[lamford]

---

Matchpoints. Table result NS+90.

South appeared to be a bit heavy for his weak 2♦ opener from this hand from a North London club event, and, as soon as North announced it as weak, before West who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird could take any action, stated, "I did not intend to do that." The TD was called and South told him that he meant to open 2♣ but pulled the wrong card. SB was having none of this. "You play Benjy Acol with some partners, don't you?" he asked. "I think you meant to open 2♦, your strongest bid." "No, no", protested South, "I realised that we were playing three weak twos, but in my confusion I opened 2♦ anyway". "That seems unlikely", replied SB. After a while, the TD wilted in the face of SB's onslaught and ruled it was not a mechanical error, but a brain error, and 2♦ had to stand. When the traveller was opened to reveal that NS had a top, as every other pair rebid 3NT and went one down, SB was unhappy and called back the TD. "There was director error here," he claimed, "South attempted to change his unintended call before his partner had bid, without pause for thought, and should have been allowed to do so". He continued, with a brief pause to catch his breath, "Law 25B1a does not specify a reason for the unintended call, and South clearly did not intend to open 2♦ and should have been allowed to change it. I think a split score is called for, owing to director error, and we should get at least an average."

How do you rule?

[nige1]

lamford, on 2014-September-27, 17:35, said:

Matchpoints. Table result NS+90.
South appeared to be a bit heavy for his weak 2♦ opener from this hand from a North London club event, and, as soon as North announced it as weak, before West who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird could take any action, stated, "I did not intend to do that." The TD was called and South told him that he meant to open 2♣ but pulled the wrong card. SB was having none of this. "You play Benjy Acol with some partners, don't you?" he asked. "I think you meant to open 2♦, your strongest bid." "No, no", protested South, "I realised that we were playing three weak twos, but in my confusion I opened 2♦ anyway". "That seems unlikely", replied SB. After a while, the TD wilted in the face of SB's onslaught and ruled it was not a mechanical error, but a brain error, and 2♦ had to stand. When the traveller was opened to reveal that NS had a top, as every other pair rebid 3NT and went one down, SB was unhappy and called back the TD. "There was director error here," he claimed, "South attempted to change his unintended call before his partner had bid, without pause for thought, and should have been allowed to do so". He continued, with a brief pause to catch his breath, "Law 25B1a does not specify a reason for the unintended call, and South clearly did not intend to open 2♦ and should have been allowed to change it. I think a split score is called for, owing to director error, and we should get at least an average." How do you rule?

---

TFLB, L25 said:

A. Unintended Call

• Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.
• No substitution of call may be made when his partner has made a subsequent call.
• If the auction ends before it reaches the player's partner no substitution may occur after the end of the auction period (see Law 22).
• If a substitution is allowed the LHO may withdraw any call he made over the first call. Information from the withdrawn call is authorized only to his side. There is no further rectification.

B. Call intended

• A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender's LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues.
• Except as in 1 a substitution not permitted by A is cancelled. The original call stands and the auction continues.
• Law 16D applies to a call withdrawn or cancelled.

IMO, this is a simple ruling. When there is a dispute as to whether a call was a mechanical error or was intended at the time it was made, the director must use his judgement. After listening to argument by both sides, the TD reached a ruling. SB supplied no additional reason to change it.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2014-September-27, 18:03, said:

IMO, when there is a dispute as to whether a call was a mechanical error or was intended at the time it was made, the director must use his judgement.

SB argued that the TD had no reason to reject South's statement, "I did not intend to do that", and that the term "mechanical error" does not exist in the Laws. If South did not intend to bid 2♦, for whatever reason, he is entitled to change it, and the application of the Law was wrong, and SB was damaged by the director error.

[blackshoe]

"Can we shoot him?" -- Fiona Glenanne, Burn Notice

Do I own this club? If so, I think I'll tell the SB to find another place to play. If I'm subject to another owner, or a board of directors or some such, I'll report SB's behavior with a strong recommendation that he be told to get lost.

Having succumbed to the SB's BS in the first place, when he comes back with more BS, I have three words for him: "No. Go away."

This particular SB makes the one at the Griffins look like a saint.

