[Vampyr]

awm, on 2013-June-04, 18:25, said:

1. I'd remove Law 25A and make the necessary minor changes to 25B. Since there are no "takebacks" for inadvertantly played cards I see no reason to have them for inadvertant bids. In fact the usual interpretation of 25A allows a lot of shenanigans with both "unintentional" and "without pause for thought" being very open to abuse.

I like 25A, but I agree that many players and even directors don't understand what "inadvertent" means. About the "pause for thought" thing, though, I have never seen someone try to change their bid without taking action as soon as they have noticed the bid in front of them.

Siegmund, on 2013-June-04, 18:34, said:

Laws changes - I like the suggestions so far, and am sorely tempted to nominate an automatic revoke penalty rather than the equity-based one now which requires so much extra director work

I would go with: Two-trick penalty for any revoke; if that is not enough to restore equity, then the director restore equity + one trick for the NOS.

[the hog]

billw55, on 2013-June-04, 07:26, said:

Abolish the charts entirely. Any system allowed with full disclosure.

Sure, have side events with protections for those who want them. But for main events - no.

I agree with this point of view.

[Gerben42]

Vampyr, on 2013-June-04, 13:07, said:

You have not just clarified the language; you have made changes. For example, I don't think this:



is allowed on the GCC.

By the way, do you frequently play in GCC events, or are you just preparing for when nige1 succeeds in getting ACBL regulations exported to the whole world?

If any, I only play online GCC events. However given their power, I worry about having those restrictions kill bridge around here too. BTW I didn't intend to make any changes - that's up to the locals to fight for that. I just think that anyone who puts humpty-dumpty definitions in the rules should be kicked.

[awm]

Vampyr, on 2013-June-05, 03:44, said:

I like 25A, but I agree that many players and even directors don't understand what "inadvertent" means. About the "pause for thought" thing, though, I have never seen someone try to change their bid without taking action as soon as they have noticed the bid in front of them.

Here is the sequence of events I've seen several times. North opens 1♠. East bids 3♥. South bids 2♠. West waits about twenty seconds and then calls the director. South looks down at the table and notices for the first time that East bid 3♥. He makes some comment indicating surprise ("Oops!") and immediately tries to change his call to 3♠. Director arrives and asks if South intended to bid only 2♠. South indicates that of course he wanted to bid 3♠. West states that he would like to accept the original 2♠ bid, but the director rules under 25A that South's 2♠ call was inadvertent, the correction was without pause for thought (because South evidently wasn't thinking during the twenty seconds of West's pause, and anyway the pause for thought timer only starts once South notices his insufficient call, which clearly wasn't until West called the director). Thus south can correct to 3♠ without penalty, and West is denied the opportunity to accept the insufficient bid. The auction continues with a pass from West and now North amazingly finds a pass on a hand where most would bid 4♠ over a "normal" competitive 3♠ raise. Nine tricks make exactly. At the end of the hand, West calls the director again to complain, but the director says that there was no UI (since 25A does not specify that the insufficient bid is unauthorized information) so... good judgment, North!

Compare to a situation where West is on lead. He tries to pull a card from his hand, but the card next to it falls out and lands face up on the table. West immediately tries to pick it up, but the director is called by South. Despite the fact that West certainly did not intend to play this card (in fact he was in the process of leading another card), the director rules that the card is face up on the table and thus "played."

Why such a different ruling?

[blackshoe]

awm, on 2013-June-09, 11:56, said:

Compare to a situation where West is on lead. He tries to pull a card from his hand, but the card next to it falls out and lands face up on the table. West immediately tries to pick it up, but the director is called by South. Despite the fact that West certainly did not intend to play this card (in fact he was in the process of leading another card), the director rules that the card is face up on the table and thus "played."

Why such a different ruling?

Because the laws regarding plays are different from the laws regarding bids.

BTW, in this case, the director's ruling is incorrect. A card dropped in the course of playing a different card becomes a penalty card, either major or minor.

