[shevek]

A player opens 1♥, uncontested auction.
Partner bids 4♦ splinter and our hero tanks for a bit.

Eventually he decides his hand is not worth a slam try so he decides to "sign off".
Unfortunately, a synaptic malfunction sees him signing off by placing the green card in front of him.
He realises pretty soon, calls you and says something like "I had a brain snap. Obviously I never intended 4♦ to be the final contract ..."

Punters hope this qualifies as inadvertant. Is it? If it isn't, what words should the director use to distinguish this action from that of the guy who unintentionally opens 1♥ with a singleton heart and six diamonds?

TIA

[blackshoe]

No, it's not inadvertent unintended (the laws now use the latter term in place of the former). At the time he passed, he was "signing off" by passing.

[paulg]

(known as a Bailey Pass in my area)

I can believe that he never intended to make 4♦ the final contract. However this is irrelevant.

When he selected the pass card, this was the bidding card he intended to play. So he is unable to change it.

[campboy]

A call is unintended if it is not the card you were intending to pull out of the bidding box. A "brain snap" doesn't count; it needs to be an accident of hand or eye or bidding box.

The fact that a call has unintended consequences does not make the call itself unintended.

[mycroft]

This is a 25B2b2 case, which if you check your law book no longer exists. For 10 years, after somebody played in 5 blackwood response, we were allowed to fix a "brain snap" and play for A- at best. It was a massive mistake - nobody knew they could do that, nobody believed they (more particularly, their opponents) could do that, when the TD offered it as an option, everybody (even the A- instead of zero pair) thought it was unfair, so in the latest laws it has been put into the file where we put all the "good ideas that don't actually work".

The way to explain it is up to the RA; the ACBL refers to "mechanical error" as opposed to "thinking error", so if you change your mind, even if you go from "not thinking" to "thinking", then you don't get to change it; if you were always thinking that, and the wrong word/card came out, then it's inadvertent.

In the ACBL, we have different regulations on how much evidence we require for inadvertency; for touching cards in the bid box (intended: 2H; pulled 1H/2D/2S/3H) we have quite a bit of leniency (tempered, of course, by "5H response to Gerber that meant to be 4H" - you check that one (afterward!) to ensure that they didn't actually have a 5H-to-blackwood response); for cards in different slots in the box, we assume it's a brain snap, and can be (but rarely are) convinced otherwise; for "inadvertent calls from dummy", 'the burden of proof is on declarer. The standard of proof is "OVERWHELMING".' Check your RA for your regulations.

[AlexJonson]

The Laws seem completely clear.

I wonder in what forms of the game, and at what levels, and in what competitions, the fortunate side would typically choose to take advantage of a mistaken mental translation of sign-off = 4M to sign-off = pass.

I wonder if I will receive replies to the question I have put, rather than some noise about something else.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2011-February-04, 11:52, said:

for "inadvertent calls from dummy", 'the burden of proof is on declarer. The standard of proof is "OVERWHELMING".'

I've heard that somewhere, but I don't remember where. Can you point me to the appropriate regulation or official pronouncement?

I might respond to Alex's question, if I understood it. I don't.

[Vampyr]

AlexJonson, on 2011-February-04, 16:06, said:

I wonder in what forms of the game, and at what levels, and in what competitions, the fortunate side would typically choose to take advantage of a mistaken mental translation of sign-off = 4M to sign-off = pass.

I would say, roughly, always, everywhere, everyone.

[nige1]

AlexJonson, on 2011-February-04, 16:06, said:

The Laws seem completely clear. I wonder in what forms of the game, and at what levels, and in what competitions, the fortunate side would typically choose to take advantage of a mistaken mental translation of sign-off = 4M to sign-off = pass. I wonder if I will receive replies to the question I have put, rather than some noise about something else.

Vampyr, on 2011-February-04, 17:33, said:

I would say, roughly, always, everywhere, everyone.

Agree with Vampyr. Opponents could request that their rights be waived but that would be up to the director. Were I a beneficiary. I'd accept my pound of flesh. And were I the passer, I hope that I'd accept my fate, without demur.

I reckon that players appreciate such fair and simple rules. Unfortunately, however, when a player claims mechanical error, the laws open an unnecessary can of worms.

[bluejak]

AlexJonson, on 2011-February-04, 16:06, said:

I wonder in what forms of the game, and at what levels, and in what competitions, the fortunate side would typically choose to take advantage of a mistaken mental translation of sign-off = 4M to sign-off = pass.

Everyone makes mistakes, and their opponents gain. That's normal everywhere.

[AlexJonson]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-04, 16:06, said:

I might respond to Alex's question, if I understood it. I don't.

It's OK Blackshoe, three others understood the question and replied to it.

[blackshoe]

Thank you, Alex, for the confidence boost.

[AlexJonson]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-05, 07:47, said:

Thank you, Alex, for the confidence boost.

Now that's good, because I don't understand it.

Let's think about the original problem.

A. Nige1 thinks the Laws should say 'no takeback'. But, of course, they do not.

B. Vampyr thinks that if there is a chance the TD will say bid made stands, then go for it. Perfectly ethical.

C. Bluejak says people make mistakes and pay the price. Same as Nige1(?)... that's interesting.

So, if you do understand, Blackshoe, what do you think, because I respect your opinions.

