Hm. We may have gotten sidetracked a bit. The law says that a player may change an unintended call if a) his partner has not yet called, and b) the player changes his call, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. So my answer to the OP is yes, but not for the reasons stated in the OP. These two, or rather three, criteria would have to have been met. The third criterion, of course, is that the call was unintended. This is hard some would say impossible for the TD to judge, which is why we have mechanical rules of thumb like "were the two calls in different parts of the bidding box?" For myself, if a player tells me that his call was unintended, and the other two criteria were met, I would need at least some convincing evidence that he's mis-stated his intention. OTOH, the mere fact that he alerted 3♣ and was clearly aware that his partner had hearts is not sufficient. He could easily have had a momentary lapse of concentration, and thought at the instant he passed that passing was what he wanted to do. It's awfully easy, in the heat of the moment, to convince yourself that you "always" intended to bid 3♥. But I think the TD would have to be there to make the call.
Unintended pass
#21
Posted 2015-October-06, 16:54
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#22
Posted 2015-October-07, 09:15
There are lots of brain farts like this.
For instance, you bid Blackwood. From partner's response, you decide not to bid slam. But instead of signing off in 5 of your suit, you pass.
Obviously, at the time you bid Blackwood, you intended to choose between 5 and 6 of the agreed suit. But when it came time to make the final call, you had a mental lapse and forgot that intention. I would not allow a correction of this.
For instance, you bid Blackwood. From partner's response, you decide not to bid slam. But instead of signing off in 5 of your suit, you pass.
Obviously, at the time you bid Blackwood, you intended to choose between 5 and 6 of the agreed suit. But when it came time to make the final call, you had a mental lapse and forgot that intention. I would not allow a correction of this.
#23
Posted 2015-October-07, 09:57
Vampyr, on 2015-October-06, 16:13, said:
Unfortunately, some people seem to think that when that was removed the intention was to allow the offender to play on for 100%,
I've never known anyone suggest that.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
London UK
#24
Posted 2015-October-07, 10:00
gordontd, on 2015-October-07, 09:57, said:
I've never known anyone suggest that.
This is what is suggested to me by the concept of allowing corrections in written bidding, which some people accept.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein