Responder spills the beans

[aguahombre]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1h1sd]133|100[/hv]

 

The Double by South is out of the box and halfway to the table -- on this planet it sure looks like a call was made. However, South stops in mid action, continuing to hold the red card in her hand, and calls the TD.

 

She then explains to the table and to the TD that she did not see partner's 1♥ opening bid. Let's assume Opener is smart enough to know South has a takeout Double of 1S, rather than a negative double of a 1S overcall.

 

What should the TD do, and under what law?

 

The TD actually proceeded under laws pertaining to change of call; however, only one call was made by Responder followed by a lot of UI to opener.

[nige1]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1h1sd]133|100[/hv] The Double by South is out of the box and halfway to the table -- on this planet it sure looks like a call was made. However, South stops in mid action, continuing to hold the red card in her hand, and calls the TD.She then explains to the table and to the TD that she did not see partner's 1♥ opening bid. Let's assume Opener is smart enough to know South has a takeout Double of 1S, rather than a negative double of a 1S overcall.What should the TD do, and under what law?The TD actually proceeded under laws pertaining to change of call; however, only one call was made by Responder followed by a lot of UI to opener.

South's double is a slip of the mind not of the hand so she shouldn't be allowed to change it. Her partner should avoid logical alternatives suggested by the UI from her attempt to change it.

[blackshoe]

"A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made."

 

From your description, it doesn't sound to me like this call was made before responder called the director, so it seems to me a "change of call" ruling is director error. It would also be an error if the call had been made, and the responder decided to let it stand.

 

I think what the director should have done is to rule that no call has been made (the quoted regulation), instruct responder to put her bidding cards back in the box, start over, and make whatever call she likes. Then tell opener that he has UI from responder's comments (Law 16), and that he must carefully avoid taking advantage of any inferences therefrom (Law 73C). And then the auction and play proceeds. Opponents should be told to call the director at the end of play (Law 16). If it then appears that UI was used, and gave the offending side an advantage, the TD should adjust the score (Law 16, Law 12).

[aguahombre]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1h1sd]133|100[/hv]

 

The Double by South is out of the box and halfway to the table -- on this planet it sure looks like a call was made. However, South stops in mid action, continuing to hold the red card in her hand, and calls the TD.

 

 

"A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made."

 

From your description, it doesn't sound to me like this call was made before responder called the director

 

That is very interesting. I would have thought that a bid card with a distinctive color and shape being held halfway between the box (which is on the table) and the place where calls are supposed to be put would be near enough to constitute a call made.

 

So, allow me to make a Lamford change to the actual facts. Responder places the red card on the table in the proper place and says, "oh-*****", covers up the red card with her hand and calls the TD --- the rest of what is said when the TD arrives will be the same.

[Trinidad]

Regardless of whether the double card was above or on the table: It is clear that South intended to call double at the point where he pulled the card. So double is the call that is made and it cannot be changed. In addition, of course, South's remark is UI to North and AI to EW.

 

Rik

[pran]

Regardless of whether the double card was above or on the table: It is clear that South intended to call double at the point where he pulled the card. So double is the call that is made and it cannot be changed. In addition, of course, South's remark is UI to North and AI to EW.

 

Rik

Most jurisdictions have regulations on the use of bid boxes and such regulations define the precise moment when a call is made.

 

Provided the regulation quoted by blackshoe applies in the region where this incident took place his comment is very accurate and to the point.

 

(As far as I know there are regions where a call is considered made already at the moment the bid card has been removed from the box. In such a region this double would have been considered made.)

[campboy]

Most jurisdictions have regulations on the use of bid boxes and such regulations define the precise moment when a call is made.

 

Provided the regulation quoted by blackshoe applies in the region where this incident took place his comment is very accurate and to the point.

 

(As far as I know there are regions where a call is considered made already at the moment the bid card has been removed from the box. In such a region this double would have been considered made.)

Yes, Blackshoe's quote is from the ACBL bidding box regulations, so his ruling is correct. In the EBU the equivalent regulation reads "A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent", so the ruling would be different.

[gordontd]

That is very interesting. I would have thought that a bid card with a distinctive color and shape being held halfway between the box (which is on the table) and the place where calls are supposed to be put would be near enough to constitute a call made.

 

So, allow me to make a Lamford change to the actual facts. Responder places the red card on the table in the proper place and says, "oh-*****", covers up the red card with her hand and calls the TD --- the rest of what is said when the TD arrives will be the same.

The difference you have made to the facts is the difference between the call having been made or not having been made (according to ACBL regulations, which are different from many other places).

 

[edit] So to spell it out further, in your scenario the call would have been made and would not be unintended within the meaning of the law, so the player would be stuck with it and their partner would have UI to avoid taking advantage of.

Edited June 10, 2015 by gordontd

[helene_t]

(As far as I know there are regions where a call is considered made already at the moment the bid card has been removed from the box. In such a region this double would have been considered made.)

Yes that is the case in the Netherlands.