[Vampyr]

AlexJonson, on 2011-February-05, 14:42, said:

B. Vampyr thinks that if there is a chance the TD will say bid made stands, then go for it. Perfectly ethical.

What am I supposed to have said? The pass stands and that is that. I don't understand what you are saying here.

[AlexJonson]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-05, 15:21, said:

What am I supposed to have said? The pass stands and that is that. I don't understand what you are saying here.

Well the Laws don't say that bids just stand, do they?

So we have 'unintended'. Do you believe that the player intended to sign off in 4D? Campboy gives us the Cambridge linguistic philosopher answer. 'At the time he pulled the pass card he intended to pull the pass card.' Impressive logic eh.

[blackshoe]

What the law actually says is

Quote

Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought.

The emphasis is mine. It seems clear that the criteria of the law were not met in the case at hand, so the call, as Vampyr says, stands. Next case!

[mrdct]

Jurisdiction is pretty important here as bidding box procedures are subject to local regulation. Assuming this happened in Australia, the relevant regulations in force at the moment are:

Quote

3.5 A call is considered made (without screens) when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or maintained in such a position as to indicate that the call has been made.

3.6 A call selected may be changed without penalty if it is determined by the Director that
• It is a call selected unintentionally or
• It has not passed the screen and the Director consents to the change.

In Australia I have personal experience of TDs and appeals committee taking a pretty lenient view of what "unintentionally" means. Specifically, I was involved in a case where a player misdescribed his partner's bid and pulled 4♠ out of the box (which would've been the final contract in a 4-2 fit) and held it less than an inch from the table on a slight angle and visiable to all before realising his error and put it back and made an alternative bid that lead them to a making slam in a 6-4 fit. The TD ruled (and the appeals committee concurred giving me a 1VP appeal without merit fine) that he bid 4♠ unintentionally and could change it without penalty.

So in this case, in Australia at least, I think the guy who had the brain-snap and pulled the pass card out would have a pretty good chance of finding a TD or appeals committee willing to let him change his call to 4♥.

[Vampyr]

AlexJonson, on 2011-February-05, 15:47, said:

'At the time he pulled the pass card he intended to pull the pass card.'

This is also the TDs' logic, and is the question that establishes intent. It is not what contract you had wanted to reach, but what card you went for that matters.

You clearly don't want it to be this way. You are not correct and will not get anyone to agree with you, but at least you are in good company. Get hold of a version of the 1997 Laws and read L25(b)2b2. This Law was forced through by Edgar Kaplan, who believed that playing in, eg 4♦ in a case like this was "not bridge", and stipulated that you could change your call and play on for no more than Average Minus.

In the 2007 Laws, this lunacy was done away with, but only to be traded for the new L27C1. You do not, as they say, get something for nothing.

Apropos of unintended calls in general, I believe that one pretty good criterion is whether the call came out of a different portion of the bidding box. Surprisingly, not everyone agrees with this. A frequent poster on this forum once ruled in favour of my opponent, who had made an "unintended call" from a different section of the box. He kept, over my objections, encouraging her to say that she had pulled the wrong card. So you can, once in a while, get away with lying. Only you can answer whether you could live with yourself afterwards.

[Vampyr]

mrdct, on 2011-February-05, 16:29, said:

The TD ruled (and the appeals committee concurred giving me a 1VP appeal without merit fine) that he bid 4♠ unintentionally and could change it without penalty.

So in this case, in Australia at least, I think the guy who had the brain-snap and pulled the pass card out would have a pretty could chance of finding a TD or appeals committee willing to let him change his call to 4♥.

You never know. The standards of directing and appeals rulings in Australia could experience a massive increase in quality.

P.S. How do I keep all of the nested quotes in my reply?

[AlexJonson]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-05, 16:31, said:

This is also the TDs' logic, and is the question that establishes intent. It is not what contract you had wanted to reach, but what card you went for that matters.

You clearly don't want it to be this way. You are not correct and will not get anyone to agree with you, but at least you are in good company. Get hold of a version of the 1997 Laws and read L25(b)2b2. This Law was forced through by Edgar Kaplan, who believed that playing in, eg 4♦ in a case like this was "not bridge", and stipulated that you could change your call and play on for no more than Average Minus.

In the 2007 Laws, this lunacy was done away with, but only to be traded for the new L27C1. You do not, as they say, get something for nothing.

Apropos of unintended calls in general, I believe that one pretty good criterion is whether the call came out of a different portion of the bidding box. Surprisingly, not everyone agrees with this. A frequent poster on this forum once ruled in favour of my opponent, who had made an "unintended call" from a different section of the box. He kept, over my objections, encouraging her to say that she had pulled the wrong card. So you can, once in a while, get away with lying. Only you can answer whether you could live with yourself afterwards.

Don't jump to conclusions!

I am in the Nige1 camp - no takeback.

But I have no enthusiasm for mind reading nonsense about intent, when the logic of the cards is plain. Such an approach just leads to random decisions as mrdct indicates.

Anyway - Blackshoe has spoken and I await the next case.