[Xiaolongnu]

This very technical case happened in my club tonight.

The hand is not important. The bidding was 1D - 1H - 2C - 2S - 3D - 4C - After the opp passed,tthe partner who is opener considered his action,and asked the 4C bidder whether he made a mistake in the bidding.

Immediately,without pause for thought from the recognition of his error, the 4C bidder said the bidding cards were stuck together. There was no dispute in this sense that the call was unintended.

Is the change authorized? Law references please. The Director authorized it as unintended call. The bidding from 4C/4D went on 5D pass. It was made.

At the point of 4♦, initially 4♣ was erroneously bid in a way that agreement was established was equivalent to box getting knocked over. After North passed, at East's turn, East asked West whether he definitely meant to bid 4♣ or something of that idea. The Director allowed the change and the bidding continued. Table result was -400. Hand record gives 12 tricks.

---

[RMB1]

2007 Laws: Law 25A, in particular the footnote that says much the same as following.

2017 Laws: Law 25A, in particular Law 25A3:

Quote

A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in A1 above are met, no matter how he may have become aware of his error.

[pran]

RMB1, on 2017-July-28, 10:52, said:

2007 Laws: Law 25A, in particular the footnote that says much the same as following.

2017 Laws: Law 25A, in particular Law 25A3:

There is (apparently) a confloct between Law 25A and Law 73B/C here.

The unfortunate clause is "no matter how he may have become aware of his error" in Law 25.

I believe the correct ruling should have been to allow the change of the call (which was accepted being unintended) as allowed in Law 25A, and then to penalize the partnership and/or adjust the result as specified in Law 73C2.

The violations justifying such adjustment are of Law 73B1 (making an extraneous question to partner) and Law 73C1 (taking advantage of an irregular question from partner).

[weejonnie]

A similar case was discussed on an EBU appeal where one player bid 6NT and his partner said "Six No Trumps!" - this was immediately corrected to 6♠. There are a lot of interesting comments by the reviewers (some of whom comment on this site) as to whether it should be admissable and whether a procedural penalty should have been issued.

Appeal 14.015

Link

[pran]

weejonnie, on 2017-July-28, 12:32, said:

A similar case was discussed on an EBU appeal where one player bid 6NT and his partner said "Six No Trumps!" - this was immediately corrected to 6♠. There are a lot of interesting comments by the reviewers (some of whom comment on this site) as to whether it should be admissable and whether a procedural penalty should have been issued.

Appeal 14.015

Link

[edit:] I looked up the appeal and the comments now, but feel no more the wiser.

Does anybody know what attitude WBFLC has (or tend towards) in this matter?

[nige1]

I agree with Jeffrey Allerton's comment that the director/committee should enforce laws 73 and 23 to adjust the score.
It's bizarre that keeping the deposit is a consideration, when legal experts can't decipher relevant rules.

[blackshoe]

Well, it was the WBFLC who said that an unintended call can be changed no matter how the player became aware of it.

[ahydra]

Initially, the TD got this right - the change of call should be allowed.

But after the hand when it's clear that NS didn't just get a good result anyway (possibility of damage), we need to consider what might have happened if the 4C hadn't been spotted in time. 4C after the 4SF sounds like a slam try in clubs, so we need to consider contracts like 4H, 5C, 5D and 6D (W will always correct 6C) as well as somehow judge the probability that W would have picked up on his error before E had called. I think the best option there would be to use the "possibilities are too numerous" clause and score the board as 50/50. And of course EW get a hefty fine for the unauthorized remark.

ahydra

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-28, 13:27, said:

[edit:] I looked up the appeal and the comments now, but feel no more the wiser.

Does anybody know what attitude WBFLC has (or tend towards) in this matter?

I know that at the time of that case I tried to get some information on that, and one of the members of the WBFLC expressed the view that the footnote explicitly permitted such questions, so L73 no longer applied to them. The other one from whom I got an opinion thought that it would be possible to award an L73 penalty in these cases but that he would only consider doing so when the player had asked the question and discovered that the call was not unintended.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2017-July-28, 17:30, said:

I agree with Jeffrey Allerton's comment that the director/committee should enforce laws 73 and 23 to adjust the score.
It's bizarre that keeping the deposit is a consideration, when legal experts can't decipher relevant rules.

I argued the same way as Jeffrey at the time, that it was clear to allow the change but then adjust the score for the illegal question. I disagreed with Richard Fleet that a disciplinary penalty should have been imposed and would have imposed a PP. I did find find one commentator's recommendation bizarre - retaining the deposit.

[Vampyr]

Xiaolongnu, on 2017-July-28, 09:45, said:

Immediately,without pause for thought from the recognition of his error, the 4C bidder said the bidding cards were stuck together. There was no dispute in this sense that the call was unintended.

The cards were stuck together and yet a lower card than intended was removed from the box?

