[awm]

---

The 3♥ bid was undiscussed. At this point South started thinking, spending about a minute (all agreed) to decide what to do. North was looking down at her scorecard for most of this time. Just as South visibly started to reach for his Pass card, North announced that her 3♥ bid was unintentional (mechanical error) and she had meant to bid 2♥. The director was called to the table. What should the ruling be?

South and West had decided to pass regardless, so the contract will be either 2♥ or 3♥ here (unless you prescribe some split ruling).

[fito]

The next came from WBF Minutes of Laws Committee in Baijin, on Friday, 10th October, 2008.
Law 25A ‐ It is strongly recommended that bidding box regulations should provide that if a player’s attention is diverted as he makes an unintended call the ‘pause for thought’ should be assessed from the moment when he first recognizes his error. (Regulating Authorities please note.)

and footnote of law 25:

A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error.

I think 2♥ is the right ruling.

[blackshoe]

I don't know what "some split ruling" means in this context.

Either North is allowed to change her 3♥ call to 2♥, or she is not. If she changes it, East may withdraw his pass. If he does so, information from the withdrawn pass is authorized to his partner, not authorized to NS. In any case, the contract is not yet determined, as there have not been three consecutive passes.

I would rule that North may change her call.

[gwnn]

I don't understand how this exactly happened. I want to bid 2H, OK I grab some more bidding cards than intended (happens all the time), then after I place it on the table don't I look at what I have put on the table? I guess it can happen that I grab a clearly thicker bunch of cards, place it, and because it's in the same denomination, I don't notice it until much later. I'm not saying that N is lying, just that she should check.

[awm]

So to clarify, even though the laws say "without pause for thought" there can actually be an arbitrarily long period of time between the bid and the correction, provided the person making the correction can claim she was not thinking about her call?

And even though the laws generally view taking advantage of UI as an infraction, the bidder's partner is free to draw attention to an unusual call (by taking an extremely long time, or perhaps even by more direct means like announcing to the table "did you really mean to bid that?") and this UI does not restrict the person from making a correction?

And even though the laws state that the correction should occur prior to partner's call, it's okay if partner's intent to make a particular call (in this case Pass) is visibly clear to everyone at the table at the time the correction is made?

Actually my impression is that this really is how the laws are usually interpreted, but it still seems like a wow to me.

[c_corgi]

North's right to change an uninteded call expires when her partner has made a call. I didn't find a law that clarifies when a call has been made, although this might be a matter for the RA. If it was clear that South was reaching for a pass rather than the bidding box in general, then possibly the call should be considered made at that point, although I suspect it isn't. North certainly has a hand which would want to make a game try but play at the 2 level if rejected.

[blackshoe]

RAs do specify in bidding box regulations when a call has been made. For example, in the EBU, a call has been made when the bidding card is removed from the box "with intent", and in the ACBL a call has been made when the bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made. In either case, as you can see, no call is made when the player has done nothing more than reach for the bidding box.

[jallerton]

The TD could do some more investigation work here. He could enquire what percentage of the time this particular North uses the 'stop' card when making a jump bid, and whether or not the 'stop' card was used on this occasion.

 gwnn, on 2012-July-08, 09:50, said:

I don't understand how this exactly happened. I want to bid 2H, OK I grab some more bidding cards than intended (happens all the time), then after I place it on the table don't I look at what I have put on the table? I guess it can happen that I grab a clearly thicker bunch of cards, place it, and because it's in the same denomination, I don't notice it until much later. I'm not saying that N is lying, just that she should check.

I agree. North might even be wrong without intending to lie. The longer the time that has elapsed since the original call, the more hazy the distinction in her own mind will be between "I intended to bid 2♥" and "I wish I had bid 2♥".

 fito, on 2012-July-07, 23:43, said:

The next came from WBF Minutes of Laws Committee in Baijin, on Friday, 10th October, 2008.
Law 25A ‐ It is strongly recommended that bidding box regulations should provide that if a player’s attention is diverted as he makes an unintended call the ‘pause for thought’ should be assessed from the moment when he first recognizes his error. (Regulating Authorities please note.)

Interesting. I agree with gwnn that if the wrong bidding card comes out of the box, the bidder would normally be expected to notice whilst the bidding cards are in her hand or as soon as they are released on to the table. Perhaps the phrase "if a player’s attention is diverted as he makes an unintended call" is referring to a situation where there is an external distraction (e.g. West knocks over a glass of water, or perhaps the TD makes an announcement) at the point when the call is being made.

[iviehoff]

 jallerton, on 2012-July-08, 11:18, said:

Interesting. I agree with gwnn that if the wrong bidding card comes out of the box, the bidder would normally be expected to notice whilst the bidding cards are in her hand or as soon as they are released on to the table.

What do you mean by saying "they might normally be expected to..."?

I presume by saying "normally" rather than "invariably" you acknowledge that from time to time the abnormal occurs and they don't. In my experience, this is an abnormality that occurs sufficiently often we ought really all have encountered it, even if we haven't done it.

