change of call

[pran]

They're not equivalent situations. In the first case, North has broken the rules in a way that will improve his score; in the second he has followed the rules.

 

In both cases South is allowed to correct his bid, but in the first case we then penalise North for his infraction and adjust under Law 23.

His alert is as illegal as his question. It was not used to alert his opponents but to alert his partner. In either case you can claim that North communicated illegally with his partner and in either case the result is the same: South becomes aware of his unintended call and may legally correct it.

[gnasher]

His alert is as illegal as his question. It was not used to alert his opponents but to alert his partner. In either case you can claim that North communicated illegally with his partner and in either case the result is the same: South becomes aware of his unintended call and may legally correct it.

I was replying to a post where you implied that the alert was in accordance with the alerting regulations. Such an alert is, by definition, legal.

 

Consider these scenarios:

(1) North alerts, and the regulations say he should alert.

(2) North alerts, even though the regulations say he should not alert.

(3) North says something to indicate that he thinks South has misbid.

 

(1) is legal and is not subject to penalty or rectification. (2) and (3) are illegal, and are subject to penalty and rectification.

[Cyberyeti]

His alert is as illegal as his question. It was not used to alert his opponents but to alert his partner. In either case you can claim that North communicated illegally with his partner and in either case the result is the same: South becomes aware of his unintended call and may legally correct it.

 

If N alerts in the wrong jurisdiction (where bids above 3N should not be alerted) does it make any difference as regards penalising him ?

[blackshoe]

Different jurisdictions will have different alerting regulations. In the ACBL, for example, in no case does the regulation say "do not alert". It does say that some calls "do not require" an alert, but it also says "when in doubt, alert". So I don't think #2 above is an infraction in the ACBL. It may be elsewhere, of course.

[pran]

Different jurisdictions will have different alerting regulations. In the ACBL, for example, in no case does the regulation say "do not alert". It does say that some calls "do not require" an alert, but it also says "when in doubt, alert". So I don't think #2 above is an infraction in the ACBL. It may be elsewhere, of course.

The same in Norway.

 

A popular interpretation of ALERT is that "you might be interested in some more information on that call".

[Vampyr]

The same in Norway.

 

A popular interpretation of ALERT is that "you might be interested in some more information on that call".

 

Here it would be improper to alert bids (after the first round of the auction) and most doubles above 3NT. I don't think that this infraction would normally be subject to more than a warning, unless the alert was used to wake partner up to the fact that he might have made an inadvertent call.

 

This whole thing reminds me of something that happened recently. I put down a pass card, and was clearly going back to my bidding box to take out another bid. In the meantime, LHO took out a pass card at the speed of sound (in fact he didn't take the time to even put it on the table, but held it out in his hand). After a moment of confusion, I realised that I hadn't actually put down the stop card. Anyway I thought that it was sharp and arguably illegal for a player to do this -- take an exceptionally short time to call over a call that was probably unintended, in an attempt to reduce the time between my call and partner's, after which I could not change the call (and would likely not get redress since the original irregularity was mine).

[blackshoe]

Here it would be improper to alert bids (after the first round of the auction) and most doubles above 3NT. I don't think that this infraction would normally be subject to more than a warning, unless the alert was used happens to wake partner up to the fact that he might have made an inadvertent call.

 

This whole thing reminds me of something that happened recently. I put down a pass card, and was clearly going back to my bidding box to take out another bid. In the meantime, LHO took out a pass card at the speed of sound (in fact he didn't take the time to even put it on the table, but held it out in his hand). After a moment of confusion, I realised that I hadn't actually put down the stop card. Anyway I thought that it was sharp and arguably illegal for a player to do this -- take an exceptionally short time to call over a call that was probably unintended, in an attempt to reduce the time between my call and partner's, after which I could not change the call (and would likely not get redress since the original irregularity was mine).

FYP. B-)

 

As to the case in your second paragraph, follow the instapass on your left with an instacall for the director. That should stop partner in his tracks.

[Vampyr]

FYP. B-)

Sorry, I meant what I said in my post. If the alert was made in good faith (which it wouldn't be around here, as everyone knows about alerting above 3NT) then I am not sure what I would do; probably no penalty

As to the case in your second paragraph, follow the instapass on your left with an instacall for the director. That should stop partner in his tracks.

 

Quite, but as I said there was a moment of confusion on my part, and I think that this is inevitable when LHO is suddenly holding out a pass card when it is still your turn to bid.

[pran]

This whole thing reminds me of something that happened recently. I put down a pass card, and was clearly going back to my bidding box to take out another bid. In the meantime, LHO took out a pass card at the speed of sound (in fact he didn't take the time to even put it on the table, but held it out in his hand). After a moment of confusion, I realised that I hadn't actually put down the stop card. Anyway I thought that it was sharp and arguably illegal for a player to do this -- take an exceptionally short time to call over a call that was probably unintended, in an attempt to reduce the time between my call and partner's, after which I could not change the call (and would likely not get redress since the original irregularity was mine).

