[jallerton]

The following start to an auction occurred at my table yesterday:

North 1♥
East: 3♣
South: Pass
West: 2♦

For a couple of seconds, all four players seemed to stare at West's 2♦ bidding card. Then East tapped on his own 3♣ bidding card and East now pulled out 3♦ and placed it on top of the 2♦ bid. North/South now called the director.

A few questions:

1. Suppose you are the TD. In order to attempt to determine whether or not the 2♦ call was "unintended", what exactly do you say to whom?
2. Do any of the players have the right to tell the TD why they believe the call was, or was not, unintended?
3. The TD has to make a judgement as to whether or not the call was unintended. Do the players have the right to appeal against this judgement?
4. If such right of appeal is available, are North/South entitled to know the exact wording of any discussion away from the table between the TD and West?

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2012-March-19, 17:31, said:

1. Suppose you are the TD. In order to attempt to determine whether or not the 2♦ call was "unintended", what exactly do you say to whom?
2. Do any of the players have the right to tell the TD why they believe the call was, or was not, unintended?
3. The TD has to make a judgement as to whether or not the call was unintended. Do the players have the right to appeal against this judgement?
4. If such right of appeal is available, are North/South entitled to know the exact wording of any discussion away from the table between the TD and West?

1. I take West away from the table and ask him what he was thinking when he pulled out the 2♦ card.
2. Sure, as long as they aren't accusatory or argumentative.
3. Of course.
4. Yes. It should be on the TD's section of the appeal form.

In view of 4, I suppose an alternative to 1 is to send East away from the table and ask the question in the presence of NS. However, the TD may now have to deal with NS arguing against his already formed judgement - and the table is not the place for that. NS are entitled to give evidence. Opinion is not evidence.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2012-March-19, 17:31, said:

A few questions:

1. Suppose you are the TD. In order to attempt to determine whether or not the 2♦ call was "unintended", what exactly do you say to whom?
2. Do any of the players have the right to tell the TD why they believe the call was, or was not, unintended?
3. The TD has to make a judgement as to whether or not the call was unintended. Do the players have the right to appeal against this judgement?
4. If such right of appeal is available, are North/South entitled to know the exact wording of any discussion away from the table between the TD and West?

1 The main question is to ask the player why he bid 2♦.
2 Sure.
3 Sure.
4 Not necessarily, since some of the discussion might be irrelevant. They have a right to know all relevant discussion. Of course it is unusual in my view to take the player away from the table.

[jallerton]

Re question 1, is there a recommended standard form of wording for the TD to use when asking the question?

[mrdct]

jallerton, on 2012-March-20, 01:53, said:

Re question 1, is there a recommended standard form of wording for the TD to use when asking the question?

What's going on here?

What do you think happened here?

What did you intend to bid?

Why did you pull the 2♦ card out of the box if you wanted to bid 3♦?

Did you realise your partner had bid 3♣?

[campboy]

bluejak, on 2012-March-19, 18:51, said:

4 Not necessarily, since some of the discussion might be irrelevant. They have a right to know all relevant discussion. Of course it is unusual in my view to take the player away from the table.

If it turns out to have been inadvertent there is no problem asking him at the table, but if we discover that it was not we now find we have asked some questions at the table which in the course of making an IB ruling it is proper to ask away from the table. So I think it is right to take him away from the table now.

[iviehoff]

jallerton, on 2012-March-20, 01:53, said:

Re question 1, is there a recommended standard form of wording for the TD to use when asking the question?

There doesn't seem to be. But a question such as "What bidding card did you think you exposed it on the table at the moment you did it" or "What bidding card did you think you held in your hand when you removed it from the box" seems to get to the nub of the issue clearly and directly, ie, separating the unintended from the insufficient, without the subject requiring to know what either of those words mean.

[barmar]

The question I usually hear is something like "Did you mean to bid 2♦, or did you accidentally grab a different card than you intended?"

[iviehoff]

barmar, on 2012-March-21, 03:49, said:

The question I usually hear is something like "Did you mean to bid 2♦, or did you accidentally grab a different card than you intended?"

