[blackshoe]

Suppose a player makes a call, and then, before his partner calls, he realizes he didn't want to make that call. There are two things he might do at this point: change (or at least attempt to change) his call, or call the TD. Is either of these "best practice"? Is either wrong?

When the player calls the TD without changing or attempting to change the call, it seems there are three things the TD might do:

1. Routinely allow such changes on the grounds that calling the TD "stops the clock" as far as "without pause for thought" is concerned.
2. Routinely disallow such changes on the grounds that the law requires that the change be made or attempted immediately on the player's discovery of his error.
3. Sometimes allow and sometimes disallow such changes on the basis of his investigation into what was going on in the player's mind at the time he made the call.

Which of these is incorrect? Which is "best practice"? Should players be taught to change or attempt to change their call in these cases, immediately and without calling the TD? Should they be taught to call the TD without changing or attempting to change the call?

There is an argument that it is "better" for the player to call the TD because if he mentions the call he "wanted" to make, and the TD disallows a 25A change, his side is subject to UI considerations. There is also an argument that it is "better" for the TD if the player calls him instead of changing the call, because now the TD doesn't have to deal with UI implications. I'll just say that I don't think the latter should be a consideration - the TD should just do his job — and ask for comments from you all on these two arguments.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Feb 7 2010, 02:59 PM, said:

3. Sometimes allow and sometimes disallow such changes on the basis of his investigation into what was going on in the player's mind at the time he made the call.

I believe that this is the only approach that has any basis in Law.

[pran]

Whenever I have an alleged law 25A situation my main concern is to investigate the impressions the other three players at the table have from the mannerism and behaviour of the player when he "discovered" that he had made an inadvertent call.

This may seem a very strange approach, but my experience is that treating the players as Gentlemen (and Ladies), expecting them to act as such, will generally result in exactly the desired cooperation in interest of the game, leading to a ruling that eventually is accepted gracefully by all the players at the table.

So far I cannot remember that this approach has ever failed me.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe covers all the valid questions and the alternative ways of thinking about the issue. Nice job, so all we have to do is pick from the well-stated points, the ones we like.

I like "treat like ladies/gentlemen", which should go for how the players treat each other as well. Therefore, as LHO of the one who screwed up, I should try to assume a mechanical error if likely --and just let him change the call.

When I am the one who made the mistake, and then catch it before LHO has called, I should say "hold it", explain that I pulled the wrong bid, and ask the opps if they want the director. I should not say what I intended to bid, in case they do want the director and he doesn't allow the change.

However, if LHO has acted, I think I should just call the director before partner acts, and not say anything until he gets there.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on Feb 7 2010, 06:27 PM, said:

However, if LHO has acted, I think I should just call the director before partner acts, and not say anything until he gets there.

Yes, slightly better than making your own ruling in re: LHO changing his bid, UI and AI for both sides, etc...

It is a bid sad that even people on this forum suggest/advocate dealing with irregularities without calling the director.

From OP:

Should players be taught to change or attempt to change their call in these cases, immediately and without calling the TD?

Of course not. This forum is failing in its purpose if someone feels the need to ask this.

[blackshoe]

I won't speak for anyone else, but I certainly didn't suggest or advocate "dealing with irregularities without calling the director".

Quote

From OP:

Should players be taught to change or attempt to change their call in these cases, immediately and without calling the TD?

Of course not. This forum is failing in its purpose if someone feels the need to ask this.

What do you think is the purpose of this forum, if not to answer such questions? Particularly when the law implies that changing or trying to change the call immediately is a prerequisite for a ruling allowing the change to stand?

[StevenG]

blackshoe, on Feb 7 2010, 06:41 PM, said:

Particularly when the law implies that changing or trying to change the call immediately is a prerequisite for a ruling allowing the change to stand?

I'd always assumed that the correct way to TRY to change your call was to call the TD.

[blackshoe]

Player: Hang on, I didn't intend that call (pulling new cards out of the bidding box, or picking some up to put back).
Opponent: Wait a minute, you can't do that! (with or without a concurrent TD call).

The law says "change or attempt to change". It does not specify the form of either.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Feb 7 2010, 07:41 PM, said:

I won't speak for anyone else, but I certainly didn't suggest or advocate "dealing with irregularities without calling the director".

Quote

From OP:

Should players be taught to change or attempt to change their call in these cases, immediately and without calling the TD?

Sorry, I thought you wrote the above (the text in red). That is the way it is displayed on my computer.

Quote

What do you think is the purpose of this forum, if not to answer such questions?

It seems to me that this matter has been dealt with many times. Every time there is a cockup caused in large part by the director not having been called immediately after the infraction or by a ruling having been made at the table, it is noted that players are not to deal with an irregularity on their own.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on Feb 7 2010, 04:57 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Feb 7 2010, 07:41 PM, said:

I won't speak for anyone else, but I certainly didn't suggest or advocate "dealing with irregularities without calling the director".

