[bluejak]

South bids 1♠. North announces "twelve to fourteen"!

South realises something is wrong, looks down, and finds he has bid 1NT by accident.

Whether through lack of understanding of Law 25A, slow reactions, or anything else, the bidding proceeds with no comments. Partner bids 2♦. South announces "hearts" and completes the transfer.

It is suggested afterwards that the knowledge that you have bid 1NT [and therefore 2♦ is a transfer] is unauthorised because it came from partner's announcement.

Well?

[mgoetze]

This is supposed to be a simple ruling? OK...uhm... Law 20B?

[campboy]

Since we would allow South to use this information to change his call under 25A if he had attempted to do so, it seems inconsistent to say that he is not allowed to use the information to deduce that 2♦ is a transfer.

[blackshoe]

Law 20F and the alert regulation require opener to announce that 2♦ is a transfer in this auction. Failure to do so is to misinform opponents. I am surprised that any reasonable player would think that one law would require a player to violate another. Well, maybe not "surprised" - players do strange things quite often.

[campboy]

Is anyone saying that? Of course South should announce "hearts"; the question is whether he is allowed to choose his bid on the basis that 2♦ showed hearts.

The Orange Book says:

Quote

It is proper to use any unauthorised information which has been made available by partner to help a player to decide to alert and explain the partnership agreement as accurately as he can, but of course unauthorised information must not be used to help in the bidding and play.

[Pict]

'De minimis'. Once I look at my bid cards, the reason I looked should be disregarded. I have a very natural AI that outweighs the UI, and I live with my error in the remaining auction.

[bluejak]

I am not aware of any Law that involves AI "outweighing" UI.

[jdonn]

Agree with campboy, interesting question though.

bluejak, on Aug 13 2010, 06:32 PM, said:

I am not aware of any  Law that involves AI "outweighing" UI.

Perhaps not in those exact words, but there should be such a law. (Oops wrong forum)

[blackshoe]

The closest the law comes is that AI may be such that there is no LA to a chosen call. Note that the law does not say, a priori, that anyone can say to a player "you have UI, therefore you may not make the following calls: <list of calls>". What we can say is "you have UI, you must make every effort not to take advantage of it" or "you have UI, you may not choose from amongst logical alternatives one suggested over another by the UI". Then you must let him make whatever call he likes. Only after the hand is over will you consider whether to adjust the score.

[Pict]

bluejak, on Aug 13 2010, 06:32 PM, said:

I am not aware of any Law that involves AI "outweighing" UI.

I understand that.

However, we know that UI exists to some tiny or small extent in many circumstances.

From a common sense view point, the presence of my bid on the table seems so ovewhelming as to allow me to use that information.

[bluejak]

The trouble is that you did not have that information until it was given you by your partner.

So, "from a commonsense point of view" the information as to what call you made came from UI, and not from AI.

[Pict]

bluejak, on Aug 14 2010, 06:13 AM, said:

The trouble is that you did not have that information until it was given you by your partner.

So, "from a commonsense point of view" the information as to what call you made came from UI, and not from AI.

I was thinking in a more everyday sense, where I will inevitably look frequently at the bids on the table. However this is, perhaps, not the point of the post - so I will desist, though there is a slight risk here of being blown on to BLML territory of reasoning so (over?)refined as to be impractical at the table.

[mamos]

The first two replies are correct in my opinion. This is not a simple ruling And it seems to unveil an inconsistency or contradiction.

There is no doubt that in England,we rule and teach that Law 25A corrections are allowed if a player becomes aware of his unintended call by any means, eg partner's alerts, announcements, opponents' questions or comments ("That's not a Stop Bid). I actually taught a course for trainee directors here in Brighton this week in which this exact example, opening 1NT when 1♠ was intended and hearing partner say "12-14" was used to show a legitimate 25A change.

However there are certainly clear examples where we would treat this announcement as UI - if I opened 1NT with the misapprehension that our agreement was 15-17, to hear partner say "12-14" we would expect Law 16 to apply. If something feels like UI, quacks like UI, is it a duck?

