[paua]

Hi

West - - - - - - East
2D (multi) - - - 2NT (enquiry)
3C (alerted)

North now asks East about the auction and asks subsequent questions ...
East now passes !

Q : Could the pass be ruled as unintended, given that East has alerted 3C and explained that it is showing a good weak-2 with hearts ? East has no reason to pass 3C and always intended to bid 3H.


Thanks

[jallerton]

The use of the word "unintended" in the Laws is unfortunate. The way this is supposed to be interpreted is to consider what call East was trying to make at the point where (s)he pulled out the pass card. In some quarters the recommended practice is for TDs to ask the player what bidding card (s)he intended to pull out, but this is open to abuse: players can (and often do) gain through dishonesty.

[Vampyr]

paua, on 2015-October-05, 15:09, said:

Hi

West - - - - - - East
2D (multi) - - - 2NT (enquiry)
3C (alerted)

North now asks East about the auction and asks subsequent questions ...
East now passes !

Q : Could the pass be ruled as unintended, given that East has alerted 3C and explained that it is showing a good weak-2 with hearts ? East has no reason to pass 3C and always intended to bid 3H.


Thanks

It is pretty rare that an unintended bid comes from another part of the bidding box. The pass card is not anywhere near the 3♥ card, so it is not really plausible that it was taken out inadvertently. When he reached for a card, I think that he reached for a pass card. No correction.

Oops crossed Jeffrey's post above. Yes "unintended" is unfortunate, as it implies volition. Some directors ask what bid was intended in such a way that the player doesn't even have to lie to be allowed to change.

[RMB1]

jallerton, on 2015-October-05, 16:01, said:

The use of the word "unintended" in the Laws is unfortunate. The way this is supposed to be interpreted is to consider what call East was trying to make at the point where (s)he pulled out the pass card. ...

This is the effect of the definition in the law book:

Quote

Unintended – involuntary; not under control of the will; not the intention of the player at the moment of his action.

[paua]

It was written bidding, sorry.

So, what is the outcome ?

[Vampyr]

paua, on 2015-October-06, 01:16, said:

It was written bidding, sorry.

So, what is the outcome ?

In written bidding it is not like your fingers might be clumsy and pick up the wrong card by accident. I can't imagine any circumstances under which I would allow a correction to a written bid.

[pran]

If the Director finds (judges) that North with his continued questioning inappropriately distracted East into thinking that the transfer from 3♣ to 3♥ had already been completed I would consider this activity by North sufficiently disturbing to rule that East may correct his pass under Law 25A.

[helene_t]

pran, on 2015-October-06, 01:54, said:

If the Director finds (judges) that North with his continued questioning inappropriately distracted East into thinking that the transfer from 3♣ to 3♥ had already been completed I would consider this activity by North sufficiently disturbing to rule that East may correct his pass under Law 25A.

We had a long and not so civilized discussion a while ago about a similar problem. Some interpret "unintended" as a strictly mechanical error, caused by tremor, sticky bidding cards, missorted bidding cards or poor eyesight. Some apply a broader criterion.

It is not so easy. The problem is that there is no black-white distinction between intended and unindented, or between conscious and subconscious. What could be going on here is that East wanted to end the auction in 3♥. Of cause he "knew" that the way to do this is to bid 3♥, not to pass. But some neural shortcut between the "end-the-auction" impulse and the "pick-the-pass-card" write-"pass" reaction took over for a fraction of second.

Personally I would not allow a correction. Using written bidding I think the practical policy is simply never to allow corrections of unintended calls.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2015-October-06, 01:54, said:

If the Director finds (judges) that North with his continued questioning inappropriately distracted East into thinking that the transfer from 3♣ to 3♥ had already been completed I would consider this activity by North sufficiently disturbing to rule that East may correct his pass under Law 25A.

Absolutely not. Being distracted is a mental lapse, and as such is never a justification for a 25A correction.

This is super basic, Sven.