I have always admired the English for their consideration that Bridge is a game for Gentlemen (and Ladies), and I simply cannot believe that a Gentleman would behave like your LHO did?

[Vampyr]

I have always admired the English for their consideration that Bridge is a game for Gentlemen (and Ladies), and I simply cannot believe that a Gentleman would behave like your LHO did?

 

This particular player is a nasty piece of work.

[blackshoe]

This particular player is a nasty piece of work.

All the more reason to get the director involved at every opportunity, it seems to me.

[pran]

All the more reason to get the director involved at every opportunity, it seems to me.

Indeed.

 

And if I were the Director and got the event described as here I would rule that LHO had violated Law 74C7 and thereby upset the auction.

 

I would then (if technically possible) cancel both LHO's and partner's subsequent calls and let the player complete his intended bid.

 

Alternatively I would let the auction and play be completed and stand ready to awarding an assigned adjusted score based on the likely result had the player been allowed to rectify his pass under Law 25A.

[jallerton]

The recipient of information is not himself communicating,

 

If I say to you: "Stop, there's a car coming" and you react by stopping, then we have communicated and you have participated in the communication (whether or not you thank me for my warning).

 

so the misbidder is not committing an offence by seeing partner's alert.

 

Similarly, if North alerts South's call and South reacts to that alert, then North and South have communicated. That is explicity classified as being illegal under Laws 73A1 and 73B1

[jallerton]

Or Law 73. That would be the approach I would adopt without the WBFLC minute, but both the minute and accepted practice indicate that, whatever the Laws say, there is no rectification whatsoever for the gain from correcting a mechanical error discovered as a result of an alert or announcement. I fear you are flogging a dead horse with this issue!

 

I appreciate that you have great experience in flogging dead horses when it comes to bridge Laws! However...

 

Are you referring to the WBFLC minute in which the footnote to Law 25A was added? I understand that the context of this agenda item is that it had been pointed out to the WBFLC that the suggested practice of allowing a change of call under Law 25A when 'woken up' by partner's alert was a breach of Law 73C. However, the minute itself makes no reference to this anomaly (indeed it does not even mention Laws 73C/73A1/73B1). The fact that these Laws are not mentioned at all in the minute (and that the footnote was added to 25A with no reference to 73) implies that these Laws are not superseded or over-ridden and cannot be ignored.

 

The approach I suggested in post #8 above (allowing the player to change the call and then adjusting the score later if there has been damage) seems silly, but that is what the WBF Laws when combined with WBFLC minutes seem to require. However, I now see from the learned comments on this recent thread that type of situation is not even unique in the Alice in Wonderland world of WBFLC.

[lamford]

<sni> The fact that these Laws are not mentioned at all in the minute (and that the footnote was added to 25A with no reference to 73) implies that these Laws are not superseded or over-ridden and cannot be ignored.

 

The approach I suggested in post #8 above (allowing the player to change the call and then adjusting the score later if there has been damage) seems silly, but that is what the WBF Laws when combined with WBFLC minutes seem to require.

Whether or not the Laws require the TD to act as you recommend, I am pretty sure they don't in practice and there is no rectification. Perhaps one or two of our senior TDs can confirm this.

[Vampyr]

Whether or not the Laws require the TD to act as you recommend, I am pretty sure they don't in practice and there is no rectification.

 

I think that this is the intention of the WBFLC, and it is uncharctaristically sensible. I also do not agree with Jeffrey's assertion that "damage" to the opponents occurs when a truly inadvertent call is corrected to the one the player was trying to grab when his fingers missed.

 

The WBFLC have tried, in the latest version of the Laws, to create an environment in which an ordinary hand of bridge can be played after an irregularity. Mostly they have failed miserably, but not this time.

[RMB1]

Whether or not the Laws require the TD to act as you recommend, I am pretty sure they don't in practice and there is no rectification. Perhaps one or two of our senior TDs can confirm this.

 

I have never liked the footnote. I agree with a desire to play bridge and have auctions untainted by misbids/mispulls, but the footnote does not sit well with the approach of the laws to information from partner.

 

In the most recent unintended bid ruling, both the intended bid (4♠) and another bid (4♥) were visible. Nobody said anything but if they had I would rule the attempt to bid as an irregularity and any comment (by partner or opponents) was drawing attention to an irregularity.

 

I do not recall a case where there is "clean" mispull (no reason to suspect a mispull) and partner makes an unnecessary remark that wakes up the unintended bidder. I expect that we would allow the change of call with no further penalty. But I agree that the law requires some further adjustment or penalty.