So it seems that there are different ways of looking at this and currently our Law Book and regulations simply don't tell us the answer. We could decide that the announcement "12-14" should not be allowed to draw a player's attention to his unintended bid under 25A. I'd be interested to know if our practice is followed in WBF, EBL and other NBOs (especially ACBL).

Secondly we could decide that there is a contradiction here, but that Law 25 is different because of the "unintended" nature of the error and so allow the change of call under that Law, but afterwards treat the UI in the normal way (so for example here the player who opened 1NT would have to continue as if they had opened 1S and partner's response showed Diamonds and not Hearts


If you were playing with screens, you might or might not become aware of your unintended bid, but at the table once partner has drawn your attention to your misbid, perhaps we should rule that you must not use this UI in the auction

Mike Amos (in haste) apologies for any errors

[pran]

mamos, on Aug 14 2010, 12:28 PM, said:

The first two replies are correct in my opinion. This is not a simple ruling And it seems to unveil an inconsistency or contradiction.

There is no doubt that in England,we rule and teach that Law 25A corrections are allowed if a player becomes aware of his unintended call by any means, eg partner's alerts, announcements, opponents' questions or comments ("That's not a Stop Bid). I actually taught a course for trainee directors here in Brighton this week in which this exact example, opening 1NT when 1♠ was intended and hearing partner say "12-14" was used to show a legitimate 25A change.

However there are certainly clear examples where we would treat this announcement as UI - if I opened 1NT with the misapprehension that our agreement was 15-17, to hear partner say "12-14" we would expect Law 16 to apply. If something feels like UI, quacks like UI, is it a duck?

So it seems that there are different ways of looking at this and currently our Law Book and regulations simply don't tell us the answer. We could decide that the announcement "12-14" should not be allowed to draw a player's attention to his unintended bid under 25A. I'd be interested to know if our practice is followed in WBF, EBL and other NBOs (especially ACBL).

Secondly we could decide that there is a contradiction here, but that Law 25 is different because of the "unintended" nature of the error and so allow the change of call under that Law, but afterwards treat the UI in the normal way (so for example here the player who opened 1NT would have to continue as if they had opened 1S and partner's response showed Diamonds and not Hearts


If you were playing with screens, you might or might not become aware of your unintended bid, but at the table once partner has drawn your attention to your misbid, perhaps we should rule that you must not use this UI in the auction

Mike Amos (in haste) apologies for any errors

There is a clear difference between becoming aware of an unintended misbid through otherwise UI from his partner and to become aware of a forgotten agreement in the same way.

The first is an obvious candicate for a Law 25A correction, the second is equally obvious not.

So if the cicumstances all point towards an unintended misbid (1NT) where 1♠ was intended and the "offender" reacts within the specifications given in Law 25A I see no reason why he should be denied a law 25A correction of his misbid.

The player that opens 1NT (15-17) and hears an announcement from partner "12-14" has to live with it and is required to continue his auction as if the agreement is indeed 15-17.

[gordontd]

pran, on Aug 14 2010, 02:09 PM, said:

So if the cicumstances all point towards an unintended misbid (1NT) where 1♠ was intended and the "offender" reacts within the specifications given in Law 25A I see no reason why he should be denied a law 25A correction of his misbid.

I don't think anyone is suggesting here that he should be denied a law 25A correction of his misbid. What is being questioned is whether, if he doesn't avail himself of L25A, he can use in the later auction the information that he has misbid - information that came to him as a result of his partner's announcement.

[pran]

gordontd, on Aug 16 2010, 09:35 AM, said:

pran, on Aug 14 2010, 02:09 PM, said:

So if the cicumstances all point towards an unintended misbid (1NT) where 1♠ was intended and the "offender" reacts within the specifications given in Law 25A I see no reason why he should be denied a law 25A correction of his misbid.

I don't think anyone is suggesting here that he should be denied a law 25A correction of his misbid. What is being questioned is whether, if he doesn't avail himself of L25A, he can use in the later auction the information that he has misbid - information that came to him as a result of his partner's announcement.

I have a feeling that this particular question is equivalent to a question if a player making a psyche may later in the auction use the information that he actually made a psyche?

