[dickiegera]

---

After West passes she asks if they are playing gambling 3NT.
Now North calls the director and indicates that he had pulled the wrong card from bidding box.
Does not tell what he had intended [had meant 3♠ ]

Down 6 however if he had opened 3♠ east would have doubled and others were making 5 or 6 Hearts.

Any adjustments here possible? Director said no.
East was assuming 3NT was natural and was not sure he could set 3NT natural so he kept his mouth shut.

Thank you

[ArtK78]

Sometimes you just get fixed.

North bid 3NT by error and didn't notice it in time to correct it. After that, the bidding took its course. Assuming that 3NT gambling is not alertable (and assuming that the 3NT bidder's side was playing gambling 3NT) there can be no adjustment. Certainly none of the opponents' actions were influenced by any unauthorized information or misinformation on the part of the 3NT bidder's side.

Even if the 3NT bidder's partner properly alerted the 3NT opening (again, assuming that the bid is alertable) and properly explained the partnership's agreement, there can be no adjustment.

[barmar]

3NT is alertable in ACBL. But I agree with Art that the MI is irrelevant to the bad result.

And if East thinks that North has a strong (25-27 HCP) NT, he can see 5 almost sure defensive tricks in his hand, so he should double it.

[blackshoe]

What was the answer to West's question? If NS were in fact playing Gambling 3NT (or Kantar, or Namyats, or any not natural meaning) there was a failure to alert. Per Law 21B, West should have been given the opportunity to change his last pass. Doesn't sound like he would have done so, though, since he didn't ask until after he passed (a time at which technically he had no right to ask). Still, if he wasn't given the opportunity, it's director error, and Law 82C kicks in.

Advice (which I don't always follow, sometimes to my regret): Look at their CC at the beginning of the round, noting their basic system, NT openings, their responses to suit openings, and their two level openings. Don't worry about memorizing it all, just get a feel. Doesn't relieve them of their disclosure responsibilities, but it may help in cases like this.

[VixTD]

If NS are playing a gambling 3NT then there has been a failure to alert, i.e. misinformation. West should have been given the opportunity to retract her final pass, but even if that option were not taken surely East would have doubled a gambling 3NT (ask him). What would have happened thereafter depends on a number of things: Did South fail to alert because they'd forgotten their agreement, or because they didn't believe it was alertable? South might pull a doubled 3NT to 4♣ (even though they passed an undoubled 3NT), and EW might double whatever they land in, or manage to bid to 4/5♥.

The TD might consider awarding possible scores such as 3NT-6, 3NTX-6, 4miX-?, 4♥+1, 4♥X+1, depending on what outcomes are likely or "at all possible".

North might be able to pull some of these contracts back to spades and lessen the damage. He might also try to argue that an alert would have prompted him to notice he had pulled the wrong card and ask to change his call, but I'm not sure he'd get that one past the TD.

[barmar]

VixTD, on 2011-October-28, 07:04, said:

He might also try to argue that an alert would have prompted him to notice he had pulled the wrong card and ask to change his call, but I'm not sure he'd get that one past the TD.

And if that had happened, we'd probably be dealing with the controversial issues of whether his partner's alert is allowed to get him to notice this and when the "pause for thought" clock starts. Although if he corrects his inadvertent bid before the next player calls, I think this is a good example of why this should be allowed, as it's a "no harm, no foul" situation and they get to play real bridge.

[blackshoe]

On the auction in the OP, opener's partner had already called before the opener became aware of the unintended call (if that's what it was). So he would not be able to change it in any case.

[aguahombre]

A savvy North, even though he noticed the pull of the wrong card, would have let his partner answer the question about what 3NT means to the partnership. If it is a natural call, showing a big balanced hand, there was no failure to alert and the opponents are not entitled to know about the mechanical error.

If 3NT was alertable, let the director do his thing about that. The misbid is still not relevent...only what the opponents might have done in the auction after an alert.

East's statement that he would have doubled a 3S opening is not relevant, since 3S was not opened. Note, East already knew it was not a long-solid minor gambling bid (because of his minor holdings); so, he would only have a case for damage if 3NT showed a solid major in their system.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-October-28, 21:08

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-28, 16:21, said:

On the auction in the OP, opener's partner had already called before the opener became aware of the unintended call (if that's what it was). So he would not be able to change it in any case.

True for the existing auction. But I was talking about what might happen if his bid had been alerted. Then he would likely have noticed the unintended bid before his partner called.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2011-October-28, 20:59, said:

True for the existing auction. But I was talking about what might happen if his bid had been alerted. Then he would likely have noticed the unintended bid before his partner called.

Yes, which is why I specified the auction in the OP. I wasn't talking about your different example.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2011-October-28, 09:26, said:

And if that had happened, we'd probably be dealing with the controversial issues of whether his partner's alert is allowed to get him to notice this and when the "pause for thought" clock starts. Although if he corrects his inadvertent bid before the next player calls, I think this is a good example of why this should be allowed, as it's a "no harm, no foul" situation and they get to play real bridge.

Is this really controversial? In any case, a correction of an inadvertent bid is allowed before partner calls; it doesn't matter what LHO has done.

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2011-October-28, 09:26, said:

And if that had happened, we'd probably be dealing with the controversial issues of whether his partner's alert is allowed to get him to notice this and when the "pause for thought" clock starts. ...

Vampyr, on 2011-October-31, 07:10, said:

Is this really controversial? ...