[lamford]

The fact that these Laws are not mentioned at all in the minute (and that the footnote was added to 25A with no reference to 73) implies that these Laws are not superseded or over-ridden and cannot be ignored

There was one point I didn't think of when replying to this. The principle which the WBFLC follows is that a more specific Law takes precedence over a general Law, and I think that this includes a more specific minute, which overrides any other Laws with which it clashes.

[nige1]

I think that this is the intention of the WBFLC, and it is uncharctaristically sensible. I also do not agree with Jeffrey's assertion that "damage" to the opponents occurs when a truly inadvertent call is corrected to the one the player was trying to grab when his fingers missed. The WBFLC have tried, in the latest version of the Laws, to create an environment in which an ordinary hand of bridge can be played after an irregularity. Mostly they have failed miserably, but not this time.

Laws that allow the rectification of mechanical errors add unnecessary complexity. They also over-depend on the honesty and self-awareness of players and the mind-reading skills of directors. In my experience, most of opponents' "mechanical errors" appear to have been slips of the mind, but directors don't rule that way. Law-abiding, truthful players with insight into their motives, who are unwilling to rationalize, inevitably suffer disadvantage. It's hard to understand why rule-makers and directors seem so keen to abandon common-sense "fairness" in favour of rule-maker's so-called "equity".

 

OK, back to the topic. At Brighton, a few years ago, there was a similar case, involving an auction something like this

1N "12-14" (Pass) 2♦ "Hearts" (Pass)

2♥ (All pass)

 

At the end of play, declarer volunteered that he intended to open 1♠ and believed he had done so, until his partner woke him up with the range announcement. Without the announcement, declarer might not have recognised 2♦ as a transfer. The case was reported and discussed here. In this case, the irregularity (if there was one) was discovered only because declarer drew attention to his mistake.

[aguahombre]

At some point, IMHO, we should stop bitching about the complexity or confusion of our rules and those of other jurisdictions, and use these fora constructively to help each other play or direct Bridge under them.

 

I have been guilty of this, too; but whining isn't really a solution.

 

There is a technical writing process which would have made our lives easier in Bridge, but it wasn't followed and is possibly impractical to initiate now for any jurisdiction. It involves several elements:

 

1) Objective technical writer(s) who are not the policy makers, but whose product are subject to their approval.

 

2) A (loose-leaf) living "manual" for any set of laws or procedures, with pages dated.

 

3) A history file for each law or rule.

 

4) Organization of the documents in outline form (topics/subtopics).

 

5) Reference notes from one rule to another, and a designated expert thoroughly knowledgeable with the abilitly to correlate between laws and between documents (This person should be part of the approval process.)

 

6) On-line access to revisions and updates.

 

7) Periodic audits by entities to ensure the "manuals" within their sphere are up-to-date.

 

 

Agreed this will not happen in my lifetime or yours; but the result would not be a nightmare even though it might sound like one.

[campboy]

EBU regulations say that a call is made when removed from the bidding box with apparent intent. Several times a session at my table someone (often me) pulls bidding cards from the bidding box, realises while the cards are still in the air that they have missed the intended top one or that another one has stuck to it, and corrects. This should remain legal. So some mechanism for correcting inadvertent calls should be in place, but I do not see why it has to be in the laws at all. It should simply be part of the bidding box regulations, and the laws then just need to authorise RAs to make such a regulation.

[pran]

EBU regulations say that a call is made when removed from the bidding box with apparent intent. Several times a session at my table someone (often me) pulls bidding cards from the bidding box, realises while the cards are still in the air that they have missed the intended top one or that another one has stuck to it, and corrects. This should remain legal. So some mechanism for correcting inadvertent calls should be in place, but I do not see why it has to be in the laws at all. It should simply be part of the bidding box regulations, and the laws then just need to authorise RAs to make such a regulation.

Law 25A is there for historical reasons dating back to the time when every call was spoken at the table.

 

It protects the player who makes an unintended mistake in his speech, or as there has been some evolution in Bridge bidding Methods, to the player who accidentally pulls an unintended bid card from the bid Box. (I assume that similar "protection" exists where written auction is used?)

 

So yes, this Law has its obvious place in the Law book.

[jallerton]

I think that this is the intention of the WBFLC, and it is uncharctaristically sensible. I also do not agree with Jeffrey's assertion that "damage" to the opponents occurs when a truly inadvertent call is corrected to the one the player was trying to grab when his fingers missed.

 

No, that is not my assertion. In the vast majority of cases where a player pulls out the wrong bidding card, he/she notices immediately and corrects, or attempts to correct, the call straight away without the influence of any other player. Assuming that the local bidding box regulations deem the unintended call to have been made at all, this is exactly what Law 25A is there for.

 

The WBFLC have tried, in the latest version of the Laws, to create an environment in which an ordinary hand of bridge can be played after an irregularity. Mostly they have failed miserably, but not this time.

 

I disagree. Read literally and interpreted sensibly, Law 25A could be fine. The problems come when there is a delayed correction.