[jhenrikj]

North opens 2♣(forcing strong) south intends to bid 2♦ wich is the only allowed response in their system but bids 3♦ by mistake. North now says "What are you doing?" South looks down and sees 3♦ on the table, is he allowed to change his unintended call now according to 25A?

[blackshoe]

Yes, but I would severely reprimand North for his comment.

[jhenrikj]

 blackshoe, on 2011-March-20, 18:26, said:

Yes, but I would severely reprimand North for his comment.

So the fact that south has recieved UI because of north's comment does not disallow him to realise that he has taken the wrong bidding card out of the box? Without the comment he probably would have not.

[iviehoff]

 jhenrikj, on 2011-March-21, 02:29, said:

So the fact that south has recieved UI because of north's comment does not disallow him to realise that he has taken the wrong bidding card out of the box?

Correct. We may use UI for the purpose of technical compliance with the law, beyond the business of choosing our calls and plays. That technical compliance most commonly relates to giving the opponents the correct explanation (eg when answering as the the meaning of the response to your incorrectly explained Blackwood), but includes correcting irregularities such as correcting inadvertent bids.

As an aside, was this really a mispull? Did South take the 3D card out of the box because he thought he held the 2D card in his hand, or because temporarily mistakenly thought that 3D was the next bid above 2C? In the latter case he may not change his bid, and the director should be careful to ask the right questions to distinguish these situations.

But assuming South mispulled, nevertheless, as you identify, it does seem to be a rather unsatisfactory situation. North's behaviour is illegal, but advantageous to him - why should he comply with such a law? Whilst we might say that North's behaviour is in the same category as saying "having none" when partner doesn't follow suit, thus allowing partner to correct a revoke before it is established, the law explicitly allows us to do that, whereas it doesn't allow us to say "are you aware that is the bid that you put on the table" during the auction.

To make N comply with the law, we have to make it sufficiently unattractive for him to break it. This is a particularly grotesque case of inappropriate communication. If NS should know better, they should receive a disciplinary penalty now. At the very least, they should be told it is the kind of thing that will lead to disciplinary penalties very rapidly if they get any kind of record for it.

[jhenrikj]

I totally agree with iviehoff. North should receive a severe PP (changed from DP) (-50% or something like that).

The reason I asked the question is that several TD's in Sweden claims that Law 16 should apply making it impossible for south to realise his mistake before north bids. I personally can't accept that interpretation and it seems like at least I'm not alone

Thx

This post has been edited by jhenrikj: 2011-March-21, 09:16

[RMB1]

 jhenrikj, on 2011-March-21, 05:10, said:

The reason I asked the question is that several TD's in Sweden claims that Law 16 should apply making it impossible for south to realise his mistake before north bids.

The problem with this approach is that the unintended call may not be a logical alternative (as here). Despite the unauthorised information, there may be no logical alternative to making the intended call, so Law 16 does not help those who want to prevent the change.

[jhenrikj]

Then the next question arises which is perhaps more interesting.

We all agree that north has broken the rules by making his comment. Now we allow south to change his unintended call and the bidding goes 2C - 2D; 2NT - 3C(stayman); 3Sp - 4Sp. 4Sp making ten tricks. If north had not said anything and instead bid 3NT (before south realises his mistake) that would have ended the auction. 3NT making 9 tricks. Should we now correct the score according to 12A1 to 3NT instead of 4Sp because EW was damaged by north breaking the rules?

[blackshoe]

North's comment is an infraction of Law 73B1, but the laws provide no rectification for it. I suppose we might adjust under Law 12A1.

Disciplinary penalties are intended to be applied "in performing [the TD's] duty to maintain order and discipline". Unless this North has willfully disobeyed a prior instruction not to make such comments, I think a procedural penalty is more appropriate.

[jhenrikj]

 blackshoe, on 2011-March-21, 08:50, said:

North's comment is an infraction of Law 73B1, but the laws provide no rectification for it. I suppose we might adjust under Law 12A1.

Disciplinary penalties are intended to be applied "in performing [the TD's] duty to maintain order and discipline". Unless this North has willfully disobeyed a prior instruction not to make such comments, I think a procedural penalty is more appropriate.

Of course it should be a PP, not a DP. But the affect of his score still remains the same ;=)

[bluejak]

Possibly: in England and Wales standard DPs are twice the size of standard PPs. A second PP for the same offence is usually twice as big: a second DP is usually expulsion from the tournament. Not quite the same effect on the score!

[jhenrikj]

David, what do you think of the other two questions I've asked. First, does 25A still apply? and if NS get a beter score becuse of north's comment than they probably would have otherwise, can we use 12A1 to change the score?

[bluejak]

In my view it is permitted to use Law 25A to change an unintended call when in time even if partner has drawn your attention to it in some way and that is not treated as an infraction so no later adjustment is suitable.

I am not saying that the Laws or Regulations make this clear, just that this is the way authorities seem to be treating it. Better would be if the Regulations said so.

[richlp]

 bluejak, on 2011-March-21, 14:32, said:

In my view it is permitted to use Law 25A to change an unintended call when in time even if partner has drawn your attention to it in some way and that is not treated as an infraction so no later adjustment is suitable.

I am not saying that the Laws or Regulations make this clear, just that this is the way authorities seem to be treating it. Better would be if the Regulations said so.

Can you clarify for me please??????

My impression is that you can correct an unintended call as long as it is done immediately after recognizing what you have done.

So you reach into the bidding box and pull out 2♦ and place it on the table.

1. There's no alert (which is surprising) so you look down and notice the 3♦ card on the table. You stop the action immediately to indicate that you didn't intend to bid 3♦. Can this call be corrected since it was UI (the lack of an alert) that caused you to look?

