[nige1]

I too am prone to mechanical error but recent cases worry me e.g.

kruba, on Sep 17 2010, 10:22 AM, said:

North  ---    East  ----     South
1NT  -------       P    ---------   2S (alerted)
There was a pause after the 2S, but South says he wasn’t looking at the table, so didn't notice the 2S until after the alert.  South now says, I didn't mean to bid 2S, I meant to bid 2H (which would have been announced).  South was woken up by the alert.  West had not bid.  South says it was a mechanical error.  Is South allowed to change his bid to 2H?

Here the legal consensus is that information suggesting that you have made a mechanical error is authorised. It is even possible that 2♠ was the intended natural bid before the alert alarm-call .
I think the law should be changed so that you may not correct a mechanical error. Although, of course, players should be encouraged to ask the director to waive any penalty, when the offender is disabled. (They always do so, anyway, in my experience). This change would reduce the legal incentive to lie about slips of the hand rather than the mind.

[campboy]

If this were to happen, it would certainly also be necessary to change the (EBU) regulations on when a call is judged to be made.

[lamford]

nige1, on Sep 18 2010, 08:46 AM, said:

I think the law should be changed so that you may not correct a mechanical error.

Some bidding boxes are in such a state that mechanical errors are frequent - they are usually noticed immediately of course. Your proposed change will generally punish older members, particularly those with poor hand co-ordination, so I think it is a bad suggestion.

[Pict]

I think it is a good suggestion and that people (including me) would be more careful and look at the bidding card about to be placed.

An unnecessary complexity would be removed from the rules.

[JoAnneM]

All the director has to do is look at the hand and look at the convention card. He can certainly tell what the intended bid was. If it was a true mechanical error then allow the change.

As to the state of bidding boxes - new cards are available, and although pricey our club replaced ours by asking for small donations from the members. They sure appreciate the replacements.

[aguahombre]

JoAnneM, on Sep 20 2010, 11:47 AM, said:

All the director has to do is look at the hand and look at the convention card.  He can certainly tell what the intended bid was.  If it was a true mechanical error then allow the change.

I don't think this is true. A misbid or a brain fart would still be an intended call at the time it was made, rather than a mechanical error. Others have stated in the past how looking at the hand by TD should be avoided, anyways.

[mycroft]

JoAnne - as a frequent switcher between NT ranges (including within one partnership), and also between transfers/no transfers, I disagree strongly that you can tell, based on the hand and the CC, whether this was mechanical or mind-forget. You can tell what the correct bid should have been, but not what the player intended to call.

I play, with one partner:
1NT-2S to show spades NV
1NT-2H to show spades V, or in 4th seat
(1D)-1NT-2S to show spades (at either vul)
1C-1NT; 2C-2H to show spades (again, any time)

We have yet to mind-forget (except the third one, but that happens all the time, either way, with many players (cuebid Stayman vs Systems on)), but it will happen. And if it truly was a mind-forget, I will eat it with the same equanimity I have when I prove the squeeze and play the wrong card because I was thinking "heart's now useless" rather than "spades are good" and out comes the heart instead of the spade(*). If it was mechanical, I will try to be allowed to change it; if the TD decides that it's not clear that it was a mechanical error, and disallows the Law 25A change, so be it. It won't be the first, last, or worst time the TD's judgement was Wrong but Wreasonable.

I do find that by and large, players are honest about answering the question "was that the bid you were going for?" I also find that by and large, the players who aren't are known to the local directors (and some of my fellow local directors are common sights at NABCs, so the information is being spread there as well), and they have more trouble convincing me than the rest.

A similar issue comes up in less complicated system pairs with P-1M; 2D with 4-card M support (so, was it "tried to pull 2C and missed" or was it "forgot we don't play 2-way Reverse Drury"?) and 1C-1H; 1NT-2D (so, mispull for 2C or did the player forget that this is the one partnership he plays Checkback Stayman and not New Minor Forcing?)

Oh, and as for bid boxes that are prone to odd calls - I made three red-and-green doubles this weekend when static stuck the first double to the last pass. I found it as amusing as when I redoubled partner's Alertable call out of turn.

(*) Ooh, missing footnote. When I took my motorcycle safety course, they said, repeatedly, "think space". Partly meaning "where is your escape *now*?" should be always going through your mind, but also 'if you see a rock or a pothole in the road, and you think "rock" or "hole", you'll steer towards it automatically. If you "think space", you'll steer towards that instead'. Similarly in bridge as above.

This post has been edited by mycroft: 2010-September-21, 16:22

[bluejak]

JoAnneM, on Sep 20 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

All the director has to do is look at the hand and look at the convention card.  He can certainly tell what the intended bid was.  If it was a true mechanical error then allow the change.

So what do you do when he says he intended to bid 1♥ not 1♠ and his hand contains both hearts and spades? What do you do when he has four hearts and three clubs and says he intended to bid 1♥ not 1♣? Do you then ask him whether he plays five-card majors, telling the whole table he has precisely four hearts? Or do you look at the non-existent system card - see other thread!

No, it is strongly recommended not to look at the hand. You, the TD, will then clarify the contents of the hand to others if you do.