Help, Help me Please; Senior Moments and the Laws of Bridge
kingsman
Within the past week I was involved in two rulings at the bridge
table, which to me were similar, but yielded different outcomes.
Perhaps someone can explain to me the basis for reconciling them if,
indeed, they are reconcilable.
Ruling One: Playing in the first round, first board of a sectional
Swiss, with the opponents silent, I open one club, and my partner bids
one heart. Evidently unfocused, I put the pass card on the table.
Immediately realizing the error and folly of my ways, I pick up the
pass card, and ( try to) put down my intended bid of one spade.
"Director!"
The director, who I respect as knowledgeable says that because of a
"recent" change in the laws, she no longer has any choice, and the
pass must stand. I accept the ruling, and consider myself fortunate
when my partner makes exactly nine tricks, the limit of the hand.
Ruling Two: Playing at a local club this afternoon, on the very
first board (perhaps there should be a warm up period to allow the
blood to circulate), my left hand opponent opens the bidding one
heart, and my partner passes. After a bit of social chit chat ( RHO
not having bid yet because he is sharing in the camraderie), LHO
announces that she had pulled the wrong card, and intended to open
one spade, and replaces that card on the table. My personal attitude
is "no harm no foul" among friends at a club game, but my partner
calls the director, who allows the bid to be replaced. After the
round, I bring up Ruling One to RHO, who is a fairly good club-
level director. He explains to me that the two rulings are
consistent--something about the one heart and one spade cards being
next to each other, while, in my case, they were not adjacent. One
case is "inadvertent" or some such word; the other is not. He offers
to quote me chapter and verse from the rule book.
OK then, can someone set out for me exactly what is right, and why.
Given my age, and that of those around me, I suspect this senior
moment issue is likely to recur.
Thanks,
Bernard Schneider
Raija D
"kingsman" <bgs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c38e2a20-5f27-4543...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Both rulings are correct. You should have taken the TD up on the offer and
read it in the lawbook:)
The first one is a senior moment. The call stands.
The second one is a mechanical error or mispull which the player attempted
to correct as soon as he noticed the error, before his partner had bid.
Change of call allowed if TD judges it was a mechanical error and the other
conditions were met as well. Had the player wanted to change the mispulled
1H call to something like 2C or some other call,the location of which is not
near the original 1H bid, then the TD will judge that it was likely not a
mechanical error but a change of mind and will not allow change of call.
Frances
I cannot tell you if either or both of these rulings is/are right, but
they are consistent.
You are not allowed to change a call that you made deliberately. In
your ruling 1, you clearly meant to put the pass card down albeit only
for a brief (unfocussed) moment.
You are allowed to change a call that is made inadvertantly, for
example if two bidding cards stick together or one falls off the top
of the stack as you place them. So in your ruling two it is possible
that the player wanted to bid 1S and simply didn't quite get hold of
the 1S card properly, but pulled out 1H by accident.
In summary, physcial slips can be corrected; mental slips cannot.
It is a matter of judgement whether the incorrect call was a physical
or a mental slip, which is why neither ruling is definitively right or
wrong. The ACBL have given directors guidance that it is 'normal' to
believe a physical slip when the correct and incorrect calls are
adjacent in the bidding box, and not when they aren't. It makes sense
in that it is difficult to pull out a pass card as a physical mistake
for a 1S card; but there may be exceptional cases in either direction.
Certainly it is possible that the 1H bid was made on purpose, in which
case they shouldn't be allowed to change it.
Under the old Laws (changed in 2007) there was a stupid Law 25B which
allowed you to change a call made on purpose with a score penalty.
Frances
>
> Within the past week I was involved in two rulings at the bridge
> table, which to me were similar, but yielded different outcomes.
> Perhaps someone can explain to me the basis for reconciling them if,
> indeed, they are reconcilable.
>
> Ruling One: Playing in the first round, first board of a sectional
> Swiss, with the opponents silent, I open one club, and my partner bids
> one heart. Evidently unfocused, I put the pass card on the table.
> Immediately realizing the error and folly of my ways, I pick up the
> pass card, and ( try to) put down my intended bid of one spade.
> "Director!"
>
> The director, who I respect as knowledgeable says that because of a
> "recent" change in the laws, she no longer has any choice, and the
> pass must stand. I accept the ruling, and consider myself fortunate
> when my partner makes exactly nine tricks, the limit of the hand.
>
call in which case there is no further penalty.
Derek Broughton
> After the
> round, I bring up Ruling One to RHO, who is a fairly good club-
> level director. He explains to me that the two rulings are
> consistent--something about the one heart and one spade cards being
> next to each other, while, in my case, they were not adjacent. One
> case is "inadvertent" or some such word; the other is not. He offers
> to quote me chapter and verse from the rule book.
