Asking about no "stop"

[VixTD]

I invited participants to send in questions for discussion at our club TD forum last Saturday. The guy who runs the improvers' game asked this:

 

1♣ - pass - 2♠

 

If responder fails to use the "stop" card, can the next player ask questions about the 2♠ bid to try to smoke out whether it was the intended call or not?

 

We had a little discussion, looked up a few passages in the rule book and resolved the matter without much difficulty.

 

I then asked whether it was OK for opener to ask partner whether, in light of the failure to use the "stop" card, they had intended to bid 2♠.

 

What do you think?

[pran]

I invited participants to send in questions for discussion at our club TD forum last Saturday. The guy who runs the improvers' game asked this:

 

1♣ - pass - 2♠

 

If responder fails to use the "stop" card, can the next player ask questions about the 2♠ bid to try to smoke out whether it was the intended call or not?

 

We had a little discussion, looked up a few passages in the rule book and resolved the matter without much difficulty.

 

I then asked whether it was OK for opener to ask partner whether, in light of the failure to use the "stop" card, they had intended to bid 2♠.

 

What do you think?

 

Opponents may ask opener and/or responder (almost) any question (related to the auction) they like, these questions and the corresponding answers are UI to opener and responder.

 

Opener should not ask any question to responder. If he does then both the fact that he asks and the question itself is UI to responder. If responder give any answer then his answer is UI to opener.

 

(Everything here is of course AI to opponents).

[helene_t]

No the question asked by a defender is ai to opener and responder.

[campboy]

I think asking partner "did you mean to bid that" or similar is illegal communication (73A). However, by the footnote to 25A, if such a question causes the player to realise he bid 2♠ (when he had thought he was bidding 1♠) then he is still permitted to change it. However², if illegal communication prompts a change of call which damages opponents, I think law 23 applies.

[aguahombre]

I think asking partner "did you mean to bid that" or similar is illegal communication (73A). However, by the footnote to 25A, if such a question causes the player to realise he bid 2♠ (when he had thought he was bidding 1♠) then he is still permitted to change it. However², if illegal communication prompts a change of call which damages opponents, I think law 23 applies.

I don't believe a 25A replacement of an unintended call is considered thereafter to be a "change of call" at all. It is as if the replacement was the only call.

[blackshoe]

No, it's not a change of call, technically, since the first call is deemed to have never happened. However, the question is still a violation of 73A, so if the opponents are damaged (as seems likely) then we adjust the score via Law 23 and Law 12.

[VixTD]

There's one law prohibiting communication between partners by means of "extraneous remarks" (73A), but another that allows any player to draw attention to an irregularity (9A1). What if an action ("You didn't use the stop card, partner!") does both?

[blackshoe]

What is "communication"? More precisely, what information does "you didn't use the stop card" convey?

[gordontd]

No, it's not a change of call, technically, since the first call is deemed to have never happened. However, the question is still a violation of 73A, so if the opponents are damaged (as seems likely) then we adjust the score via Law 23 and Law 12.

I'd be happy to fine the player for violating Law 73 but I don't think it right to adjust the score to negate something that is explicitly allowed by law.

[jallerton]

I'd be happy to fine the player for violating Law 73 but I don't think it right to adjust the score to negate something that is explicitly allowed by law.

 

The problem is that Opener's actions are explicitly disallowed by Law 73A and if Responder corrects he is explicitly violating the "must" Law 73C.

 

If you think Law 73 has been violated sufficiently to issue a procedural penalty, aren't you obliged to assess rectification for the same infraction?

[jallerton]

What is "communication"? More precisely, what information does "you didn't use the stop card" convey?

 

Communication includes talking! We don't really needs the Laws of bridge to tell us that, but since you ask:

 

A. Appropriate Communication between Partners

 

1. Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays.

 

2. Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick.

 

B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners

 

1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

 

Opener's actions are also a violation of Law 74C.

[blackshoe]

What I'm getting from this, particularly jallerton's last post, is that communicating to partner that the call he made may not be the one he intended is illegal. This in spite of the principle that if a player becomes aware that the call he made is not the one he intended he may immediately change it under Law 25A provided his partner has not yet called. Does everyone agree? If not, why not?

[aguahombre]

What I'm getting from this, particularly jallerton's last post, is that communicating to partner that the call he made may not be the one he intended is illegal. This in spite of the principle that if a player becomes aware that the call he made is not the one he intended he may immediately change it under Law 25A provided his partner has not yet called. Does everyone agree? If not, why not?

What I read, and believe, is not "in spite of...." but actually two separate things, with two separate outcomes.

 

1) Regardless of how a player becomes aware of his unintended call, he may correct it under Law 25A provided his partner has not yet called...so here, he could change it if the finger-fumble had actually occurred. This is not a "principle"; it is the law.

 

2) The illegal communication still existed and is subject to possible PP --- but not to a score or contract adjustment. 73F is the section which allows score adjustment for violations of the L73 proprieties; but, 73F does not apply to the instant case.

[blackshoe]

This is not a "principle"; it is the law.

 

2) The illegal communication still existed and is subject to possible PP --- but not to a score or contract adjustment. 73F is the section which allows score adjustment for violations of the L73 proprieties; but, 73F does not apply to the instant case.

I'm not sure the distinction between principle and law is meaningful in this case. And I don't know why you put "principle" in quotes.

 

That was my original assessment. I think. B-)

[pran]

I am too lazy to look up and verify my memory, but the way I remember matters on Law 25A: 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 pause (or lack of pause) is to be considered from the moment he becomes aware of his mistake, and how he became aware of it is irrelevant.