The EBU L&E committee think the current position may be illegal, does that count as "controversial". The minutes of 21 September 2011:

Quote

Several members had concluded that this advice was contrary to bridge law in that it permits the use of UI to rectify an error.

[iviehoff]

RMB1, on 2011-October-31, 07:38, said:

The EBU L&E committee think the current position may be illegal, does that count as "controversial". The minutes of 21 September 2011:

I do not think those committee members have expressed themselves very well. The laws of bridge quite clearly require you to use UI to rectify certain errors. For example, if your partner mis-explains, that misexplanation is UI to you, yet you are required to correct that explanation at the proper time. That is precisely the use of UI to rectify an error, and the law mandates it.

Surely what concerns those committee members is that certain errors which can be rectified using UI work mainly to the advantage of the recipient of the UI.

So I think they would have expressed themselves better if they had said that there is an apparent inconsistency in the laws here. On the one hand one is debarred from using UI to obtain an advantage; yet in other cases one is required to use UI to rectify certain procedural errors, despite the fact that it can be to your advantage to do so.

[barmar]

Perhaps it's just the minutes taker who didn't express the sentiment clearly. Presumably there was more extensive discussion within the committee, and the types of errors they were talkng about was clear in that discussion, but it was summarized by that vague statement.

[bluejak]

Unauthorised information may not be used to choose an action, ie a call or play. That is a matter of Law.

However, nowhere does it say that UI may not be used to help give correct information or to correct MI. Thus if a player knows he has gone wrong from his partner's explanations he may not use this information to make the best call for the rest of the auction, but he should explain his partner's calls correctly.

The matter of whether you can change an unintended call or play based on UI is what was discussed at the L&EC. The obvious case is where you open 1♠ and partner announces "Twelve to fourteen": obviously you have accidentally pulled the 1NT card out. You could read the UI Laws to say that you are not permitted to change it because your choice of call would then be based on UI.

It was decided informally to find out the position elsewhere. Max Bavin wrote to many people around the world: I wrote to a lot of people. The answer was unanimous: everywhere would allow such a change.

The reasons for allowing such a change included some, eg the ACBL, who read the Laws to allow it. But the vast majority were of the view that whatever the Laws say, it would be impractical and making a mockery of the reasons for Law 25A not to allow such a change. This view was expressed by people in the USA, Germany, Japan, Australia, France, Italy, Croatia and elsewhere.

If I was still a member of the L&EC I was intending to suggest that we accept that such a change to an unintended call is permitted, ie however it was discovered, without giving a legal basis. I expect that I shall write to them to express this view.

barmar, on 2011-October-28, 09:26, said:

And if that had happened, we'd probably be dealing with the controversial issues of whether his partner's alert is allowed to get him to notice this and when the "pause for thought" clock starts. Although if he corrects his inadvertent bid before the next player calls, I think this is a good example of why this should be allowed, as it's a "no harm, no foul" situation and they get to play real bridge.

I have never known any authority whatever that is in doubt as to when the pause for thought starts, and I do not believe it is controversial. In my view it is unanimous that the clock starts from the realisation of when the call is wrong. Even if it were not unanimous, the fact that we have a WBFLC minute saying so would surely suffice.

Furthermore, even if were not unanimous, what other interpretation is possible? How can it be a "pause for thought" before realisation?

[RMB1]

bluejak, on 2011-November-01, 07:47, said:

Furthermore, even if were not unanimous, what other interpretation is possible? How can it be a "pause for thought" before realisation?

In Law 45C4b, the "pause for thought" starts when the designation is made (what other interpretation is possible). It does not start when the player realises what designation has been made: when he realises what he said; indeed, if he misspoke, he might never know/realise what he said.

[bluejak]

I don't think that the pause for thought starts with the designation in Law 45C4B: I believe it starts with the realisation.

[aguahombre]

RMB1, on 2011-November-01, 09:13, said:

In Law 45C4b, the "pause for thought" starts when the designation is made (what other interpretation is possible). It does not start when the player realises what designation has been made: when he realises what he said; indeed, if he misspoke, he might never know/realise what he said.

You are reading something into 45C4b which is not there. The section is not specific about when pause for thought begins, and it seems pause for thought refers to the spontaineous reaction exhibited by the person who made the inadvertent call ---used to determine whether it was a change of mind or not.

There can be no "reaction" by this person before he/she realizes what has happened. The fact that s/he might never realize it is not relevant to the rule or the interpretation presented.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2011-October-27, 18:44, said:

And if East thinks that North has a strong (25-27 HCP) NT, he can see 5 almost sure defensive tricks in his hand, so he should double it.

Really? If North has 25-27 then his hand is perhaps ♠AKQJ ♥KJx ♦QJx ♣AKJx when you will not be able to beat the contract if dummy has something like 10xxx of diamonds. And if North has ♠AKQJx ♥KJ ♦QJx ♣AKJ you will not be able to beat the contract whatever dummy has. And you may well face a sharp redouble.

[mjj29]

bluejak, on 2011-November-01, 07:47, said:

Unauthorised information may not be used to choose an action, ie a call or play. That is a matter of Law.

...

If I was still a member of the L&EC I was intending to suggest that we accept that such a change to an unintended call is permitted, ie however it was discovered, without giving a legal basis. I expect that I shall write to them to express this view.

Surely the legal basis for allowing such a change is that a L25A correction by definition is a case where you have chosen a call, but a mechanical error caused you to make a call other than the one you have chosen. Thus, making the L25A correction is not 'choosing an action' and whether or not the information you are using to make the correction is authorized is irrelevant.