[kevperk]

awm, on 2013-June-09, 11:56, said:

Here is the sequence of events I've seen several times. North opens 1♠. East bids 3♥. South bids 2♠. West waits about twenty seconds and then calls the director. South looks down at the table and notices for the first time that East bid 3♥. He makes some comment indicating surprise ("Oops!") and immediately tries to change his call to 3♠. Director arrives and asks if South intended to bid only 2♠. South indicates that of course he wanted to bid 3♠. West states that he would like to accept the original 2♠ bid, but the director rules under 25A that South's 2♠ call was inadvertent, the correction was without pause for thought (because South evidently wasn't thinking during the twenty seconds of West's pause, and anyway the pause for thought timer only starts once South notices his insufficient call, which clearly wasn't until West called the director). Thus south can correct to 3♠ without penalty, and West is denied the opportunity to accept the insufficient bid. The auction continues with a pass from West and now North amazingly finds a pass on a hand where most would bid 4♠ over a "normal" competitive 3♠ raise. Nine tricks make exactly. At the end of the hand, West calls the director again to complain, but the director says that there was no UI (since 25A does not specify that the insufficient bid is unauthorized information) so... good judgment, North!

Compare to a situation where West is on lead. He tries to pull a card from his hand, but the card next to it falls out and lands face up on the table. West immediately tries to pick it up, but the director is called by South. Despite the fact that West certainly did not intend to play this card (in fact he was in the process of leading another card), the director rules that the card is face up on the table and thus "played."

Why such a different ruling?

blackshoe, on 2013-June-09, 15:00, said:

Because the laws regarding plays are different from the laws regarding bids.

BTW, in this case, the director's ruling is incorrect. A card dropped in the course of playing a different card becomes a penalty card, either major or minor.

I think he is asking why the laws treat these two situation differently.

[blackshoe]

I suspect the answer to that will have to come from an historian, or from someone recently involved in devising the laws. I could try to stumble through some kind of explanation, but I don't really know.

[gnasher]

The obvious difference is that a mechanical error in making a bid gives no information about your hand, so it can be corrected harmlessly, but after a card is exposed we have to compensate for the information conveyed to the offender's partner.

It seems to me that awm's main problem is incompetent directors.

[awm]

gnasher, on 2013-June-10, 03:01, said:

It seems to me that awm's main problem is incompetent directors.

Obviously this is a problem, but what exactly did the director do wrong here? When the insufficient bid was made, the text of law 25A does not say anything about a "mechanical error" -- it says "unintended call." The director asked South whether he intended to bid 2♠ and he said no. It's not made particularly clear that unintended must be for the reason of mechanical error, and not for the reason of visual error... and even if you do interpret the laws this way, it's not clear that the director can get the distinction out of South. Also, Law 25A is very specific about the information from a possible call by West over the withdrawn call (this is authorized to E/W but not to N/S) but says absolutely nothing about information from South's withdrawn call. It seems a reasonable interpretation that this is not UI -- perhaps the authors of the law thought that since South's call was "unintended" it should carry no information about his hand, but again there is no definition of what exactly constitutes intent.

In the second case, it is perhaps true that the director should rule "penalty card" rather than "played card" -- but especially in the case where the card is an honor, this is potentially even more punitive to West (since declarer can require that the card be played at the first legal opportunity, meaning now... or can select from among various other options).

[Vampyr]

awm, on 2013-June-10, 09:20, said:

It's not made particularly clear that unintended must be for the reason of mechanical error, and not for the reason of visual error... and even if you do interpret the laws this way, it's not clear that the director can get the distinction out of South.

It can be hard, yes. I normally ask which card they were reaching for when they made the bid in question. Sometimes they will volunteer that they didn't see the bid on their right or something like that; they shouldn't do this of course, but it definitely establishes that the call was not inadvertent!

Also I would be very unlikely to accept a call that came from the other part of the bidding box.

