[campboy]

The problem with forcing any call made to stand is that it is very common for the bid one step above the bid being taken out to stick to it, and the bidding-box regulations currently say that a call is made once removed from the bidding box with apparent intent. I think it is much better to allow this situation to be corrected than not, and I think it is much better if it can be dealt with without a TD call, as at present.

I would welcome Robin's proposed change. If the call made is genuinely not the call intended, I find it hard to believe that the player would not notice immediately anyway.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2011-September-07, 16:27, said:

Alternatively, you could achieve much the same effect by sticking with the current law 25A, and asking the WBFLC to issue a revised interpretation saying that "without pause for thought" should be taken to mean "without pause for thought".

Very clever. However, the reason for the WBFLC interpretation is that is what most people think it means once they have thought about it, assuming they are not overly pedantic. The point is that, apart from pedants who do not wish to apply Laws with sense, "without pause for thought" means "without pause for relevant thought". Pausing while you consider whether to have fish or meat for dinner is not really the point. Now, you cannot pause for relevant thought until you realise something is wrong. Thus their interpretation fits in with what most people believe the Law means once they have thought about it.

That does not mean that the Law is right, of course, just that your "solution" is the worst of evils.



My own personal preference is to remove all Laws that allow changes, but make the rules for when a call is made follow the ACBL interpretation, which is roughly speaking the same as a played card for declarer.

[axman]

RMB1, on 2011-September-03, 14:45, said:

In a different topic, I suggested Law 25A should be interpreted so that a "pause for thought" starts when the call is made. This was contested, and I thought it had gone too off topic to continue there.



So, delete "Until his partner makes a call", if it unnecessary.

But I will not concede that any proposed re-interpretation of any law is wrong, because it would mean the original law could have been better phrased. Many of us believe many of the laws could well be better phrased, even with their current interpretaions.

It is imbecilic for law to give permission to take a do-over. For instance, if a player corrects his call the law ought to provide for what is to happen.

The business of inadvertency, being otherwise a matter of mind reading, should be directed toward the ethics of the player: in other words, if his call was not inadvertent he shouldn’t consider attempting to change his call.

A whole lot of people believe that the correct point of measuring for too much time having elapsed being the time when the play ‘says he noticed’ needs to be ‘the point in time when he first should have noticed’.

For instance, in voice bidding that point is when the words were uttered; for bidding boxes it is at least by the time the hand starts coming down towards the table, and certainly not after the bidding cards have been released; when an opponent commit a distraction coincident with bidding- after the smoke has cleared; when partner mentions that Wendy is particularly daring tonight- the same as when there was no distraction; when some one yells fire- after the smoke clears.

[jallerton]

Vampyr, on 2011-September-07, 16:38, said:

I agree with you, but somehow not in this particular instance. Maybe this seems simpler than other situations and doesn't appear to have a downside.

I would be happy with your version, though, if it came in a package with improved and much more stringent laws relating to insufficient bids and revokes.

I think it was you, Stefanie, who observed on another thread some time ago that the current 'interpretation' can cause problems for the TD when a player claims his bid was unintended. The poor TD has to judge both whether the original call actually was unintended and when the player first realised that he had made the wrong call.

Furthermore, when the next player has already called over the unintended call, a UI minefield is created as this next player's call is unauthorised information to two players at the table.

campboy, on 2011-September-08, 03:50, said:

The problem with forcing any call made to stand is that it is very common for the bid one step above the bid being taken out to stick to it, and the bidding-box regulations currently say that a call is made once removed from the bidding box with apparent intent. I think it is much better to allow this situation to be corrected than not, and I think it is much better if it can be dealt with without a TD call, as at present.

I would welcome Robin's proposed change. If the call made is genuinely not the call intended, I find it hard to believe that the player would not notice immediately anyway.

bluejak, on 2011-September-08, 08:57, said:

My own personal preference is to remove all Laws that allow changes, but make the rules for when a call is made follow the ACBL interpretation, which is roughly speaking the same as a played card for declarer.

You both raise a good point. The optimal wording of Law 25A should perhaps depend on wording of the bidding box regulations in force. That would in turn suggest that we should have standard bidding box procedures written into the Laws. I'm sure Nigel will agree here!

bluejak, on 2011-September-08, 08:57, said:

Very clever. However, the reason for the WBFLC interpretation is that is what most people think it means once they have thought about it, assuming they are not overly pedantic. The point is that, apart from pedants who do not wish to apply Laws with sense, "without pause for thought" means "without pause for relevant thought". Pausing while you consider whether to have fish or meat for dinner is not really the point. Now, you cannot pause for relevant thought until you realise something is wrong. Thus their interpretation fits in with what most people believe the Law means once they have thought about it.

I think you are confusing "what most people believe the Law means once they have thought about it" with "what some people think the Law ought to say once they have thought about it".

When a player pulls a batch of bidding cards out of the bidding box, it just common sense for the player to check immediately that the correct bidding cards have come out. If the player can't be bothered to check until ten seconds later because he is more interested in considering whether to have meat or fish for dinner, why on earth should the Laws (or any 'interpretations' thereof) permit the player to change his call at this late stage? If a late change is permitted, he has just wasted the other three players' time and mental energy.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-September-08, 03:50, said:

The problem with forcing any call made to stand is that it is very common for the bid one step above the bid being taken out to stick to it <snip>

That is not a problem. They have to stick with the bid. They will be more careful next time. A snooker player whose tie brushes a ball concedes a foul, even though this was an obvious "mechanical" error. A golfer whose ball moves while he addresses it concedes a penalty, even if there was nothing he could have done about it. Why have special rules for mistake at bridge?

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2011-September-08, 15:30, said:

I think you are confusing "what most people believe the Law means once they have thought about it" with "what some people think the Law ought to say once they have thought about it".

No, I am not.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2011-September-08, 15:30, said:

When a player pulls a batch of bidding cards out of the bidding box, it just common sense for the player to check immediately that the correct bidding cards have come out. If the player can't be bothered to check until ten seconds later because he is more interested in considering whether to have meat or fish for dinner, why on earth should the Laws (or any 'interpretations' thereof) permit the player to change his call at this late stage? If a late change is permitted, he has just wasted the other three players' time and mental energy.

Some years ago, as I was cleaning up after a game, I passed two ladies conducting a post-mortem. What I heard as I went by was this: "I didn't come here to think, I came here to play bridge!" It's stuck with me because it's funny, and also because it accurately describes the way many people approach the game. I doubt it would be good for the game in the long wrong run if we told these players "sorry, that's not good enough".

As for wasting the other three players' time and energy, where do the laws say anyone should care about that?

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2011-September-09, 09:14
Reason for edit: change one word

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-08, 19:08, said:

[...]
As for wasting the other three players' time and energy, where do the laws say anyone should care about that?

L74B4 ?

[StevenG]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-08, 19:08, said:

Some years ago, as I was cleaning up after a game, I passed two ladies conducting a post-mortem. What I heard as I went by was this: "I didn't come here to think, I came here to play bridge!" It's stuck with me because it's funny, and also because it accurately describes the way many people approach the game. I doubt it would be good for the game in the long wrong if we told these players "sorry, that's not good enough".

If we forced those players out of the local clubs, they would all be down to two tables. The vast majority of duplicate bridge played is played for social reasons, not competitive, and the laws reflect that.

[StevenG]

deleted

[StevenG]

lamford, on 2011-September-08, 17:17, said:

That is not a problem. They have to stick with the bid. They will be more careful next time. A snooker player whose tie brushes a ball concedes a foul, even though this was an obvious "mechanical" error. A golfer whose ball moves while he addresses it concedes a penalty, even if there was nothing he could have done about it. Why have special rules for mistake at bridge?

You might change your mind on that when your eyesight starts ro fail and your motor control becomes unreliable.

[shintaro]

StevenG, on 2011-September-09, 02:03, said:

If we forced those players out of the local clubs, they would all be down to two tables. The vast majority of duplicate bridge played is played for social reasons, not competitive, and the laws reflect that.

mmmm Steven do you actually think the Law Makers or Proponents of Care about CLUB bridge

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-September-08, 17:17, said:

That is not a problem. They have to stick with the bid. They will be more careful next time. A snooker player whose tie brushes a ball concedes a foul, even though this was an obvious "mechanical" error. A golfer whose ball moves while he addresses it concedes a penalty, even if there was nothing he could have done about it. Why have special rules for mistake at bridge?

Mainly because this specific problem is caused by the use of bidding boxes, which are not fundamental to the game and so only worth using so long as they solve more problems than they cause.

Anyway, to continue your snooker analogy, why am I not permitted to ask the TD to clean my bidding cards to avoid this?

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2011-September-08, 03:50, said:

The problem with forcing any call made to stand is that it is very common for the bid one step above the bid being taken out to stick to it, and the bidding-box regulations currently say that a call is made once removed from the bidding box with apparent intent. I think it is much better to allow this situation to be corrected than not, and I think it is much better if it can be dealt with without a TD call, as at present.

If a change were made, we would definitely to change the regulation so that a call is not made until it is on the table.

bluejak, on 2011-September-06, 16:35, said:

Maybe I misunderstood aqua.



As to the whole approach I think that once a call is made or a play designated it should not be changeable. But it would be a major change in thinking. What happens now is that because so many changes are allowed players expect to change everything. They play the ♥A, change their mind, and are shocked you do not allow the change.

So if the bidding card one bid above your intended one is stuck to the bidding card of your intended bid, you would not allow a player to snatch it off the top? This seems a bit harsh.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-September-09, 01:48, said:

L74B4 ?

Nope.

[jnichols]

lamford, on 2011-September-08, 17:17, said:

That is not a problem. They have to stick with the bid. They will be more careful next time. A snooker player whose tie brushes a ball concedes a foul, even though this was an obvious "mechanical" error. A golfer whose ball moves while he addresses it concedes a penalty, even if there was nothing he could have done about it. Why have special rules for mistake at bridge?

Snooker and Golf are primarily phosical (mechanical) games. There is thought involved in choice of shot and what club to use, but the primary aspect of these games is the ability to execute the mechanics of the game.

Bridge, on the other hand, is primary a mental game. The mechanics are Incedental.

That is a reason to have special rules for mechanical mistakes at Bridge.

[AlexJonson]

jnichols, on 2011-September-09, 10:43, said:

Snooker and Golf are primarily phosical (mechanical) games. There is thought involved in choice of shot and what club to use, but the primary aspect of these games is the ability to execute the mechanics of the game.

Bridge, on the other hand, is primary a mental game. The mechanics are Incedental.

That is a reason to have special rules for mechanical mistakes at Bridge.

I think you are right to dismiss the snooker and golf comparisons.

But I sometimes wonder if we flatter ourselves by introducing too much philosophy into a relatively straightforward card game.

[jallerton]

jallerton, on 2011-September-08, 15:30, said:

When a player pulls a batch of bidding cards out of the bidding box, it just common sense for the player to check immediately that the correct bidding cards have come out. If the player can't be bothered to check until ten seconds later because he is more interested in considering whether to have meat or fish for dinner, why on earth should the Laws (or any 'interpretations' thereof) permit the player to change his call at this late stage? If a late change is permitted, he has just wasted the other three players' time and mental energy.

blackshoe, on 2011-September-08, 19:08, said:

As for wasting the other three players' time and energy, where do the laws say anyone should care about that?

In this thread we are discussing what the Laws should say, but if you are asking about the current Laws, I would suggest you consider Laws 74A1, 74A2, 74A3 and 74B1. Unless asking players to follow the letter and spirit of these Laws is considered to be "overly pedantic" of course!

[blackshoe]

I did consider those laws. I suppose if we follow the letter of law 74A2, winning a trick is illegal. But never mind. You guys continue what you're doing — I'm going to go take a nap.

[FrancesHinden]

StevenG, on 2011-September-09, 02:03, said:

If we forced those players out of the local clubs, they would all be down to two tables. The vast majority of duplicate bridge played is played for social reasons, not competitive, and the laws reflect that.

I am not convinced that having rules such as 25A (and the old part of 25 that allowed you to change a call and get av- and the new 27b and other similar ones) is good for 'social reasons' players either. The game would actually be easier to teach, and easier to play, if the rule was just 'if you play a card or make a call you cannot change it', or 'if you revoke you are given an automatic 10 trick penalty'. Everyone would understand that easily and there would be fewer TD calls and fewer arguments. Most players don't get upset when mechanical errors cause them to get a bad result; they get upset when there appears to be judgement or guesswork or prejudice involved in whether the error gets them a bad board or not.

p.s. I would also change the bidding box regulations to the ACBL ones to allow 'unsticking' of cards

p.p.s I play bridge very competitively. I still believe I do it for 'social reasons' i.e. I play with my friends because I enjoy it.