[1eyedjack]

lamford, on 2014-September-27, 18:26, said:

SB argued that the TD had no reason to reject South's statement,

SB provided the director with reasons to reject South's statement, prior to the initial ruling.

They may or may not be compelling reasons, which is where TD judgement is called into play, but I cannot see how SB can sustain that they do not exist, when he himself provided them.

[aguahombre]

"Mechanical error", whether it appears in official print, Paul, is a way of describing a boo boo which was physical rather than mental, therefore by definition unintended at the time it occurred. Mental errors are intended. "Brain Fart" is not part of written regulations either, but I think we all know the difference between "ME" and "BF" as to intent.

The offender's own statement included "in my confusion...", which is basis enough for the TD's ruling. 2D was intended, result stands.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2014-September-27, 22:50, said:

Mental errors are intended.

That is the way the law is interpreted, but is it right? When someone intended to bid 2C, but selected the 2D bid for some inexplicable reason; that, in my view, is unintended. Equally unintended is when the player reached for the 2C bid but missed by one bid. Law 72B1, for example, states that a player must not infringe a law intentionally. If he leads out of turn, that is clearly (one hopes) unintentional, but it is still a mental error. Are you saying that you would punish all breaches of the Laws other than, say, dropping a card, under 72B1? In this example, South stated that he intended to open 2C, and you should regard the OP as a correct statement of facts for the purposes of ruling.

And, for what it is worth, we rule on director error regardless of what SB originally argued. If 3NT had been cold, then we would rule on whether the TD made an error which damaged North-South.

[pran]

In situations like this the Director is usually very dependent on the impression the other three players have from the situation (unless of course, he himself was also present at the time of the irregularity).

In this case I might initially quite likely be inclined to rule inadvertent call and allow a Law 25A1 substitution of the first bid.
However, given the convincing argumentation from West (SB) I might as well rule Law 25B2, substitution not accepted by LHO, and let the first bid stand.

I should then stand by whatever ruling I chose and not let SB have a "double shot" when he discovered that my ruling was disadvantagous to him.

A judgement ruling can always be appealed (and overruled), but "Director's error" can hardly ever be the case on judgements under the correct law (in this case Law 25).

[lamford]

I think that SB is entitled to appeal the misapplication of the Law, in that I think that if South genuinely intended to open 2C, but then got confused and opened 2D inadvertently, the fact that it was a "brain error" is irrelevant. 25A1 says nothing about the inadvertence having to be "mechanical" and a brain fart is no different to a fingerfehler.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2014-September-28, 07:21, said:

I think that SB is entitled to appeal the misapplication of the Law, in that I think that if South genuinely intended to open 2C, but then got confused and opened 2D inadvertently, the fact that it was a "brain error" is irrelevant. 25A1 says nothing about the inadvertence having to be "mechanical" and a brain fart is no different to a fingerfehler.

It depends on whether you agree that an intention comes before the relevant act. It the director judges that opener meant to open 2♦ before he did so, but had second-thoughts later, then the director made the right ruling. Admittedly the intention may have been to make a strong bid but, arguably, at the time, opener thought 2♦ was a strong bid. It's just a pity more directors don't follow this director's example, especially when the calls come form different box-compartments. Most players appear to rationalise slips of the mind, as slips of the hand and most directors seem to believe them When in doubt, I feel that the director should rule against the player who wants two bites at the cherry. .Better still - scrap all mechanical mistake rules.

[blackshoe]

Hell, just scrap all the rules. Who needs 'em anyways?

On a more reasonable note, and in spite of the SB's arguments in the OP, I would rule that the 2♦ call can be changed under Law 25A, and let the auction proceed from 2♣. If the SB then argues the other way, because he got a "bad score" when his opponent found the right spot, I'd tell him he can appeal if he wants.

If I buy the SB's BS, and rule 'call stands' under 25B, and then the SB argues the other way, again, he gets informed of his right to appeal.

In either case, one hopes the AC will keep the deposit.

[aguahombre]

Well, I will continue my position that Law25A is quite easy to apply, and it is almost always easy for opponents and directors to determine the intent of a wrong bid at the time it was pulled, if they have any people skills at all.