Are you saying that the laws ought to be interpreted so as to be unforgiving of those who fail to achieve what might normally be expected of them, even though it quite plainly isn't written in that fashion? Or are you saying that you would have a strong tendency to disbelieve someone who claims to have failed to notice what they might normally be expected to notice.

[barmar]

My thinking is that in a case like this, they didn't grab the 3♥ card thinking they were pulling 2♥. Rather, the mistake they made was that they thought partner's bid required them to bid on the 3 level (e.g. they thought he bid 3♣); I know I've made that kind of mistake a number of times, getting confused about the level of the auction (I think this is also a frequent cause of insufficient bids). Then when you see partner in distress, you look at the auction again and realize your mistake.

Unfortunately, it's hard for the TD to rule that this is what happened, since he has little to go on but the player's claim that the card was pulled inadvertently. We have guidelines that say that cards pulled from different sections of the bidding box are unlikely to be mechanical errors, but when the cards are adjacent in the box (either horizontally or vertically), we often have to take the player's word that it was a mispull rather than a brain fart. Unfortunately, I think there are lots of players who think "I saw the auction incorrectly" is justification for calling a bid "inadvertent".

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2012-July-09, 09:41, said:

Unfortunately, I think there are lots of players who think "I saw the auction incorrectly" is justification for calling a bid "inadvertent".

I think that directors don't always explain to players exactly what an inadvertent bid is.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2012-July-09, 10:22, said:

I think that directors don't always explain to players exactly what an inadvertent bid is.

I've seen plenty of directors ask "What bid did you think you were making?", or something to that effect. But even when they do, I don't think the players really appreciate it. I suspect cognitive dissonance sets in, convincing them that the mistake was inadvertent.

[bluejak]

 gwnn, on 2012-July-08, 09:50, said:

I don't understand how this exactly happened. I want to bid 2H, OK I grab some more bidding cards than intended (happens all the time), then after I place it on the table don't I look at what I have put on the table? I guess it can happen that I grab a clearly thicker bunch of cards, place it, and because it's in the same denomination, I don't notice it until much later. I'm not saying that N is lying, just that she should check.

Surely what you do is irrelevant. Players do normal actions at the table in all sorts of ways, and many, many players do not look at the call they have made once they have made it. While I always do, I had to train myself to do so when I got used to bidding boxes: it was certainly not instinctive.

 awm, on 2012-July-08, 10:03, said:

So to clarify, even though the laws say "without pause for thought" there can actually be an arbitrarily long period of time between the bid and the correction, provided the person making the correction can claim she was not thinking about her call?

Two things: first of all, if a player has not realised they have made the wrong call, how on earth do you imagine they can be thinking about it? While the WBFLC have made this interpretation, it is a completely obvious one, and a routine interpretation in England long before the WBFLC spoke. No other interpretation makes any real sense.

Secondly, the buzz word 'claim': the Laws are what they are. Trying to suggest they are wrong because some person thinks lying and cheating is part of the game does not make the Laws wrong. Few people deliberately lie if asked the right question: those that do get a reputation and tend to not get very far with their cheating approach.

 jallerton, on 2012-July-08, 11:18, said:

Interesting. I agree with gwnn that if the wrong bidding card comes out of the box, the bidder would normally be expected to notice whilst the bidding cards are in her hand or as soon as they are released on to the table.

As I said above, I do not think this is right. My experience is that while a majority look at their cards, it is by no means everyone. So when we are making a ruling of this sort it is hardly surprising if the player concerned did not look at their cards. I think the points made by Jeffrey and gwynn woud only have real relevance if every player always looked at their cards when they took them out of the box - and they don't

Consider a revoke. In general players don't revoke: they follow suit. A revoke is exceptional. But when there is a revoke an argument based on the argument that people don't revoke, they follow suit, seems pretty meaningless.

 barmar, on 2012-July-09, 09:41, said:

Unfortunately, it's hard for the TD to rule that this is what happened, since he has little to go on but the player's claim that the card was pulled inadvertently.

TDs are not that bad! There is a lot of evidence to be gleaned apart from the player's 'claim'. The TD should ask questions.

 barmar, on 2012-July-09, 09:41, said:

We have guidelines that say that cards pulled from different sections of the bidding box are unlikely to be mechanical errors, but when the cards are adjacent in the box (either horizontally or vertically), we often have to take the player's word that it was a mispull rather than a brain fart. Unfortunately, I think there are lots of players who think "I saw the auction incorrectly" is justification for calling a bid "inadvertent".

We don't take the player's word when he makes his claim because he does not know the Laws, and his claim is self-serving, and thus accorded the normal amount of reduced weight. We ask questions and judge from the answers.



As to the poll, I have not voted. You had to be there to ask the questions. But a split ruling, as Ed explained, is illegal.

[campboy]

 awm, on 2012-July-08, 10:03, said:

So to clarify, even though the laws say "without pause for thought" there can actually be an arbitrarily long period of time between the bid and the correction, provided the person making the correction can claim she was not thinking about her call?