2. LHO asks partner "What does 3♦ show?" You stop the action immediately to indicate that you didn't intend to bid 3♦. Can this call be corrected?

3. LHO asks partner "What does that show?" Partner says "It's systemically impossible" so you look down and notice the 3♦ card on the table. You stop the action immediately to indicate that you didn't intend to bid 3♦. Can this call be corrected?

Thank you

[jallerton]

 blackshoe, on 2011-March-21, 08:50, said:

North's comment is an infraction of Law 73B1, but the laws provide no rectification for it. I suppose we might adjust under Law 12A1.

It's not just a matter of "suppose we might". North has clearly breached Laws 73A1 and 73B1, and has gained an advantage thereby (unless South would have noticed anyway before North's call, which is far from certain).

South has clearly breached Law 73C.

Surely Law 12A1 is there for cases such as this.

[blackshoe]

If your 2♦ call was truly unintended, rather than just that you thought, however fleetingly, that 2♦ was the bid you wanted to make, then you can change it in all three of the cases you cite, rich. However, you do have to convince the TD that it was truly unintended.

[bluejak]

 jallerton, on 2011-March-21, 17:30, said:

It's not just a matter of "suppose we might". North has clearly breached Laws 73A1 and 73B1, and has gained an advantage thereby (unless South would have noticed anyway before North's call, which is far from certain).

South has clearly breached Law 73C.

Surely Law 12A1 is there for cases such as this.

The problem with telling the authorities that they are wrong is that you have to do it and convince them, not just advise other people not to follow what the authorities say. Certainly your "clearly" is a possible interpretation, but since it is not the interpretation that we are meant to follow I do not advise it.

The authorities allow players to correct unintended calls under Law 25A without reference to how the player discovers he has done something unintended. It is their view that the game is better this way. I am not saying I agree with that view or that it follows the Laws: I am saying we should follow it.

I strongly advise TDs and ACs to follow what the authorities have ruled and not use Law 12A1 in such cases.

[jallerton]

I am not telling the "authorities" anything. All I have done is to read the most important written statements issued by "authorities" in this regard, which are the Laws themselves.

Law 73A1 said:

LAW 73 - COMMUNICATION
A. Appropriate Communication between Partners
1. Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays.

Law 73B1 said:

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.

Unlike some Laws we could mention, these are written in unambiguous English and their meaning seems very clear to me.

Frankly, I am puzzled by the suggestion that the non-offending side is not entitled to rectification when they have been damaged by North's breach of Law and yet the breach is deemed serious enough to merit a procedural penalty.

Law73C said:

C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner
When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

Is North's remark authorised information? No.
Would South have realised his error before North's next call had North not made the remark? Maybe, maybe not.
How does South "carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information" as Law 73C says he "must"? By not changing his unintended call.


If there are some other Laws which override Laws 73A1, 73B1 and Law 73C then please enlighten us.

[gordontd]

 bluejak, on 2011-March-21, 19:16, said:

The problem with telling the authorities that they are wrong is that you have to do it and convince them, not just advise other people not to follow what the authorities say. Certainly your "clearly" is a possible interpretation, but since it is not the interpretation that we are meant to follow I do not advise it.

The authorities allow players to correct unintended calls under Law 25A without reference to how the player discovers he has done something unintended. It is their view that the game is better this way. I am not saying I agree with that view or that it follows the Laws: I am saying we should follow it.

I strongly advise TDs and ACs to follow what the authorities have ruled and not use Law 12A1 in such cases.

The problem I have is in finding these authorities' interpretations written down. I've had a look in the White Book and can't seem to find anything there. I know that's what we're taught in the EBU, but there was a lot of discussion about it at Brighton last year, in the context of a player who was awoken to his misbid by his partner's announcement, but chose not to make a L25A change. I have the impression there's a degree of uncertainty about this, and it could usefully be looked at again.

[pran]

 jallerton, on 2011-March-22, 01:40, said:

I am not telling the "authorities" anything. All I have done is to read the most important written statements issued by "authorities" in this regard, which are the Laws themselves.





Unlike some Laws we could mention, these are written in unambiguous English and their meaning seems very clear to me.

Frankly, I am puzzled by the suggestion that the non-offending side is not entitled to rectification when they have been damaged by North's breach of Law and yet the breach is deemed serious enough to merit a procedural penalty.



Is North's remark authorised information? No.
Would South have realised his error before North's next call had North not made the remark? Maybe, maybe not.
How does South "carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information" as Law 73C says he "must"? By not changing his unintended call.


If there are some other Laws which override Laws 73A1, 73B1 and Law 73C then please enlighten us.

AFAIK there is only one single law in the book that overrides these (and other) laws: Law 44C. And this law clearly does not apply in the situation.

[jhenrikj]

Jallerton, your approach results in some strange situations....

1NT - 2NT (unintended, intended call was 2♠). Now south, because of the lack of alert on 2NT (which of course not should be alerted), finds out he actually bid 2NT and want to change. By doing absolutely nothing wrong, north has now denied south to change his unintended call. This means that in every situation where an unintended call is alerted where the intended call should not have been or the other way around we can't change according to 25A. So, shortly 25A applies only when both the unintended call and the intended is either natural or artificial.

I can't find any support for that in the laws.

I think that we should allow the change, we use 12A1 if necessary (perhaps even giving a split score where EW gets the score that would probably be if north bids over 3D, we give NS the actual score at the table), and we give north a PP. This way it is only north's comment that is punished, we do not as well punish south for making a misspull as we do if we also force him to bid 3♦. North's comment is the only infraction and we should look at that separately not mixing it with the misspull.