[blackshoe]

I think that it is clear that Law 25A allows the correction. I think it is also clear that the extraneous comment violates Law 73A1 and 73B1. Where do we go from here, though? 73C does not apply. Nor does 73F. Does that mean that we can't adjust the score? Not necessarily, but we have to look elsewhere to do so. Perhaps to Law 12A1. What of 12B2, though? "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side." Does this prevent using 12A1? I don't think so, but I might be convinced otherwise by a cogent argument. There remains the question whether, given that the correction is legal, any score adjustment is appropriate at all. Certainly there will be those (including the offending side!) who will argue against it, on the grounds that the auction itself was legal. OTOH, there was an infraction of law, and the NOS were arguably damaged by it.

As for a penalty, Law 73A1 says "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays." and Law 73B1 says "Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them." The words "shall" and "shall not" indicate that violation of these laws "will incur a procedural penalty more often than not". We don't want players communicating in this way, so I think a PP is more than appropriate here. I would have to hear a very convincing argument why I should not give one.

How about a disciplinary penalty? Law 91 gives the director authority to award these "to maintain order and discipline". That's pretty broad, and it could be easy for directors to justify to themselves a DP on the grounds that we don't want an <expletive deleted> committee to cancel it, but I don't think that's a good justification.

It seems clear that a PP is the way to go. How big a PP though? Some will suggest the size of the PP should relate to the amount of damage done. This is illogical for two reasons: first, the purpose of a procedural penalty is to penalize violations of procedure. We are issuing a PP here to deter extraneous comments, not to punish the OS for "damaging" their opponents. Second, a PP affects the overall score of the OS in the event. It does not affect the NOS' score at all. Because of this, the size of the PP should relate to the seriousness of the offense, including perhaps the offender's tendency to repeatedly do this kind of thing (if that's the case). General guidance from most RAs seems to be to award a "standard" PP, whatever that is for the RA in question for a first offense. I note that the EBU suggests (WB § 2.8.3.4j) a warning for a first offense. If the offender is experienced enough that he should know better, though, I think a PP in MPs or IMPs is appropriate even for a first offense. If the director decides that because it's a first offense only a warning should be given, then IMO the warning should always be given — and a second offense should incur a real PP. The worst thing we can do as directors is to keep issuing warnings and not follow through. That undermines respect for the director and for the rules of the game.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-July-29, 08:50, said:

I think that it is clear that Law 25A allows the correction. I think it is also clear that the extraneous comment violates Law 73A1 and 73B1. Where do we go from here, though? 73C does not apply. Nor does 73F. Does that mean that we can't adjust the score? Not necessarily, but we have to look elsewhere to do so. Perhaps to Law 12A1. What of 12B2, though? "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side." Does this prevent using 12A1? I don't think so, but I might be convinced otherwise by a cogent argument. There remains the question whether, given that the correction is legal, any score adjustment is appropriate at all. Certainly there will be those (including the offending side!) who will argue against it, on the grounds that the auction itself was legal. OTOH, there was an infraction of law, and the NOS were arguably damaged by it.

As for a penalty, Law 73A1 says "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays." and Law 73B1 says "Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them." The words "shall" and "shall not" indicate that violation of these laws "will incur a procedural penalty more often than not". We don't want players communicating in this way, so I think a PP is more than appropriate here. I would have to hear a very convincing argument why I should not give one.

How about a disciplinary penalty? Law 91 gives the director authority to award these "to maintain order and discipline". That's pretty broad, and it could be easy for directors to justify to themselves a DP on the grounds that we don't want an <expletive deleted> committee to cancel it, but I don't think that's a good justification.

It seems clear that a PP is the way to go. How big a PP though? Some will suggest the size of the PP should relate to the amount of damage done. This is illogical for two reasons: first, the purpose of a procedural penalty is to penalize violations of procedure. We are issuing a PP here to deter extraneous comments, not to punish the OS for "damaging" their opponents. Second, a PP affects the overall score of the OS in the event. It does not affect the NOS' score at all. Because of this, the size of the PP should relate to the seriousness of the offense, including perhaps the offender's tendency to repeatedly do this kind of thing (if that's the case). General guidance from most RAs seems to be to award a "standard" PP, whatever that is for the RA in question for a first offense. I note that the EBU suggests (WB § 2.8.3.4j) a warning for a first offense. If the offender is experienced enough that he should know better, though, I think a PP in MPs or IMPs is appropriate even for a first offense. If the director decides that because it's a first offense only a warning should be given, then IMO the warning should always be given — and a second offense should incur a real PP. The worst thing we can do as directors is to keep issuing warnings and not follow through. That undermines respect for the director and for the rules of the game.

I think you are correct that Law 73B/C cannot apply on a question addressed to you by your partner so long as you use the 2007 Laws. (And your reference to Law 73F indicates that this is exactly what you do, there is no 2017 Law 73F).

However the 2007 Law 25A does not allow an unintended call to be changed no matter how the player became aware of it. The text enhanced by me in red was added in 2017. Therefore we may safely infer that partner's illegal remark (question) terminates the player's option to withdraw his unintended call (as would for instance partner's subsequent call or other UI).