Yes, so long as she can convince the TD that she hadn't noticed what call had come out of the bidding box.

Quote

And even though the laws generally view taking advantage of UI as an infraction, the bidder's partner is free to draw attention to an unusual call (by taking an extremely long time, or perhaps even by more direct means like announcing to the table "did you really mean to bid that?") and this UI does not restrict the person from making a correction?

Of course not: law 73B1 prohibits deliberate communication. If partner said something like that, or was deliberately delaying in the hope that partner would wake up, then that is an infraction. The TD can't come in and prohibit a 25A correction if this happens, but he can adjust the score later if an infraction by partner helps the player wake up (law 23). Of course, the TD has to judge whether partner was delaying for that reason or because she was genuinely trying to decide what to bid.

Quote

And even though the laws state that the correction should occur prior to partner's call, it's okay if partner's intent to make a particular call (in this case Pass) is visibly clear to everyone at the table at the time the correction is made?

It's ok in the sense that a 25A correction is still permitted, since the call hasn't been made. The player does now have UI, though, and the opponents have some free information.

[jallerton]

 iviehoff, on 2012-July-09, 08:53, said:

What do you mean by saying "they might normally be expected to..."?

I presume by saying "normally" rather than "invariably" you acknowledge that from time to time the abnormal occurs and they don't. In my experience, this is an abnormality that occurs sufficiently often we ought really all have encountered it, even if we haven't done it.

Are you saying that the laws ought to be interpreted so as to be unforgiving of those who fail to achieve what might normally be expected of them, even though it quite plainly isn't written in that fashion? Or are you saying that you would have a strong tendency to disbelieve someone who claims to have failed to notice what they might normally be expected to notice.

I think that all Laws, including Law 25A, ought to be interpreted based on the normal English meaning of the wording used.

Yes, if a person claims to have failed to notice what they might normally be expected to notice, then one should consider the possibility that the person is not telling the truth (or is mistaken).

Let me ask you a question in return. When you are playing, do you check that the bidding cards you are removing from the bidding box match to the call you intend to make? Or do you sometimes hope for the best and not bother to check?

[barmar]

 jallerton, on 2012-July-11, 13:17, said:

Let me ask you a question in return. When you are playing, do you check that the bidding cards you are removing from the bidding box match to the call you intend to make? Or do you sometimes hope for the best and not bother to check?

I generally assume that I'm competent at picking out the card that I intend, so I don't think I normally double check myself. Once in a while, I don't achieve my normal competence level.

Let me ask you an analogous question: when you're writing a check, do you routinely check that you wrote the date correctly? Probably not. But do you occasionally get it wrong in January?

[bluejak]

 jallerton, on 2012-July-11, 13:17, said:

Let me ask you a question in return. When you are playing, do you check that the bidding cards you are removing from the bidding box match to the call you intend to make? Or do you sometimes hope for the best and not bother to check?

This is not the relevant question. The question is whether all people check, or even usually check, and the answer is No.

It is poor Tournament Direction to base one's decision-making on what the majority do as a presumption about what happened this time. After all, as I said before, the majority follow suit: that does not prove or even suggest that no-one revoked on a specific occasion.

So a TD should seek to establish the facts, not assume he knows them based on what people generally do.

[jallerton]

 barmar, on 2012-July-11, 19:32, said:

I generally assume that I'm competent at picking out the card that I intend, so I don't think I normally double check myself. Once in a while, I don't achieve my normal competence level.

So, on the occasions when you do not achieve your normal competence level, at what point do you discover that the wrong biding cards have been displayed?

 barmar, on 2012-July-11, 19:32, said:

Let me ask you an analogous question: when you're writing a check, do you routinely check that you wrote the date correctly? Probably not. But do you occasionally get it wrong in January?

If I am writing a cheque then yes I do check all of the entries. You are right that when a new year is reached, there is a danger that one will write down the previous year by mistake. Hence I would be inclined to be more careful in my verification during this 'high risk' time. Similarly, players who know that in general they have a tendency to grab hold of the incorrect bidding cards learn to check which bid they are making when the bidding cards are removed from the bidding box. When, under the bidding box regulations in force, an unintended call is deemed to have been made, this natural check allows the player to make an instant correction, "without pause for thought" under the ordinary meaning of this phrase: a genuine correction under Law 25A.

[blackshoe]

We have an official interpretation of "without pause for thought" by the governing body, the WBFLC. To argue that this interpretation is not "the ordinary meaning of this phrase" is a waste of time.

[campboy]

 barmar, on 2012-July-11, 19:32, said:

Let me ask you an analogous question: when you're writing a check, do you routinely check that you wrote the date correctly? Probably not. But do you occasionally get it wrong in January?

Why is that analogous? If I put the wrong year on a cheque, which I have done often enough, it is because I forgot what the year was, not because I tried to write one thing and wrote another by mistake. If it was a mechanical error I wouldn't need to check so long as I was looking at what I was doing.