I don't think he can quote chapter and verse from the _rule_ book to show
that one was inadvertent and the other not - the rule is that you may change
an inadvertent _call_ before partner makes his own call. However, it's a
whole lot easier to believe that 1H was intended to be 1S (or even more
likely, a bid of 1S or even 1N was intended to be 1H, as the cards above
often stick) than that a pass was inadvertent when a suit bid was intended.
>
> OK then, can someone set out for me exactly what is right, and why.
> Given my age, and that of those around me, I suspect this senior
> moment issue is likely to recur.
I heard my favorite director very cleverly steer a player into an admission
that she changed her mind once - she's not allowed, but if she had convinced
him that she had always intended to bid 1N, but somehow the pass card ended
up in her hand, the change would stand.
--
derek
Nick France
Both are right
Ruling 1 - under the old laws you could take back the pass and make
the intented bid, however, you would get no more than an average minus
for it. The new laws took away this options. Since the pass and 1
spade card are not near each other, it would be hard to convince any
director you had always intended to pull the 1 spade card. Looks more
like you forgot what was happening, pulled the pass card and then
remembered what you were going to do.
Ruling 2 - As long as the 1H bidder can convince the director she
always intended to pul 1S (and this is reasonable considering the
location of the two cards), she can replace her call as long as her
partner hasn't bid. Also your partner may now do anything she likes
and her original bid is authorized information to you but unauthorized
information to the opponents.
Nick France
Frances
> Ruling 2 - As long as the 1H bidder can convince the director she
> always intended to pul 1S (and this is reasonable considering the
> location of the two cards), she can replace her call as long as her
> partner hasn't bid. Also your partner may now do anything she likes
> and her original bid is authorized information to you but unauthorized
> information to the opponents.
>
This last part is wrong. As the 1H bidder always intended to bid 1S,
there is no information in what you call the 'original' bid,
authorised or otherwise, as there was really no 'original' bid. Think
of it the other way up. You want to bid 3NT. You pull out the stack
of cards up to 3NT from the box, and put them on the table in front of
you. As you do so, there is a gust of wind and the top card - the 3NT
one- slides off onto the floor, leaving 3S showing. You are allowed
to pick up the 3NT card and put it back on top making a 3NT bid. There
is no AI or UI in the "3S" bid because it never existed.
Hank Youngerman
As I understand it, the question is whether you actually intended -
even for a moment - to make the bid that was placed on the table. If
you are thinking "3 spades 3 spades 3 spades" and the 3 club card hits
the table, you can take it back (before partner calls) - IF you can
convince the director that you never intended to bid 3 clubs.
Obviously it's easier to believe that you "never intended" to make a
call if the cards are adjacent to each other, than if they are widely
separated or are in different parts of the box.
It's ultimately a directorial judgment. When the cards are not
adjacent, you bear a heavy burden. For example, suppose partner opens
1S and you hold:
KTxx
Axxx
Kxx
xx
If you bid 3C, you may have to convince the director that you have
never, never, ever in your life played Bergen raises. Bidding 3C, and
then realizing that THIS partner doesn't play Bergen raises, isn't
good enough. However, if you can convince the director that you were
just thinking of where you parked the car or what you were going to
have for dinner, and somehow the 3C card came out of the box, you can
change your call.
I recall a hand in the semifinals of the (0-5000 flight) Spingold
where an opponent changed their call even after the bidding tray was
sent to the other side of the screen. The director, after looking at
her hand and asking a little about the opponent's methods, concluded
that she had never really even thought of bidding 2H (the actual call)
and always meant to bid 2S.
Nick France
You have misunderstood me. My partner's actions over 1H is authorized
information to me but not to the opponents. For example, my partner
passed 1H but now it is replaced by 1S and partner now doubles. I am
allowed to consider as authorized information that partner could not
double 1H but can double 1S. The opponents are not authorized to
consider that information.
We both agree the 1H bid gives no unauthorized information as that was
never the intended bid.
Nick France
Nick Wedd
<4e95cadb-7ab0-4719...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Frances <france...@googlemail.com> writes
>I cannot tell you if either or both of these rulings is/are right, but
>they are consistent.
>
>You are not allowed to change a call that you made deliberately. In
>your ruling 1, you clearly meant to put the pass card down albeit only
>for a brief (unfocussed) moment.
>
>You are allowed to change a call that is made inadvertantly, for
>example if two bidding cards stick together or one falls off the top
>of the stack as you place them. So in your ruling two it is possible
>that the player wanted to bid 1S and simply didn't quite get hold of
>the 1S card properly, but pulled out 1H by accident.
>
>In summary, physcial slips can be corrected; mental slips cannot.