The only "unintended" pull I can think of at the moment which would involve CONFUSION might be mistaking the red Stop Card for the red Double card. This falls under my loose definition of Mechanical, rather than mental.

[blackshoe]

I'll go with the player's original and immediate "I didn't intend to do that". I think the confusion was engendered by the contentious SB. I can think of a lot of players who would "stumble" this way in trying to counter a SB. In fact, I suspect one reason the SB argues the way he does is to induce this kind of "mistake".

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-28, 11:58, said:

I'll go with the player's original and immediate "I didn't intend to do that". I think the confusion was engendered by the contentious SB.

That certainly is my reading of the situation, although I think it was the brain telling him to choose 2C but also telling him to choose 2D for some reason. I would be just as unhappy, if South were the Secretary Bird, to allow him to accept the TD ruling and then appeal if he discovered that 2D= was a bad score. In this example, I would have allowed 2C in the first place. Just as with the insufficient bid laws, the WBFLC intention is to allow normal bridge to be played if possible. South opening a weak 2D is not normal bridge. And people skills or not, I would have no idea if South was telling the truth that he intended to open 2C. In his favour is that 2D is next to it.

[blackshoe]

A player, even a SB, has a right to have an appeal heard. He does not have a right to get the ruling he wants. If a player argues vehemently for a particular ruling, and gets that ruling from the TD, and then appeals when he finds out he got a bad score, the fact that he argued vehemently one way, and is now arguing, probably just as vehemently, the other way, should figure into the AC's deliberations. I would like, as an AC member, to rule such an appeal to be without merit. I'd also like to find a reason to award a penalty (PP or DP, feels to me like a DP) to the SB for his shenanigans. I'd like to, I'm just not sure I can.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-28, 14:55, said:

A player, even a SB, has a right to have an appeal heard. He does not have a right to get the ruling he wants. If a player argues vehemently for a particular ruling, and gets that ruling from the TD, and then appeals when he finds out he got a bad score, the fact that he argued vehemently one way, and is now arguing, probably just as vehemently, the other way, should figure into the AC's deliberations. I would like, as an AC member, to rule such an appeal to be without merit. I'd also like to find a reason to award a penalty (PP or DP, feels to me like a DP) to the SB for his shenanigans. I'd like to, I'm just not sure I can.

You definitely can. And good luck; someone else might decide if you "may". I hope you may.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2014-September-28, 16:30, said:

You definitely can. And good luck; someone else might decide if you "may". I hope you may.

local club director to me, some years ago: I can make any ruling I want!
Me: you certainly can. Doesn't mean it'll be the right ruling.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-September-28, 04:42, said:

If he leads out of turn, that is clearly (one hopes) unintentional, but it is still a mental error.

The distinction is that while he did not intend to lead out of turn, he presumably did intend to lead that card (in turn) so the card itself was not unintended.

Here, in the same way, South clearly didn't intend to open a weak two in diamonds, but the question is whether he did intend to open 2♦ (albeit with some other meaning), or whether he intended to make a different bid but the 2♦ card ended up on the table.

The TD appears to have decided that, on balance of probabilities, the former is what actually happened (which seems quite plausible to me). If he subsequently comes to believe he was wrong then he should rule director error, but I don't see why he should change his mind.

[nige1]

campboy, on 2014-September-28, 17:17, said:

The TD appears to have decided that, on balance of probabilities, the former is what actually happened (which seems quite plausible to me). If he subsequently comes to believe he was wrong then he should rule director error, but I don't see why he should change his mind.

Is that the meaning of director error? I understood a director error to be an error in director procedure or a ruling that flouts a law or regulation. I didn't think that the term applied to a putative misjudgement over a close decision.

[aguahombre]

nige1, on 2014-September-28, 18:05, said:

Is that the meaning of director error? I understood director error to be an en error in director procedure or a ruling that contradicts a law or regulation. I didn't think that the term applied to misjudgement over a close decision.

You are correct. In the case of a misjudgement, the TD can say he misjudged and change his ruling without assigning an artificial result --or a committee can do it for him.