[Lanor Fow]

As a result the EBU sees a lot more law 25a changes than the abcl, albeit most of them without a director call. I've often thought that if 25a were removed as has been suggested on this forum before, the EBU regulations would have to change to be more similiar to the ABCL (not that I'd support removing 25s).

 

On the amended scenario, this doesn't fall under 25a as the intended bid was 1h. I wouldn't even call it a slip of the mind, as it seems to be just not paying enough attention (I won't give a PP for that :) ). The call stands and all the intention behind it is UI to their partner. If they attempted to change the call before calling the director then this would be covered under 25b, whereby LHO can accept the attempted change, otherwise the original call stands with the attempted change (and reasoning behind it) being unauthorised to partner and authorised to NOS.

[blackshoe]

Regardless of whether the double card was above or on the table: It is clear that South intended to call double at the point where he pulled the card. So double is the call that is made and it cannot be changed. In addition, of course, South's remark is UI to North and AI to EW.

I do not think this ruling is consistent with ACBL regulations. It may be consistent with Dutch regulations, or English regulations, or any other jurisdiction's regulations, but that is irrelevant. In particular, south's intent is not relevant, nor is whether any other player saw which bid card it was.

 

On the amended scenario, this doesn't fall under 25a as the intended bid was 1h.

It was? How do you know that?

 

So, allow me to make a Lamford change to the actual facts. Responder places the red card on the table in the proper place and says, "oh-*****", covers up the red card with her hand and calls the TD --- the rest of what is said when the TD arrives will be the same.

The only difference here is that the call has been made and was not unintended, so cannot be changed (Law 25).

[lamford]

The Double by South is out of the box and halfway to the table -- on this planet it sure looks like a call was made.

We assume that the TD ruled that it was "maintained in such a position to indicate a call was made" and the TD is responsible for deciding on the facts. I have seen lazy people raising 1NT to 3NT with the responder's bid barely out of the box. It does seem, from the OP, that the call was made and it is a simple UI case. It would be nice to see the whole hand, and if the TD allowed a change of call that would seem to be an error.

[gordontd]

We assume that the TD ruled that it was "maintained in such a position to indicate a call was made" and the TD is responsible for deciding on the facts. I have seen lazy people raising 1NT to 3NT with the responder's bid barely out of the box. It does seem, from the OP, that the call was made and it is a simple UI case. It would be nice to see the whole hand, and if the TD allowed a change of call that would seem to be an error.

It doesn't seem to me from the description and the regulations in force that the call was made.

[aguahombre]

With the actual South hand:

[hv=pc=n&s=s94hkqj5dj75ck974]133|100[/hv]

 

The final contract would likely have been the same. North would not get a chance to use UI.

 

Holding a takeout double, but only an invitational raise of hearts, and knowing that North has UI, South would just blast to 4H (immediately if the change of call were allowed, or on the next round if the Double were allowed).

 

4♥ is unmakeable, but made.

 

After a negative double, Responder's 3H bid at her next turn DNE for that pair, so there would be nothing but UI for North.

[Lanor Fow]

 

 

It was? How do you know that?

 

 

 

Apologies Blackshoe, when I said 1H I meant double. Can i get a law25a correction for the mistake in the post? :)

[blackshoe]

Apologies Blackshoe, when I said 1H I meant double. Can i get a law25a correction for the mistake in the post? :)

Okay, but your partner has UI. B-)

[Vampyr]

It doesn't seem to me from the description and the regulations in force that the call was made.

 

Quite. The OP properly noted the jurisdiction, but any number of people have ignored it.

 

It is interesting, though, that the ACBL's regulation in this scenario seems to be unique.

[barmar]

It is interesting, though, that the ACBL's regulation in this scenario seems to be unique.

Interesting? Perhaps. Surprising? Less so.

[aguahombre]

Quite. The OP properly noted the jurisdiction, but any number of people have ignored it.

Yes, in self contradiction (I might add) with the attitude some people take when ACBL members have the temerity to interject their views on EBU regulations.

 

However, as the OP here, I find the differences expressed by posters from other jurisdictions interesting and enlightening.

[mycroft]

Just a small nit - which I'm sure everyone is assuming already.

 

"A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made."

 

I think what the director should have done...instruct responder...make whatever call she likes. Then tell opener that he has UI from responder's comments (Law 16)...

and actions.

 

The fact that it is reasonably obvious that partner was planning on doubling the auction she thought she was in is UI, as is any added context this gives the comments.

 

The ACBL wanted to make the transition to bidding boxes easy, comfortable, and generous to mistakes, to decrease the chance of "they changed it, now it sucks". My personal belief is that the time for coddling "people unfamiliar with bidding boxes" is long gone and this regulation should be looked at for potential adjustment (perhaps to the way the ROW does it?).

 

My personal fear is the same one I have with overhauling the GCC; that once people go there, many things will change, including some I consider highly retrograde.

 

[disclaimer]I may occasionally work for the ACBL. I never speak for it.[/disclaimer]