 

So even if he became aware of his mistake from a violation of laws (for instance committed by his partner) Law 25A may still be applicable.

[blackshoe]

Yeah, but the OS (so called because the comment is an offense) should not gain from it.

[pran]

Yeah, but the OS (so called because the comment is an offense) should not gain from it.

So what is the gain?

 

Or more specific: After allowing a Law 25A correction what is the damage to opponents as cause for a Law 12A1 adjusted score?

 

If anything I believe the Director is limited to imposing a PP for the offense.

[blackshoe]

So what is the gain?

 

Or more specific: After allowing a Law 25A correction what is the damage to opponents as cause for a Law 12A1 adjusted score?

 

If anything I believe the Director is limited to imposing a PP for the offense.

The offense was the comment. The gain was, presumably, getting to the right contract. Or not getting to the wrong one. Like you, though, I don't see a path to score adjustment, so a PP looks like the only possibility. 73B1 uses "shall not", so a PP should be issued "more often than not".

[campboy]

What I'm getting from this, particularly jallerton's last post, is that communicating to partner that the call he made may not be the one he intended is illegal. This in spite of the principle that if a player becomes aware that the call he made is not the one he intended he may immediately change it under Law 25A provided his partner has not yet called. Does everyone agree? If not, why not?

Well, communicating with partner by means of extraneous comments is illegal. An alert, or an answer to an opponent's question, may well wake partner up to the fact that he made an unintended call, and allow him to correct it, but that is perfectly legal.

 

Of course if a player illegally communicates to partner that he made an unintended call, and partner corrects, the correction itself is perfectly legal. But the communication is still illegal, and may have damaged opponents, so I think we can adjust to what would have happened if the communication had not occurred (and that may include some chance that the player would have woken up anyway).

 

If, here, a 2♠ response would be alertable, I would not adjust even if partner said "did you mean to bid 2♠?", since had he correctly said nothing but alerted the player would still have woken up, so the communication did not damage opponents.

[gordontd]

The problem is that Opener's actions are explicitly disallowed by Law 73A and if Responder corrects he is explicitly violating the "must" Law 73C.

 

If you think Law 73 has been violated sufficiently to issue a procedural penalty, aren't you obliged to assess rectification for the same infraction?

I think the footnote to Law 25A tells us that Law 73C does not apply to this one situation. Certainly that's why the footnote was issued.

[blackshoe]

"Footnote?" I thought to myself. "What footnote?" So I looked up the law. No footnote. That was the ACBL version. So I looked in the WBF version. No footnote. So I looked in the white book. Aha! Apparently there was a WBFLC minute from 2011 that added this footnote: ‘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.’ Fair enough, but there's still no footnote in the ACBL version of the laws.

 

Either way, it seems to me there's still been a violation of 73C, and that can't go unresolved. Violations of 73C are, IMO, serious enough to issue a PP absent some strongly mitigating circumstance ("should draw a PP more often than not" says the law). The laws do not, however, provide for score adjustments just because PPs are issued.

 

Does it logically follow from this footnote that the apparent violation of 73C in this case is not a violation at all? I don't think so. Be happy to be shown a valid logic chain that proves me wrong.

[barmar]

"Footnote?" I thought to myself. "What footnote?" So I looked up the law. No footnote. That was the ACBL version. So I looked in the WBF version. No footnote. So I looked in the white book. Aha! Apparently there was a WBFLC minute from 2011 that added this footnote: ‘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.’ Fair enough, but there's still no footnote in the ACBL version of the laws.

I see the footnote in the HTML version of the WBF laws: http://158.255.45.213/departments/laws/internationalcode/Law25.asp

 

but not the PDF: http://www.worldbridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/laws/2007lawscomplete.pdf

[blackshoe]

Ah. Thanks, Barry. I was indeed looking at the pdf. One of several I seem to have accumulated. :-)

 

I'm guessing the ACBL would say the footnote doesn't apply here. Or maybe not, but I don't think there's anything official adding it to the ACBL version.

[jallerton]

The offense was the comment. The gain was, presumably, getting to the right contract. Or not getting to the wrong one. Like you, though, I don't see a path to score adjustment, so a PP looks like the only possibility. 73B1 uses "shall not", so a PP should be issued "more often than not".

 

The path to score adjustment was succinctly explained in Campboy's post #4. If the TD finds that the conditions are met to permit a change of unintended call under Law 25A, the 2♠ bidder is permitted to change to his originally intended call. The auction continues and the hand is played out. Now the TD returns to the table at the end of the hand to consider whether Opener gained advantage through his illegal communication. If he did, the TD can and should adjust the score: either Law 23 or Law 12A1 tells the TD that he should adjust the score if the illegal commuication has caused damage; Law 12C tells the TD how to adjust in such circumstances.

[RMB1]

The path to score adjustment was succinctly explained in Campboy's post #4. If the TD finds that the conditions are met to permit a change of unintended call under Law 25A, the 2♠ bidder is permitted to change to his originally intended call. The auction continues and the hand is played out. Now the TD returns to the table at the end of the hand to consider whether Opener gained advantage through his illegal communication. If he did, the TD can and should adjust the score: either Law 23 or Law 12A1 tells the TD that he should adjust the score if the illegal commuication has caused damage; Law 12C tells the TD how to adjust in such circumstances.

 

A similar case was considered by EBU L&E committee (2014-10-01): a player bid 6NT intending 6♠, and partner expressed surprise by a comment, and the TD allowed the bid to be corrected. The committee thought that there should have been procedural penalty for the illegal comment but that otherwise the ruling [allowing the correction and no subsequent adjustment] was correct.