[campboy]

awm, on 2013-June-10, 09:20, said:

Obviously this is a problem, but what exactly did the director do wrong here? When the insufficient bid was made, the text of law 25A does not say anything about a "mechanical error" -- it says "unintended call." The director asked South whether he intended to bid 2♠ and he said no.

It's simple enough: if South intended to bid 3♠ then 2♠ was unintended. Did South intend to bid 3♠ here? We can't be sure but I think it's unlikely. The trouble is that players think "oh, I didn't intend to make an insufficient bid" and don't realise that the TD is asking a different question.

I think law 25A is one of the most important laws in the book. More than once a session I pull some bidding cards out of the box, one in front sticks to them and comes out as well, and I notice while the cards are still in my hand, detach the sticky one and put it back in the box. Only law 25A allows me to do that. But the words "for thought" would be better removed, IMO. Players should be responsible for checking that the call which has come out of the box is the one they intended; if they don't immediately see that it isn't, that is good evidence that it wasn't really an unintended call after all. Obviously we should be more accommodating to players who don't spot it because of vision problems, though.

[jeffford76]

awm, on 2013-June-09, 11:56, said:

Here is the sequence of events I've seen several times. North opens 1♠. East bids 3♥. South bids 2♠. West waits about twenty seconds and then calls the director. South looks down at the table and notices for the first time that East bid 3♥. He makes some comment indicating surprise ("Oops!") and immediately tries to change his call to 3♠. Director arrives and asks if South intended to bid only 2♠. South indicates that of course he wanted to bid 3♠. West states that he would like to accept the original 2♠ bid, but the director rules under 25A that South's 2♠ call was inadvertent, the correction was without pause for thought (because South evidently wasn't thinking during the twenty seconds of West's pause, and anyway the pause for thought timer only starts once South notices his insufficient call, which clearly wasn't until West called the director).

As others have said, this isn't the correct ruling. If you don't see a bid, and make a bid because of it, it is not considered "unintended" for the purposes of the law. "Unintended" is for when what you pull out wasn't what you were reaching for.

That said, I still wouldn't mind the law change suggested. I think it's not unreasonable to be "stuck" with the bid you actually make, assuming that the bid isn't made until you put it on the table. I would not like being stuck with whatever the bid was as soon as it left the bidding box.

[blackshoe]

The TD should imo ask "when you reached for the bidding box, what card were you reaching for?"

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-10, 20:24, said:

The TD should imo ask "when you reached for the bidding box, what card were you reaching for?"

Already been said, see post #30.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-June-10, 20:26, said:

Already been said, see post #30.

So it was. What's your point?

[mikestar13]

I've been playing around with Gerber's excellent proposal and I find it easy to make another change that many of us would prefer: Number 3 under Responses and rebids could be simplified to ALL RESPONSES WHICH GUARANTEE GAME FORCING OR BETTER VALUES. No qualifying language whatever and all relay methods in which the first relay bid is one (or more) of:

a) a game forcing response
b) a response to a strong opening
c) a response to an opening of 1NT or higher
d) opener's rebid or later.

will be legal without needing any special language to declare it so, though it might be made explicit in the notes that this is an intended consequence.

[mycroft]

I think the GCC is explicitly trying to bar complete half-duplex systems; that at least something sane in both hands must be shown. Having said that, the change to allow any GF call (oh, does GF include "can stop in 4m if we've investigated 3NT and know it's wrong?") would remove that bar.

There are many who believe that bar is unneeded; many who believe that that bar, if removed, wouldn't affect the rank-and-file it's intended to protect, because they're just as befogged with the auction as stands as against the complete relay auction; but it's what it is and probably should be kept.

Re: awm: West could, of course, "not see" the IB and just call over it, without waiting 20 seconds for South to notice. Of course, according to L25A, if it were inadvertent, South still can correct it; but it's a lot harder to convince someone you "always" meant to bid the correct level rather than "I wanted to make a minimum call in suit".

I have found that TDs, even club TDs, are pretty good at working out "oh yes, I always meant to bid 3" from "oh yes, I always meant to bid sufficiently", however. But I Would Say That, wouldn't I?