[pstansbu]

Playing recently in the sequence 1♦ - (p) - 1♠ - (p) - 2♠ - (p) I intended to bid 4♦ pulled out my stop card and then proceeded to put the 3♦ card down. After LHO had passed RHO said "that's not a stop".

I wasn't sure what my options were in this position rather than me noticing on putting it down and then correcting the bid (which I believe would be allowed assuming I could demonstrate the bid had been made in error).

Could I still change my bid at this stage?

[barmar]

This is covered in Law 25A:

Quote

1. Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate law.

It's generally accepted that "without pause for thought" refers to the time period from when he becomes aware that the bid he made was not the one he intended. If you didn't notice that you'd pulled the wrong card until RHO made his comment, that's when the timer starts. So if you immediately say something like "Oops, I pulled the wrong card", you should be allowed to change it.

[mycroft]

But make sure that the TD is there, to make the "unintended call" (vs "change of mind") decision. If you just do it, there could be hard feelings (not in this case, likely, with the stop card pulled out and you showing that you intended to pull a jump bid). But other "unintended calls", not so much.

Case law at least in North America is 1♠ "15-17". Yes, partner (doing what she should) alerted you to the fact you mispulled, but it was still an unintended call and the clock starts when you become aware of it (no matter how).

[pstansbu]

Great thanks - I don't think I'll forget this in a hurry and neither will partner as he played in 3 ♦s with the rest of the room in 6♠s apart from one pair who stopped in 4 ♠s and are probably the only people in the room who really liked my bidding.......

[weejonnie]

Whilst the law says that you can change your call no matter how you become aware of it (providing your partner hasn't called and it was not intended), if you become aware of it due to an infraction by partner e.g. you mean to bid 6♠ and partner, surprised, says "Six No Trumps!!?" because that was the card you played, then the Director may adjust the contract by applying Law 23.

[gordontd]

weejonnie, on 2016-November-18, 08:51, said:

Whilst the law says that you can change your call no matter how you become aware of it (providing your partner hasn't called and it was not intended), if you become aware of it due to an infraction by partner e.g. you mean to bid 6♠ and partner, surprised, says "Six No Trumps!!?" because that was the card you played, then the Director may adjust the contract by applying Law 23.

I don't believe that is true. I do think that in principle one could fine the player for breaching L73, although I am happy to accept advice I have had that this should be limited to instances when the call was not unintended, but I don't think adjusting back is appropriate.

[blackshoe]

You would have to explain to me, in detail, on what grounds you're applying Law 23 in this case — and whatever your reasoning, I'm probably not buying it.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-November-18, 09:58, said:

You would have to explain to me, in detail, on what grounds you're applying Law 23 in this case — and whatever your reasoning, I'm probably not buying it.

I think he's just trying to beat SB to the punch. SB can practically always find a way to apply L23 to his benefit.

[weejonnie]

Was there an irregularity?

Yes - communication between partners other than by the legal calls and plays. - Law 73A1

1. Communication between partners during the auction and play shall
be effected only by means of calls and plays.

So we apply Law 23

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware
at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the nonoffending
side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not
completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an
adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage
through the irregularity*.

Could the offender have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the nonoffending side?

Yes - if he hadn't made the irregularity then the nonoffending side would have been defending 6NT rather than 6♠ and got a better score.

So we adjust.

Seems pretty obvious to me

[barmar]

I think I'm with weejonnie on this one. In most of the SB threads, his claims of Law 23 violations require interpreting "could have been aware" very broadly, to allow for very remote possibilities of a favorable result. But calling attention to partner's possible misbid is extremely likely (almost guaranteed, unless you're very lucky) to be favorable to your side.

Sometimes this happens as a result of legal actions, such as alerting or answering a question; that's not an irregularity, so L23 doesn't apply.

[mycroft]

I'm not sure we need to go to L23 (but I will, especially if my "now, we know you didn't do this on purpose, but..." is less than sincere); Law 73F is the place to go for violations of Law 73A1.

[barmar]

73F is about comments that mislead an opponent. 73B1 would be more appropriate: "Partners shall not communicate by means such as ... extraneous remarks or gestures, ..."

[blackshoe]

If we get that far, should we not send the case to an ethics committee?

[gordontd]

weejonnie, on 2016-November-18, 12:44, said:

Was there an irregularity?

Yes - communication between partners other than by the legal calls and plays. - Law 73A1

1. Communication between partners during the auction and play shall
be effected only by means of calls and plays.

So we apply Law 23

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware
at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the nonoffending
side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not
completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an
adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage
through the irregularity*.

Could the offender have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the nonoffending side?

Yes - if he hadn't made the irregularity then the nonoffending side would have been defending 6NT rather than 6♠ and got a better score.

So we adjust.

Seems pretty obvious to me

Except that the WBF have said otherwise.

[weejonnie]

Whilst I am sure that such an accomplished director as gordontd is correct, a reference to the specific wbf minute would be appreciated.

I assume it is one of the following http://www.worldbrid...ee-minutes.aspx

[mycroft]

"When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent,...the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)."

Yes, I know that the portion of the law I snipped out is quite relevant. However, to me it sounds like Grattanese, and there should be an and/or before the clipped phrase (which refers to the opponent being misled, as opposed to any other problem with extraneous communication). That reading allows L73B1 to be the "You shall not do this." and Law 73F to be "if you do, here is the rectification."

The other reading tends to limit the law to effectively ignoring the first phrase.