Unintended call?

[VixTD]

To those who claim that an unintended call cannot be made from a different section of the bidding box (I don't agree), consider the following that happened to me last week:

 

We had the unopposed auction:

 

1♥ - 2♦

2♠ - 3NT

3NT

 

When I made the second 3NT bid of the auction, I was musing over whether 3NT or 4♥ was likely to be the best contract on the deal, but whichever it was we were going to play in 3NT, so I absent-mindedly put the 3NT card on the table rather than the pass card.

 

Do you think this counts as an unintended call and should be ruled under law 25A, or do you think the TD should go through the rigmarole of applying law 27?

[jnichols]

To those who claim that an unintended call cannot be made from a different section of the bidding box (I don't agree), consider the following that happened to me last week:

 

We had the unopposed auction:

 

1♥ - 2♦

2♠ - 3NT

3NT

 

When I made the second 3NT bid of the auction, I was musing over whether 3NT or 4♥ was likely to be the best contract on the deal, but whichever it was we were going to play in 3NT, so I absent-mindedly put the 3NT card on the table rather than the pass card.

 

Do you think this counts as an unintended call and should be ruled under law 25A, or do you think the TD should go through the rigmarole of applying law 27?

 

Your intention was to play in 3NT and you selected the 3NT bid. Law 25A does not apply.

 

Absent-mindedly is not the same as unintended.

[weejonnie]

Once you use the words 'absent-minded' it is clear that the call isn't unintended. To wit:-

 

"A change of call may be allowed because of a mechanical error or a slip of the tongue, but not because of a loss of concentration regarding the intent of the action."

 

Presumably when the TD goes through the 'rigmarole' of Law 27 you end up in 3NT anyway. If I were an opponent, however, I would accept the call, just in case your partner tries to read something into it.

[nige1]

LNichols and WeeJonnie seem to be right in law. Nowadays,however, self-damaging admissions (e.g. "absentmindedly") are rare and directors almost always rule "inadvertent". This law is unnecessary and it encourages and rewards rationalization and prevarication, like many other modern Bridge rules..

[barmar]

LNichols and WeeJonnie seem to be right in law. Nowadays,however, self-damaging admissions (e.g. "absentmindedly") are rare and directors almost always rule "inadvertent". This law is unnecessary and it encourages and rewards rationalization and prevarication, like many other modern Bridge rules..

Are you ever going to stop beating that dead horse? Every law that involves intent and requires judging the truthfulness of the player rewards players who are good at convincing the TD. The Laws are not designed to prevent cheating, or even make it difficult. They're intended as the rules for honorable players. Cheating is handled at the organizational level, not here.

[nige1]

Knacker's yard :) Some laws need subjective judgement but why not drop or amend rules that encourage/reward infraction but add no discernible value. Under current rules, for example, the livelihood of a professional Bridge-player can depend on his willingness to "rationalize".

[VixTD]

Once you use the words 'absent-minded' it is clear that the call isn't unintended.

I disagree. I wasn't intending to make a call at all when I bid 3NT, not even pass. I was just thinking to myself that we would be playing the contract in 3NT.

[RMB1]

If there was no intended call then Law 25A1 does not apply.

[blackshoe]

So which law applies when a player makes a call at his turn when he didn't intend to make any call at all?

[pran]

So which law applies when a player makes a call at his turn when he didn't intend to make any call at all?

I would assume that his intention was to PASS?

(He is supposed to do something at his turn to call while the auction has not ended)

[Vampyr]

I disagree. I wasn't intending to make a call at all when I bid 3NT, not even pass. I was just thinking to myself that we would be playing the contract in 3NT.

 

You think with your mind, not with your hand. You are defining "intentional" incorrectly.

[StevenG]

You think with your mind, not with your hand. You are defining "intentional" incorrectly.

Why then does the law allow a "slip of the tongue"? There are equivalent situations with bidding boxes which cannot be corrected.

[barmar]

Why then does the law allow a "slip of the tongue"? There are equivalent situations with bidding boxes which cannot be corrected.

"slip of the tongue" is supposed to be the bridge equivalent of a malapropism or Freudian slip. You're thinking one thing, but somehow something else comes out of your mouth.

 

I'm not sure how you're really supposed to convince the TD of this, since there's such a fuzzy line between this and loss of concentration. Like when partner responds to your Blackwood, so you decide you're going to sign off at the cheapest level, but mistakenly pass instead of correcting to your suit.

[Vampyr]

"slip of the tongue" is supposed to be the bridge equivalent of a malapropism or Freudian slip. You're thinking one thing, but somehow something else comes out of your mouth.

 

I'm not sure how you're really supposed to convince the TD of this, since there's such a fuzzy line between this and loss of concentration. Like when partner responds to your Blackwood, so you decide you're going to sign off at the cheapest level, but mistakenly pass instead of correcting to your suit.

 

Well, that particular error is very obviously a mental lapse.

[RMB1]

So which law applies when a player makes a call at his turn when he didn't intend to make any call at all?

The law or regulation that defines when a call is made.

 

To others at the table VixTD's 3NT bid would appear to be the call at that turn and this call is made, according to EBU bidding box regulations.

[blackshoe]

I would assume that his intention was to PASS?

(He is supposed to do something at his turn to call while the auction has not ended)

He said he was still considering his options. Apparently his hand reached out and put a bid on the table of its own accord. B-)

 

The argument seems to be that he can't change this call under 25A because there is no intended call to which to change it. Not sure I buy that argument. :blink:

[gordontd]

He said he was still considering his options. Apparently his hand reached out and put a bid on the table of its own accord. B-)

 

The argument seems to be that he can't change this call under 25A because there is no intended call to which to change it. Not sure I buy that argument. :blink:

It is what the law says if you read it carefully.

[blackshoe]

It is what the law says if you read it carefully.

Okay. So which law applies to the 3NT bid which magically appeared on the table? 25B? B-)

[gordontd]

Okay. So which law applies to the 3NT bid which magically appeared on the table? 25B? B-)

No , there was no substituted call so 25B does not apply. It seems like a routine L27 to me.

 

In this instance it won’t matter much unless he would have liked to change it to 4H.

[pran]

No , there was no substituted call so 25B does not apply. It seems like a routine L27 to me.

 

In this instance it won’t matter much unless he would have liked to change it to 4H.

Sure it is Law 27.

But it may change to Law 25A if the offender (during the application of Law 27) expresses that his intention was to PASS.

And nothing prevents him from changing his insufficient 3NT bid to PASS, which in fact here (probably) satisfies the conditions for being a comparable call!

[blackshoe]

Sure it is Law 27.

But it may change to Law 25A if the offender (during the application of Law 27) expresses that his intention was to PASS.

And nothing prevents him from changing his insufficient 3NT bid to PASS, which in fact here (probably) satisfies the conditions for being a comparable call!

Well, he's already said he had no intended call, that he was still considering his options. Are you going to let him change his mind? What if he wants to bid instead of pass?

[pran]

Well, he's already said he had no intended call, that he was still considering his options. Are you going to let him change his mind? What if he wants to bid instead of pass?

No.

The question was "which law applies", and the answer to that is obviously Law 27.

 

Then there is a question (to which I gave my considerations) on how to apply Law 27 in this situation.

[Vampyr]

Sure it is Law 27.

But it may change to Law 25A if the offender (during the application of Law 27) expresses that his intention was to PASS.

 

You can't really fish out a 3NT bid when your intention was to take a pass out of the other part of the bidding box.

[pran]

You can't really fish out a 3NT bid when your intention was to take a pass out of the other part of the bidding box.

If the intention is to end the auction in a 3NT contract then the 3NT bid (insufficient over partner's 3NT bid) and a replacing PASS certainly appear "comparable" to me?

[WellSpyder]

.. nothing prevents him from changing his insufficient 3NT bid to PASS, which in fact here (probably) satisfies the conditions for being a comparable call!

Yes, I agree PASS probably satisfies the requirements for a comparable call. But LHO could certainly prevent him from making this change if he accepted the 3NT call!