Quote

From OP:

Should players be taught to change or attempt to change their call in these cases, immediately and without calling the TD?

Sorry, I thought you wrote the above (the text in red). That is the way it is displayed on my computer.

I did write that. It was a question, not an advocacy.

Quote

Quote

What do you think is the purpose of this forum, if not to answer such questions?

It seems to me that this matter has been dealt with many times. Every time there is a cockup caused in large part by the director not having been called immediately after the infraction or by a ruling having been made at the table, it is noted that players are not to deal with an irregularity on their own.

No. It has been noted that players are not to make rulings on their own, or to fail to call the director once attention has been drawn to an irregularity. Immediately changing or attempting to change one's inadvertent call is not the same thing.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Feb 8 2010, 12:16 AM, said:

I did write that. It was a question, not an advocacy.

Well, asking the question does seem to suggest that there is the possibility of different answers, bu I understand that you might have been asking the question for the education of others.

Quote

No. It has been noted that players are not to make rulings on their own, or to fail to call the director once attention has been drawn to an irregularity. Immediately changing or attempting to change one's inadvertent call is not the same thing.

I think that it is. The attempt to change the call is surely calling attention to the irregularity. And in any case, while there is no obligation to call attention to an irregularity, the latter cannot be corrected by anyone other than the director.

[blackshoe]

Changing a call, or attempting to change it, certainly calls attention to the fact that the player doing so believes that his call was irregular. The change or attempt to change should almost certainly be viewed itself by opponents as an irregularity. So the director should be called. 25A says that in the event the call is actually changed LHO may withdraw a call he made over the inadvertent call, and presumably substitute something else. It does not say that making a call accepts RHO's change of call (although 25B does say that). Yet I wonder how the TD should rule in such a case (alleged unintended call, changed, and LHO then calls over the change).

Did the lawmakers intend that the TD always be called after every irregularity? I think not. If they did, they wouldn't have changed Law 9B1a from "the director must be called" to "the director should be called", and Law 46 wouldn't exist (and there are probably other such things in the laws).

[bluejak]

I make an unintended call about twenty to thirty times a session. I correct them without benefit of TD every time, and no-one seems to mind. Others are less sloppy than me with bidding boxes, but I expect others to make ten to fifteen Law 25A changes a session. I cannot remember the last time anyone called the TD at my table because of a problem over a potential Law 25A case.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Feb 8 2010, 02:51 AM, said:

I make an unintended call about twenty to thirty times a session.  I correct them without benefit of TD every time, and no-one seems to mind.  Others are less sloppy than me with bidding boxes, but I expect others to make ten to fifteen Law 25A changes a session.  I cannot remember the last time anyone called the TD at my table because of a problem over a potential Law 25A case.

?!?!?! I have made a 25A change about three times in my entire life. Or maybe fewer.

[bluejak]

There are no doubt lots of things you do that I do not, and vice versa. I do not see the point.

[greenender]

Vampyr, on Feb 7 2010, 08:55 PM, said:

bluejak, on Feb 8 2010, 02:51 AM, said:

I make an unintended call about twenty to thirty times a session.  I correct them without benefit of TD every time, and no-one seems to mind.  Others are less sloppy than me with bidding boxes, but I expect others to make ten to fifteen Law 25A changes a session.  I cannot remember the last time anyone called the TD at my table because of a problem over a potential Law 25A case.

?!?!?! I have made a 25A change about three times in my entire life. Or maybe fewer.

Remember that in the EBU a call is made with bidding boxes when "removed from the box with apparent intent".

Given the age and stickiness of some of the sets of bidding cards one encounters, instances of cards sticking to each other are relatively common. Most players notice this before the wrong card is faced on the table, and in those circumstances nearly all players will allow the correction without calling the TD, perhaps because they do not realise that the call has in fact already been made as per the regs.

I do find, both as a player and as a TD, that the TD is called when the inadvertency is not noticed till player has let go of the bidding card. In those circumstances I feel that the correct practical thing for the offending player is to say something along the lines of "Wait a minute - I have pulled the wrong card. Shall we have the TD?". If the TD is summoned, then I feel that he should treat any acknowledgement that the card visible does not represent the intended call as if it were an attempt to change, even if, strictly speaking, the player may not explicitly have said he wishes to change it.

I agree that the player (in the scenario where the bidding card has been released onto the table, rather than just being half-way out of the box) should not say what he wishes to change to, to avoid unecesary UI in case the change is not allowed.

[blackshoe]

It may be prudent to call the TD rather than change or attempt to change one's call, or state to what one wishes to change it. But the question, it seems to me, is whether changing, attempting to change, or stating to what one wishes to change one's call, should be deprecated, particularly given the way Law 25A is written.