Written Bidding Problem

[Chris3875]

North opened the bidding 1S and South responded 4NT (Blackwood) - all passed, North having seen partner's bid as 1NT. Standing behind North it certainly looked like 1NT but I could see nothing in the Law Book that would allow North's pass to be changed. I did see that the ABF Regulations on written bidding say "The director is the sole judge and final arbiter in respect to the legibility of any written call. A player has no redress if he has made a call based on his own misunderstanding. If however, in the opinion of the director, a player has made a mistaken call as a result of an opponent's illegible handwriting, then Law 21B may be applied". I ruled that the auction would stand and the contract was 4NT by South. I did feel pretty mean about it though. Was the ruling correct?

[nige1]

North opened the bidding 1S and South responded 4NT (Blackwood) - all passed, North having seen partner's bid as 1NT. Standing behind North it certainly looked like 1NT but I could see nothing in the Law Book that would allow North's pass to be changed. I did see that the ABF Regulations on written bidding say "The director is the sole judge and final arbiter in respect to the legibility of any written call. A player has no redress if he has made a call based on his own misunderstanding. If however, in the opinion of the director, a player has made a mistaken call as a result of an opponent's illegible handwriting, then Law 21B may be applied". I ruled that the auction would stand and the contract was 4NT by South. I did feel pretty mean about it though. Was the ruling correct?

With spoken bidding, there's no redress if you mishear partner's call; with bidding-boxes, there's no redress if you misread partner's call; with written bidding, seemingly, you get redress for an opponent's bad handwriting but, reasonably, no redress for your own partner's scrawl. If your partner suffers from a manual dexterity problem (rather than just carelessness), or if you suffer from bad eye-sight, then kind opponents might ask the director to waive the rules. But, in those circumstances, would the director be allowed to do so?

[lamford]

With spoken bidding, there's no redress if you mishear partner's call; with bidding-boxes, there's no redress if you misread partner's call; with written bidding, seemingly you get redress for an opponent's bad handwriting but, reasonably, no redress for your own partner's scrawl. If your partner suffers from a manual dexterity problem (rather than just carelessness), or if you suffer from bad eye-sight, then kind opponents might ask the director to waive the rules. But, in those circumstances, would the director be allowed to do so?

I recall playing in the Singapore Team Championship with written bidding. Our elderly sponsor opened a weak 2, and Paul Hackett responded 5NT, but our sponsor read it as 3NT. That cost the event. I am amazed that written bidding is still in use.

[barmar]

I guess it's kind of like doctors and pharmacists -- the latter are expected to have experience reading the formers' scrawls. In a regular partnership, you'd get used to your partner's handwriting, or berate them to write more legibly. Although I can imagine that a pick-up partnership might run into more problems.

 

But I agree with lamford's amazement. As an alternative to spoken bidding, written seems superior, but what do they have against bidding boxes down under? Do the cards fall out because they're upside-down? :)

[bluejak]

Written bidding works quite well. Too many people seem to want other jurisdictions to follow their own.

 

You should not feel mean, Chris, because a player has got a bad result through a mistake. It happens all the time, but for some reason people seem to think they should recover from mistakes to do with the Laws. The would not ask for you to adjust if they forgot their own system, would they?