But this is not a completely effective question, because people do not attach the same meaning to "mean to do that" as the criterion of "intention" in the laws. People may be perfectly conscious of having done a certain thing as they did it (the bridge criterion), but will still say they didn't "mean to" do that. For example, people will never say they "meant to" make an insufficient bid, if you asked them, they alwasy intended to make a sufficient bid. But this is not the meaning of "intention" in the laws.

[gordontd]

"At the moment you were taking the bidding card out of the box, which card did you think you were taking out?"

[RMB1]

jallerton, on 2012-March-20, 01:53, said:

Re question 1, is there a recommended standard form of wording for the TD to use when asking the question?

If there is, from the previous responses, we don't follow it

If there is already a suggestion that 2♦ is unintended then I would ask something specific like gordontd, otherwise I try to ask something very neutral "what happened?". The answer is normally sufficient to tell me whether the bid was unintended and what was the meaning of the insufficient bid.

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2012-March-21, 07:44, said:

If there is already a suggestion that 2♦ is unintended then I would ask something specific like gordontd, otherwise I try to ask something very neutral "what happened?". The answer is normally sufficient to tell me whether the bid was unintended and what was the meaning of the insufficient bid.

But you may not want the meaning of the insufficient bid to be known to the other players,

[RMB1]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-21, 20:11, said:

But you may not want the meaning of the insufficient bid to be known to the other players,

Sorry, I thought jallerton's question is what would I ask the offender away from the table.

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2012-March-21, 20:39, said:

Sorry, I thought jallerton's question is what would I ask the offender away from the table.

Right.

[jallerton]

Thanks for the replies.

I was South. In the event, as soon as the TD arrived at the table and saw the auction, he asked West to talk to him away from the table. I don't know what was said, but when they returned to the table the TD explained that the bid was being changed to 3♦ without penalty.

The evidence available to me was that West had taken a long time to select his call and that once he had placed the 2♦ call on the table, he looked down at his bidding cards for several seconds before anybody said anything. Hence, it appeared to me, that had he intended to have taken the 3♦ call out of the bidding box in the first place, he would have noticed that he was looking at the wrong bidding card (afterwards, I discovered that my partner had come to the same conclusion). However, as the TD had already conveyed his ruling to the table, it seemed that making this point to the TD now would be inappropriate, as it would give the appearance of arguing with his ruling.

bluejak, on 2012-March-19, 18:51, said:

4 Not necessarily, since some of the discussion might be irrelevant. They have a right to know all relevant discussion. Of course it is unusual in my view to take the player away from the table.

I know that some authorities recommend otherwise, but speaking as the player's opponent, I approve of the sentiment that it should be unusual to take the player away from the table.

[RMB1]

jallerton, on 2012-March-26, 15:43, said:

I know that some authorities recommend otherwise, but speaking as the player's opponent, I approve of the sentiment that it should be unusual to take the player away from the table.

Last time this was discussed by EBU directors (2010) the firm agreement was that insufficient bidder should routinely be questioned away from the table: to determine the meaning of the insufficient bid and, incidently, as a chance to decide that Law 25A applies.

I am not sure if bluejak thinks that this recommendation/agreement has changed.

In a case like OP I would tell the table that offender is suggesting 2♦ was inadvertent, leaving it open for others at the table to say "but he stared at 2♦ for 10seconds, and only then did anyone say anything - at no stage, at the table, did he suggest 2♦ was inadvertent". Only once I dealt with such objections, would I rule under Law 25A, otherwise I would apply Law 27.

In questioning the player away from the table, the TD must be careful not to suggest the insufficient bid was inadvertent; a knowledgeable player will know it is to his advantage to claim the bid was inadvertent once it is suggested to him. ("Of course I didn't mean to bid 2♦ - its insufficient!")

[bluejak]

Sorry, I was confusing two cases.

Insufficient bids. I take the player away from the table. But I am not finding out whether he has made an inadvertent bid: it is not something I believe I need to investigate if he has not claimed it since Law 25A does not apply if he has not.

Inadvertent calls. I do not take a player away from the table. I forgot this was an insufficient bid, and was merely talking about the inadvertent call approach.

If you get an insufficient bid with a claim of inadvertence then you do whichever seems right. My first instinct is to deal with inadvertence at the table, and if I rule it inadvertent apply Law 25A: if I rule it not inadvertent [advertent?] take him away from the table and investigate the insufficient bid.