More important is that the 2017 Law 73B defines a question from partner as unauthorized information regardless of which player is addressed with that question. This is a change from the 2007 law which explicitly limited UI to questions addressing an opponent.

So IMHO the player may not legally change his inadvertent call following a reminder from his partner when we apply the 2007 laws while he may certainly do so when we apply the 2017 laws.

However, he 2017 Law 73B/C applies on any extraneous remark from his partner regardless of which player is addressed by that remark.

[axman]

Vampyr, on 2017-July-29, 04:25, said:

The cards were stuck together and yet a lower card than intended was removed from the box?

On the facts, I would require that the call stand on the basis that it was not corrected without pause for thought. In this case the partner made an improper communication which should be penalized. It was the processing of the communication where the player discovered his 'error'. This is pause for thought, however short the duration was, which disqualifies whatever inadvertence that existed.

As an additional point, the assertion that the bidding cards stuck together has a bad taste. To wit: just what bidding cards were stuck together such that the 4D call was hidden? This additionally suggests that there was pause for thought- as the story, being false, necessarily takes thought to create- in other words, a pause for thought.

[RMB1]

axman, on 2017-July-29, 12:13, said:

On the facts, I would require that the call stand on the basis that it was not corrected without pause for thought.

Thats OK. In England, they only have to pause another three days, or so - then the 2017 laws apply and "pause for thought" does not apply.

[Xiaolongnu]

axman, on 2017-July-29, 12:13, said:

On the facts, I would require that the call stand on the basis that it was not corrected without pause for thought. In this case the partner made an improper communication which should be penalized. It was the processing of the communication where the player discovered his 'error'. This is pause for thought, however short the duration was, which disqualifies whatever inadvertence that existed.

As an additional point, the assertion that the bidding cards stuck together has a bad taste. To wit: just what bidding cards were stuck together such that the 4D call was hidden? This additionally suggests that there was pause for thought- as the story, being false, necessarily takes thought to create- in other words, a pause for thought.

To answer both of you, maybe it is the bidding boxes that we use here, it happens a lot. A higher bid was intended but somehow the bid exactly one step lower comes out. Happened to me a lot too. Anyway I was there, this dispute has to be tie broken by me for this discussion to be valid so please take it as there was agreement by all including me that it happened in this sense.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2017-July-29, 12:10, said:

I think you are correct that Law 73B/C cannot apply on a question addressed to you by your partner so long as you use the 2007 Laws. (And your reference to Law 73F indicates that this is exactly what you do, there is no 2017 Law 73F).

However the 2007 Law 25A does not allow an unintended call to be changed no matter how the player became aware of it. The text enhanced by me in red was added in 2017. Therefore we may safely infer that partner's illegal remark (question) terminates the player's option to withdraw his unintended call (as would for instance partner's subsequent call or other UI).

More important is that the 2017 Law 73B defines a question from partner as unauthorized information regardless of which player is addressed with that question. This is a change from the 2007 law which explicitly limited UI to questions addressing an opponent.

So IMHO the player may not legally change his inadvertent call following a reminder from his partner when we apply the 2007 laws while he may certainly do so when we apply the 2017 laws.

However, he 2017 Law 73B/C applies on any extraneous remark from his partner regardless of which player is addressed by that remark.

Yes, I was using the 2007 laws. For me, in my jurisdiction, the 2017 law are not yet in effect. However, you seem to have forgotten the WBFLC minute which is the basis of the change in the 2017 laws, and is effective for the. 2007 laws. So I disagree with your "we may safely infer" and with your last paragaph.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-29, 12:10, said:

However the 2007 Law 25A does not allow an unintended call to be changed no matter how the player became aware of it.

Yes, it does exactly that. Have you forgotten the footnote added by the WBFLC?

[nige1]

Lawmakers still foster controversy and resentment caused by their sophisticated rules e.g. those that allow players to correct mistakes that they claim are mechanical. Banning such "corrections" might reduce director-power but would result in a simpler fairer game. And yes, non-offenders could still ask the director to waive the rules (although he should usually refuse).

Lawmakers justify such over-complex laws that few understand and that require difficult subjective director-decisions, as an attempt to achieve a normal table-result. Usually, however, as vampyr sometimes points out, "that bird has flown". Resulting rulings favour the law-breaker and encourage carelessness,

[sanst]

gordontd, on 2017-July-29, 00:40, said:

I know that at the time of that case I tried to get some information on that, and one of the members of the WBFLC expressed the view that the footnote explicitly permitted such questions, so L73 no longer applied to them. The other one from whom I got an opinion thought that it would be possible to award an L73 penalty in these cases but that he would only consider doing so when the player had asked the question and discovered that the call was not unintended.

Certainly not explicitly. The footnote is “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.”, which doesn't say anything about asking questions.
AFAIK, the only questions explicitly allowed are about a revoke, preventing that from becoming established, and those given in Law 41B and C. The change in Law 69, which allows the play to continue after a claim has been made, possibly also requires asking questions.