.

 

It is a ridiculous argument. The whole incredible approach to allowing mistakes to be changed comes from silly laws over the years. If the Laws said once you had done something you were stuck with it and players were used to that no-one would have a problem, and people would take more care. Everyone would take it as normal, even if they only played for social reasons, only played competitively, or if they, like the 95%+ majority, play for both.

[mjj29]

Yeah, sure. And if you make the wrong response to Blackwood, realise, and wish to change it, it is a bit harsh not to allow you to change it. If you lead the fourth highest, realise you are playing third and lowest, and want to change it, it is a bit harsh not to allow it.

There's a clear difference between 'making the wrong call/play' and 'trying to make the right call, but the equipment in use is shoddy'. As has been suggested above we would at least need to accompany such change with the EBU changing to the ACBL's bidding box regulations to give people at least some chance of making the call they want to (either that or we are holding clubs to a much higher standard of bidding box maintenance than they currently are).

[blackshoe]

And yet, David, you would allow a player who clearly stated in his claim statement that he would play on diamonds and then finesse in clubs to change that to "play on clubs and then finesse in diamonds" when he held ♦AQ and ♣AKQT. "He just made a bad clam statement: the claim was fine," you said. How is a claim statement different from the other actions you mentioned? Yes, I know it's not an actual call or play, that's not the point — it's an action taken by a player in the course of playing a hand, so why should it be treated differently? Note that I'm not saying it should be treated the same; I agreed with your ruling of 13 tricks to declarer.

[bluejak]

One of my comments was in a thread in Changing Laws & Regulations, one was not. One was based on what I think the Laws should be, one is based on what I think the Laws are. There's no comparison.

 

And I think the idea that the equipment is poor as a reason for having poor Laws is dreadful. Get the Laws right, and let the organisers get the equipment right. Anyway, I don't believe it really: I have played with some awful bidding boxes, and to me that is no excuse whatever for making a mistake. My mistakes should be my responsibility. Perhaps we live in a namby-pamby world. :)

[shyams]

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.

I think this is a very good suggestion.

 

However, the EBU bidding box regulation reads that a call is "considered to have been made when it has been removed from the bidding box". To address the issue of sticky bidding cards and other dexterity issues, Law 25A can be limited to an erroneous pull out of the box provided

either this clause -- the call is not yet "held face up, touching or nearly touching the table"

or this clause -- in is not yet "possible for his partner to see the face of the call"

or the first clause when playing with screens and the second without screens.

[Coelacanth]

Here's a real-life example from the other night which may help to muddy these waters further.

 

ACBL club game, bidding boxes in use, we had the following auction with South dealer:

 

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d1h1s2h2s3h4spp5hpp]133|100[/hv]

 

South, my partner on this auction, is in his late 70's and is prone to 'senior moments'. In particular, he is somewhat awkward in the handling of bidding cards. For example, he frequently replaces them in the bidding box upside down or out of sequence; I normally have to 'straighten out' his bidding box at least once per session.

 

In the passout chair in the given auction, he bid 5NT.

 

This might be termed an "obvious" mechanical error. Clearly there is no bridge hand which would bid only 2♠ and pass over 4♠ that could bid 5NT here. Once apprised of the mistake by the opponents, he made a 25A correction to 5♠, I made 5 and nobody gave the incident with the bid cards any further thought (until I made this post, obviously).

 

Some in this thread have advocated for an "all bids stand as made" approach, disallowing ANY change of an unintended call, even one as obviously inadvertent as the example given above.

 

I think this is too extreme a position. Certainly, if I were EW, I would not want to "earn" a top board by forcing my opponents to play 5NT on this auction. On the other hand, allowing a change on this auction forces TDs (who are not generally present at the table during the original auction) to make judgments about "was this call unintended?" and "was there a pause for thought?". Clearly some lines must be drawn somewhere, but I don't see how TDs can be expected to rule consistently given the current wording of L25.

 

Does it make sense to separate the "unintended" and "pause for thought" components of the law? So you might, for example, permit any change of an "obviously" unintended call regardless of any pause for thought. (This would require a perhaps-impossible-to-formulate objective definition of "obviously"). Or you might alternately allow any immediate change and not require any standard of intention.

 

One thing I do think is clear is that the Laws should incorporate strict and (very probably) different guidelines for bidding boxes vs spoken vs written bidding and/or screens vs not.

[barmar]

While we should be accomodating to people with physical infirmities, I think they also need to take some personal responsibility. Surely he can't be oblivious to the fact that he has a hard time handling bidding cards. So he should be extra careful about checking that the cards he's putting down are the ones he intended, he shouldn't wait for the opponents to inform him of his likely mistake.

 

BTW, at the risk of starting another tangent about terminology, I think most people associate "senior moment" with mental lapses, not problems of physical dexterity, despite the fact that aging tends to bring on both.

[aguahombre]

BTW, at the risk of starting another tangent about terminology, I think most people associate "senior moment" with mental lapses, not problems of physical dexterity, despite the fact that aging tends to bring on both.

I don't think anyone would argue that point. Senior moments, even when they happen to juniors, refer to non-correctable mistakes.

[Coelacanth]

I don't think anyone would argue that point. Senior moments, even when they happen to juniors, refer to non-correctable mistakes.

I should have been more clear...prone to 'senior moments' AND issues handling the bidding cards.