Which should this count as:
RHO Me LHO Partner
1D pass 1S pass
2N X
With a flat 5-count, I did not think much about the bidding. I passed
uneventfully over RHO's 1D. Over his 2N, I carelessly extracted the
nearest card from my bidding box. When I noticed LHO staring at it in
astonishment, I looked down and realised it was a double - somehow, all
but one of my pass cards had been hidden behind the doubles.
My feeling is that this should count as a physical slip, I certainly
never had any thoughts of doubling. And our opponents allowed me to
retract it. But how would a director rule?
Nick
>It is a matter of judgement whether the incorrect call was a physical
>or a mental slip, which is why neither ruling is definitively right or
>wrong. The ACBL have given directors guidance that it is 'normal' to
>believe a physical slip when the correct and incorrect calls are
>adjacent in the bidding box, and not when they aren't. It makes sense
>in that it is difficult to pull out a pass card as a physical mistake
>for a 1S card; but there may be exceptional cases in either direction.
>Certainly it is possible that the 1H bid was made on purpose, in which
>case they shouldn't be allowed to change it.
>
>Under the old Laws (changed in 2007) there was a stupid Law 25B which
>allowed you to change a call made on purpose with a score penalty.
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Stu G
> In message
> <4e95cadb-7ab0-4719-851e-b36769979...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Frances <franceshin...@googlemail.com> writes
>
> >I cannot tell you if either or both of these rulings is/are right, but
> >they are consistent.
>
> >You are not allowed to change a call that you made deliberately. In
> >your ruling 1, you clearly meant to put the pass card down albeit only
> >for a brief (unfocussed) moment.
>
> >You are allowed to change a call that is made inadvertantly, for
> >example if two bidding cards stick together or one falls off the top
> >of the stack as you place them. So in your ruling two it is possible
> >that the player wanted to bid 1S and simply didn't quite get hold of
> >the 1S card properly, but pulled out 1H by accident.
>
> >In summary, physcial slips can be corrected; mental slips cannot.
>
> Which should this count as:
>
> RHO Me LHO Partner
> 1D pass 1S pass
> 2N X
>
> With a flat 5-count, I did not think much about the bidding. I passed
> uneventfully over RHO's 1D. Over his 2N, I carelessly extracted the
> nearest card from my bidding box. When I noticed LHO staring at it in
> astonishment, I looked down and realised it was a double - somehow, all
> but one of my pass cards had been hidden behind the doubles.
>
> My feeling is that this should count as a physical slip, I certainly
> never had any thoughts of doubling. And our opponents allowed me to
> retract it. But how would a director rule?
A reasonable director should allow this to be changed as a mechanical
error. The evidence that the double cards were in front of the pass
cards, plus the opps probably agreeing that you were surprised when
you looked down at the table, argue for supporting your statement that
you had no intention of doubling 2N.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
>
> Nick
>
> >It is a matter of judgement whether the incorrect call was a physical
> >or a mental slip, which is why neither ruling is definitively right or
> >wrong. The ACBL have given directors guidance that it is 'normal' to
> >believe a physical slip when the correct and incorrect calls are
> >adjacent in the bidding box, and not when they aren't. It makes sense
> >in that it is difficult to pull out a pass card as a physical mistake
> >for a 1S card; but there may be exceptional cases in either direction.
> >Certainly it is possible that the 1H bid was made on purpose, in which
> >case they shouldn't be allowed to change it.
>
> >Under the old Laws (changed in 2007) there was a stupid Law 25B which
> >allowed you to change a call made on purpose with a score penalty.
>
> --
> Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk
Stu G
Once at a club game, I started the bidding with 1H (P) 3C!. My RHO
then asked about 3C, was told it was a Bergen constructive raise. He
then Passed, but as I was reaching for the 3H card, he asked a follow-
up question. As I turned to answer him, my left hand rotated with my
body and I grabbed the Pass card instead and put it on the table while
still facing RHO. Because RHO distracted my when he should not have,
I got to take back the Pass and replace it with 3H.
I don't expect that thinking about dinner qualifies as a mechanical
error; sounds more like inattention due to hunger... or gluttony.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
>
> I recall a hand in the semifinals of the (0-5000 flight) Spingold
> where an opponent changed their call even after the bidding tray was
> sent to the other side of the screen. The director, after looking at
> her hand and asking a little about the opponent's methods, concluded
> that she had never really even thought of bidding 2H (the actual call)
> and always meant to bid 2S.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
kingsman
I have been out today, and have been perusing the responses. It seems
that the consensus is that both rulings were correct. Let me try to
digest the discussion. Much thanks to all.
Bernard Schneider
David Stevenson
If you decide to bid 3S, and then pull the 3H bid out of the box, you
may change it to the bid you intended, subject to one or two further
rules we need not worry about now.