Why a player that becomes aware of his misbid while it is still correctable under Law 25A should choose not to correct this misbid is beyond me, but I assume that whenever the laws offer a player an option both the offer itself and the actual option chosen is AI to all players.

Clearly a player that because of UI from his partner becomes aware that he had forgotten a particular agreement may not use this information during the continued auction.

I really do not see how this principle can be extended to the situation where a player becomes aware of an unintended misbid (e.g. pulling the wrong bid card from the box) from partner's reaction? What logical alternative actions can demonstrably be suggested over other logical alternatives during the continued auction from this information? "He ought to be more careful pulling the correct bid cards in the future so in order to comply with law 16B1a he must continue pulling the wrong cards"?

[gordontd]

pran, on Aug 16 2010, 10:04 AM, said:

I have a feeling that this particular question is equivalent to a question if a player making a psyche may later in the auction use the information that he actually made a psyche?

The difference is that a psyche is deliberate.

Quote

Why a player that becomes aware of his misbid while it is still correctable under Law 25A should choose not to correct this misbid is beyond me, but I assume that whenever the laws offer a player an option both the offer itself and the actual option chosen is AI to all players.

Two possible reasons:
He didn't know that it was correctable, or
He thought he was not within time to correct

The laws may offer the choice to the player, but if attention is not drawn to the misbid at the table (as it wasn't in the original post), none of the other players would know that the player has chosen not to ask to make a correction.

Quote

What logical alternative actions can demonstrably be suggested over other logical alternatives during the continued auction from this information?

The question is whether the player should continue to bid as though he had made the bid he intended. Certainly in our given case that would preclude him from rebidding hearts unless he had four of them.

[pran]

gordontd, on Aug 16 2010, 02:40 PM, said:

pran, on Aug 16 2010, 10:04 AM, said:

I have a feeling that this particular question is equivalent to a question if a player making a psyche may later in the auction use the information that he actually made a psyche?

The difference is that a psyche is deliberate.

Quote

Why a player that becomes aware of his misbid while it is still correctable under Law 25A should choose not to correct this misbid is beyond me, but I assume that whenever the laws offer a player an option both the offer itself and the actual option chosen is AI to all players.

Two possible reasons:
He didn't know that it was correctable, or
He thought he was not within time to correct

The laws may offer the choice to the player, but if attention is not drawn to the misbid at the table (as it wasn't in the original post), none of the other players would know that the player has chosen not to ask to make a correction.

Quote

What logical alternative actions can demonstrably be suggested over other logical alternatives during the continued auction from this information?

The question is whether the player should continue to bid as though he had made the bid he intended. Certainly in our given case that would preclude him from rebidding hearts unless he had four of them.

How can you tell the difference between a (deliberate) psyche and a misbid when the offender makes no attempt to obtain a Law25A correction and thereby apparently pretends that his misbid was deliberate?

There is one fundamental rule in bridge that every player should know: In case of an irregularity you should call the Director and let him sort out the difficulties.

South might be ignorant of Law 25A but he has little or no excuse for not knowing the above rule.

As a director in the OP case I would delay my ruling until I know if EW has any case for claiming damage. Then if I find that they have I shall most probably adjust the result on the board as I find equitable.

[gordontd]

pran, on Aug 16 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

As a director in the OP case I would delay my ruling until I know if EW has any case for claiming damage. Then if I find that they have I shall most probably adjust the result on the board as I find equitable.

So you are of the opinion that the player may not be woken up by the announcement to having misbid?

[nige1]

When play was ended, the opening bidder said "I meant to open 1♠ - I thought I had opened 1♠ ". As an opponent, since attention had been drawn to a (putative) infraction, I called the director (although it would not affect our score and I intended to ask the director to waive any penalty). After hearing the facts, the director ruled that there were no grounds for considering an adjustment and asked about what I was complaning. I asked the director whether the "12-14" announcement is authorised information to opener. If not, is opener obliged to bid as if 2♦ is natural (athough, of course, I accept that he must announce it as "hearts"). The director said No. I asked the director to consult with colleagues. When that request was refused, I asked to appeal the ruling (just to clarify the matter). This request was also denied because "It is a matter of Law". But I still wonder if that is right.