[lamford]

---

This was one of the flattest boards of the event in the Welsh Senior Trials but the traveller hides the actual auction. I was South and while I was considering whether to open or not (we were playing a weak NT), it was clear from some discussion that there was something amiss on the North-East Frontier. The tray had been passed through perhaps 20 seconds earlier, but it was clear from the discussion that there was something wrong. I decided as South that I should now not make a call until the TD was summoned (as I had UI from another source) and my opponent called her at that point. The TD arrived and advised me after investigation that East's pass was inadvertent, and the screen was moved back to the other side of the screen, and East replaced Pass with 1C. The opponents now bid 1C-1H-4H, uncontested, and game made for a completely flat board.

East had alerted his pass and described it as "could be 2" (not heard by me), and my partner thought East was having a senior moment, and queried the alert (not heard by me), and eventually it became apparent that East had not intended to pass from the conversation at the other side of the screen (which should have been written of course). Reading the screen regulations they seem unclear on whether an inadvertent bid can be corrected, so I think that normal laws apply and it can be changed. If I had passed it out, would the auction still have been rewound?

[sanst]

To me its obvious that the TD doesn't know the wording of Law 25A2. This is a clear case of a not unintended call, but indeed a 'senior moment', which even youngsters may have. The change should not have been allowed.

[Tramticket]

sanst, on 2018-February-05, 02:38, said:

To me its obvious that the TD doesn't know the wording of Law 25A2. This is a clear case of a not unintended call, but indeed a 'senior moment', which even youngsters may have. The change should not have been allowed.

Is it clear? There are two piece of evidence:

- The explanation "could be 2" is compatible with a 1♣ opening and suggests that this was the call that he intended to make.
- East appeared to believe that he had actually made a 1♣ call and only became aware that it wasn't 1♣ when his screen-mate queried this. This suggests a mechanical error rather than change in intent (despite 1♣ and pass being in different sections of the bidding box).

[lamford]

Tramticket, on 2018-February-05, 05:15, said:

- The explanation "could be 2" is compatible with a 1♣ opening and suggests that this was the call that he intended to make.
- East appeared to believe that he had actually made a 1♣ call and only became aware that it wasn't 1♣ when his screen-mate queried this. This suggests a mechanical error rather than change in intent (despite 1♣ and pass being in different sections of the bidding box).

I find tramticket's arguments more convincing than the absence of reasoned argument from sanst. In particular, I usually find when posters use words like "clear" or "obvious", it is not clear or obvious at all. Let us look at a couple of definitions of inadvertent:

inadvertent, adjective: not resulting from or achieved through deliberate planning.

inadvertent: of, relating to, or characterized by lack of attention.

"Whatever you choose", as the song says, this call was "inadvertent". However, it is not clear from the screen regulations whether it can then be changed, and the remaining question is what would have happened if I had passed it out and then East had discovered his inadvertent pass?

P.S. Also I find on reading the law that "unintended" is now used instead of "inadvertent", but the definitions of that are similar in effect.

[ahydra]

Well, the WBF screen regs (not sure if WBU's are any different says "a call may be changed... under the provisions of Law 25". (http://db.worldbridg...Regulations.pdf section 1.2) So the call can be changed, as it seems to be an unintended call (not a change of mind) as per 25A1 due to the alert "could be 2". If you'd passed it out then we go via 25A5 to 17D, and learn that East could have changed his call if and only if he discovered the mistake before all four players have put their hand back in the board.

ahydra

[lamford]

ahydra, on 2018-February-05, 22:57, said:

Well, the WBF screen regs (not sure if WBU's are any different says "a call may be changed... under the provisions of Law 25". (http://db.worldbridg...Regulations.pdf section 1.2) So the call can be changed, as it seems to be an unintended call (not a change of mind) as per 25A1 due to the alert "could be 2". If you'd passed it out then we go via 25A5 to 17D, and learn that East could have changed his call if and only if he discovered the mistake before all four players have put their hand back in the board.

That was the ruling, by the excellent Sarah Amos, which I think was correct, and if I had passed it out (or opened 1NT) then my call would have been cancelled and would have been UI to my screenmate. The WBU regs are the same.

[PeterAlan]

ahydra, on 2018-February-05, 22:57, said:

Well, the WBF screen regs (not sure if WBU's are any different says "a call may be changed... under the provisions of Law 25". (http://db.worldbridg...Regulations.pdf section 1.2) So the call can be changed, as it seems to be an unintended call (not a change of mind) as per 25A1 due to the alert "could be 2". If you'd passed it out then we go via 25A5 to 17D, and learn that East could have changed his call if and only if he discovered the mistake before all four players have put their hand back in the board.

I note that the WBF's regulations appear to need updating in 1.2 (c), since "pause for thought" no longer appears in Law 25 A 1.