[paua]

Vampyr, on 2015-October-06, 01:46, said:

In written bidding it is not like your fingers might be clumsy and pick up the wrong card by accident. I can't imagine any circumstances under which I would allow a correction to a written bid.

Well, a year ago an international director allowed this at my table after 1NT - 2C, at our National Congress. The 2C bid was ruled unintended, changed to 2S.
Another very experienced director in recent years has allowed my partner to change an unintended bid (I think 4H to 4S from memory, we had been bidding spades and the opposition hearts).
I also have examples from workshops on Law 25 allowing changes with written bidding, such as changing a 4H opener to 4S.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2015-October-06, 02:24, said:

Absolutely not. Being distracted is a mental lapse, and as such is never a justification for a 25A correction.

This is super basic, Sven.

And you do not consider the possibility that Law 74A2 might be relevant?
I consider distracting an opponent with excessive questioning indeed a violation of this law.

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2015-October-06, 02:22, said:

We had a long and not so civilized discussion a while ago about a similar problem. Some interpret "unintended" as a strictly mechanical error, caused by tremor, sticky bidding cards, missorted bidding cards or poor eyesight. Some apply a broader criterion.

While most directors do interpret it as referring only to mechanical errors, and it seems like that's what it should mean, doesn't this language long predate the use of bidding boxes? So we have to interpret it in the context of spoken bidding, which was the norm when the law was written? What kinds of slips of the tongue would be considered "unintended".

And during the play there's no protection for mechanical errors by defenders, but there's a Law that refers to unintended designations of cards from dummy by declarer, which are almost always spoken.

[Zelandakh]

I personally think this law could be cleaned up easily. An example would be that a bid is made when the card is placed on the table with obvious intent with no "undos". This allows misdraws or drops to be corrected easily and would encourage players to check the card on top before placing the bidding cards. Obviously, UI implications from drawing one card and then changing it before placing it would need to be taken account of.

[blackshoe]

Every so often, I pull out say 4♥ from the bidding box, and higher cards stick to it. I shake my hand, the higher stuff falls on the table, usually face down, and I place my bid. If the unintended/undesired cards fall face up, I have not "placed" them, so I have not made a call.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-06, 09:53, said:

Every so often, I pull out say 4♥ from the bidding box, and higher cards stick to it. I shake my hand, the higher stuff falls on the table, usually face down, and I place my bid. If the unintended/undesired cards fall face up, I have not "placed" them, so I have not made a call.

That depends on the bidding box regulations, Ed. In some jurisdictions a call is made when removing the cards with intent.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2015-October-06, 10:03, said:

That depends on the bidding box regulations, Ed. In some jurisdictions a call is made when removing the cards with intent.

Sure, but in the scenario I described, the intent was to bid 4♥. So the ruling should be no different.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-06, 10:04, said:

Sure, but in the scenario I described, the intent was to bid 4♥. So the ruling should be no different.

Absolutely, but some players do not bother looking at the card as they bring it out. Now when they place the card there is the question as to what was intended. Changing the law would remove this ambiguity.

[blackshoe]

Were we talking about changing the law? In this forum?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-06, 11:48, said:

Were we talking about changing the law? In this forum?

I believe he is talking about the law saying what it means. If written bids are being corrected, then clearly the intent of the law is not coming across to some.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2015-October-06, 02:22, said:

It is not so easy. The problem is that there is no black-white distinction between intended and unindented, or between conscious and subconscious. What could be going on here is that East wanted to end the auction in 3♥. Of cause he "knew" that the way to do this is to bid 3♥, not to pass. But some neural shortcut between the "end-the-auction" impulse and the "pick-the-pass-card" write-"pass" reaction took over for a fraction of second.

Yes, exactly the situation that the much-reviled "play on for A-" was designed for.

Unfortunately, some people seem to think that when that was removed the intention was to allow the offender to play on for 100%, while most of us believe that the reason was to no longer allow corrections for mental lapses.