If you decide to bid 3H, and then pull the 3H bid out of the box, you
may not change it. It does not matter if you decide a split second
later that 3H is a stupid bid and you want to change it.
So what the TD has to decide is what you intended as your hand went to
the box. The point about cards being next to each other is that when
you pull out a card you did not intend to call, it is usually though not
invariably one that is close to the one you intended.
The TD will make a decision as to whether you intended the actual call
made based on what you tell him, and also will consider whether the
bidding cards are close to each other.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
David Stevenson
Since you did not intend to double, you may change it.
David Stevenson
>On Nov 18, 12:25�am, kingsman <bgs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Friends,
>>
>> Within the past week I was involved in two rulings at the bridge
>> table, which to me were similar, but yielded different outcomes.
>> Perhaps someone can explain to me the basis for reconciling them if,
>> indeed, they are reconcilable.
>>
>> Ruling One: �Playing in the first round, first board of a sectional
>> Swiss, with the opponents silent, I open one club, and my partner bids
>> one heart. �Evidently unfocused, �I put the pass card on the table.
>> Immediately realizing the error and folly of my ways, I pick up the
>> pass card, and ( try to) put down my intended bid of one spade.
>> "Director!"
>>
>> The director, who I respect as knowledgeable says that because of a
>> "recent" change in the laws, she no longer has any choice, and the
>> pass must stand. �I accept the ruling, and �consider myself fortunate
>> when my partner makes exactly nine tricks, the limit of the hand.
>Ruling 1 - under the old laws you could take back the pass and make
>the intented bid, however, you would get no more than an average minus
>for it. The new laws took away this options. Since the pass and 1
>spade card are not near each other, it would be hard to convince any
>director you had always intended to pull the 1 spade card. Looks more
>like you forgot what was happening, pulled the pass card and then
>remembered what you were going to do.
Since the OP made it clear that he did intend the pass at the moment
he made it, I trust he would not try to convince the TD otherwise.
David Stevenson
Well, everyone may be convinced it is a directorial judgement but
where I play, I make a lot of mistakes with bidding cards, and opponents
always let me change them without calling the TD. Law 25A rulings are
very rare since everyone 'knows' unintended calls may be replaced, so
everyone just does.
> For example, suppose partner opens
>1S and you hold:
>
>KTxx
>Axxx
>Kxx
>xx
>
>If you bid 3C, you may have to convince the director that you have
>never, never, ever in your life played Bergen raises. Bidding 3C, and
>then realizing that THIS partner doesn't play Bergen raises, isn't
>good enough. However, if you can convince the director that you were
>just thinking of where you parked the car or what you were going to
>have for dinner, and somehow the 3C card came out of the box, you can
>change your call.
The TD should never look at your hand, and this stuff about Bergen is
not how he should decide. He asks questions and judges.
>I recall a hand in the semifinals of the (0-5000 flight) Spingold
>where an opponent changed their call even after the bidding tray was
>sent to the other side of the screen. The director, after looking at
>her hand and asking a little about the opponent's methods, concluded
>that she had never really even thought of bidding 2H (the actual call)
>and always meant to bid 2S.
Good gracious. :(((
Steve Willner
> If you decide to bid 3S, and then pull the 3H bid out of the box, you
> may change it to the bid you intended, subject to one or two further
> rules we need not worry about now.
True everywhere in the world.
> If you decide to bid 3H, and then pull the 3H bid out of the box, you
> may not change it. It does not matter if you decide a split second
> later that 3H is a stupid bid and you want to change it.
True in most of the world but, as David knows, not in the ACBL. Here
you can change your call until the bidding card is put on the table (or
held near the table or some similar actions). I don't know whether
there are any other jurisdictions that follow the ACBL regulations for
bidding cards, but they seem superior to me. (And as regular readers
know, I'm no fan of the ACBL in general.)
David Babcock
> I don't know whether
> there are any other jurisdictions that follow the ACBL regulations for
> bidding cards
If they do, I hope they've re-written the ACBL document to produce
something coherent. Here are three excerpts:from the ACBL document:
"Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards may subject the
offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16."
"A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the
bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or
maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been
made."
"For close cases
simply judge that the card had not left the confines of the box;
therefore, a call has not been made."
So: UI is mentioned regarding touching cards, but not regardiing
taking one out and putting it back; and the third excerpt seems more
appropriate for the rules as set out by David Stevenson than for what
ACBL has just said in the same document.
David
David Stevenson
True. I believe the WBF is changing to the ACBL rule, and the EBL
considering it. The EBU polled other countries and decided not to
change at this time, though if other countries do we shall presumably
revisit it.
Yes, I prefer the ACBL rule myself.
David Stevenson
No doubt the first and third rules are just left over: the second rule
was a change in the ACBL: previously they had the same rule as we do.