[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]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-08, 09:24, said:

"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://158.255.45.21...lcode/Law25.asp

but not the PDF: http://www.worldbrid...awscomplete.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]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-06, 19:08, said:

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]

 jallerton, on 2014-December-08, 16:44, said:

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.

[blackshoe]

There seems to be a difference of opinion as to the correct ruling here.

[Cascade]

I have seen a similar situation although it related to the play rather than the bidding. Where a player illegally communicated with his partner by asking to see the previous trick when the trick had already been quit. Despite my protestations both opponents turned their cards face up. As a result of which one opponent discovered that he had revoked. But now since it was not established he corrected without penalty.

The director, at a national event, refused to enforce any penalty for the illegal communication and showing of a card to a trick that had been quit.

[blackshoe]

 Cascade, on 2014-December-08, 20:53, said:

I have seen a similar situation although it related to the play rather than the bidding. Where a player illegally communicated with his partner by asking to see the previous trick when the trick had already been quit. Despite my protestations both opponents turned their cards face up. As a result of which one opponent discovered that he had revoked. But now since it was not established he corrected without penalty.

The director, at a national event, refused to enforce any penalty for the illegal communication and showing of a card to a trick that had been quit.

This is directorial malpractice. Was there an appeal?

[Cascade]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-08, 22:14, said:

This is directorial malpractice. Was there an appeal?

No just the usual crap. Didn't think this one was worth pursuing because it was just an overtrick at IMPs. This was from one of the more respected directors. I am used to the abuse.

[blackshoe]

I wouldn't suggest appealing to get a better result. I would suggest appealing to make this director aware of his error. How else are we going to ensure better directors?

[gordontd]

 jallerton, on 2014-December-08, 16:44, said:

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.

I think this is quite wrong. We at the EBU asked the WBF about the impact of L73 on L25A and in response they issued the footnote to L25A - not just an interpretation but an actual law change, something that very rarely happens. This tells us that it doesn't matter what alerted the player to the unintended nature of the call, the call can be changed as long as the other requirements of L25A are met. And now you effectively say "yes, you can change it, but we're just going to change it back if you gain from it". It seems clear to me that if that was what the WBF intended they would just have told us that L73 applies to L25A cases, rather than saying "no matter how..."

[blackshoe]

 gordontd, on 2014-December-09, 03:09, said:

I think this is quite wrong. We at the EBU asked the WBF about the impact of L73 on L25A and in response they issued the footnote to L25A - not just an interpretation but an actual law change, something that very rarely happens. This tells us that it doesn't matter what alerted the player to the unintended nature of the call, the call can be changed as long as the other requirements of L25A are met. And now you effectively say "yes, you can change it, but we're just going to change it back if you gain from it". It seems clear to me that if that was what the WBF intended they would just have told us that L73 applies to L25A cases, rather than saying "no matter how..."

Very interesting, Gordon, thanks. I've asked the rulings folks at ACBL what their position is, since we don't have that footnote in our version of the laws.

[gordontd]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-09, 03:27, said:

Very interesting, Gordon, thanks. I've asked the rulings folks at ACBL what their position is, since we don't have that footnote in our version of the laws.

No-one has it in their printed version, as far as I know, but it's in the WBFLC minutes from 2011 and at the EBU we have it quoted on the appropriate page from where the2007 Laws can be accessed.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-09, 03:27, said:

Very interesting, Gordon, thanks. I've asked the rulings folks at ACBL what their position is, since we don't have that footnote in our version of the laws.

 gordontd, on 2014-December-09, 04:18, said:

No-one has it in their printed version, as far as I know, but it's in the WBFLC minutes from 2011 and at the EBU we have it quoted on the appropriate page from where the2007 Laws can be accessed.

I have just alerted our Norwegian LC about "A Law change that we all have missed".

Thanks for your information on the EBU initiative.

[Lanor Fow]

On a recent directors course I went on they gave us nice stickers to stick in our laws book for the amendment. There is a nice gap at the end of the page where it fits.

[blackshoe]

 Lanor Fow, on 2014-December-09, 06:20, said:

On a recent directors course I went on they gave us nice stickers to stick in our laws book for the amendment. There is a nice gap at the end of the page where it fits.

Somebody had a nice brainstorm!

I found, in the minutes of the November 2011 meeting of the ACBLLC, the following: Item 2: The committee discussed the item from the WBFLC minutes that added the footnote. Item 3: the committee decided they agree with the WBF's interpretation.

I also found, poking around, in the minutes of a 2013 meeting, the comment that "the committee expects few changes in the next version of the laws".

[VixTD]

 RMB1, on 2014-December-08, 17:52, said:

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.

I think there's an important difference between this case and the original question. The failure to use the stop card is a breach of proper procedure, and law 9 allows a player to draw attention to an irregularity. In your case there was presumably no irregularity, so opener had no business to comment on his partner's call, and the TD was quite right to penalise him.

[VixTD]

 gordontd, on 2014-December-09, 03:09, said:

I think this is quite wrong. We at the EBU asked the WBF about the impact of L73 on L25A and in response they issued the footnote to L25A - not just an interpretation but an actual law change, something that very rarely happens. This tells us that it doesn't matter what alerted the player to the unintended nature of the call, the call can be changed as long as the other requirements of L25A are met. And now you effectively say "yes, you can change it, but we're just going to change it back if you gain from it". It seems clear to me that if that was what the WBF intended they would just have told us that L73 applies to L25A cases, rather than saying "no matter how..."

You're presuming that the 2♠ call was unintended. In that case, I agree with you, you should allow the change of call and possibly penalise partner for illegal communication. (I'm still a little uneasy about this, because of law 9A1.)

Suppose they intended to call 2♠, but perhaps didn't realise it was a jump.

Now might you make an adjustment if the question woke responder up to the fact that partner might be taking them for rather more strength than they actually have?

[RMB1]

 VixTD, on 2014-December-09, 08:49, said:

I think there's an important difference between this case and the original question. The failure to use the stop card is a breach of proper procedure, and law 9 allows a player to draw attention to an irregularity. In your case there was presumably no irregularity, so opener had no business to comment on his partner's call, and the TD was quite right to penalise him.

I agree there is a difference. We cannot conclude that the committee think a procedural penalty is appropriate in the original case.

But given that the committee would not adjust the score when there had been illegal communication then this is support for not adjusting in the original case.

[aguahombre]

 Lanor Fow, on 2014-December-09, 06:20, said:

On a recent directors course I went on they gave us nice stickers to stick in our laws book for the amendment. There is a nice gap at the end of the page where it fits.

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-09, 08:40, said:

Somebody had a nice brainstorm!

I found, in the minutes of the November 2011 meeting of the ACBLLC, the following: Item 2: The committee discussed the item from the WBFLC minutes that added the footnote. Item 3: the committee decided they agree with the WBF's interpretation.

One more thing the ACBL should put where it fits.