[lamford]

---

4D was alerted (SPL) and South realised his error in passing almost immediately. The TD was called and ruled that it could be changed (25A1). I was North and did not think that was right and my partner's pass should have stood. What do readers think?

[pescetom]

You chose the right forum.

I think the TD should be required to requalify if he does not admit his error (25A2).

Although in many BBO tournaments this is considered normal.

[jillybean]

You should have asked the Director to read from TFLB.
club or online?

[mycroft]

I suggest South time-travel to the 1990s, when 25B2b2 applied [fixed reference, thanks Jilly]. Of course, when I gave those rulings, even the *offenders* didn't believe they had that option - which is at least one of the reasons why they no longer do.

I suggest an experienced E-W, should N-S be a new pair and not in a tournament, "request a waiver" (81C5). But of course, they need not do so, and the director shouldn't push; it's up to them whether the bar penalty is worth the top (or even guess that there would *be* no bar penalty).

Not sure what I suggest for the director - but I gave more than one 82C ruling in Penticton (granted, on less obvious situations than this, but at least one of them was a "of course I should have known that"), so I'm not really one to talk.

[jillybean]

27B talks about insufficient bid?

Yes, if South is a nervous newbie, we can let him make a bid.

Were the 82C's self imposed?

[mycroft]

Oh apologies, 25B2b2. Thanks for catching that. Sorry, directing Alzheimer's game today.

No, they were "judgement calls always are consulted" and the consultation made it clear that - well, I didn't do the right thing at the table (or didn't understand how 27B1a affects Alertability of a sequence, in one case).

"We discuss this in club director training" - yeah, thanks, I don't feel small enough already :-).

[lamford]

Face to Face. Thanks all. I agree completely that this is "loss of concentration". The (inexperienced) TD consulted the Chief TD and asked "A player made an unintended call = can he change it if he says this immediately?" and the Chief TD was playing so replied "yes".

[mycroft]

Quote

Law 25 Legal and Illegal Changes of Call

[...]

8.25.2 How to determine whether Law 25A applies
The main issue is whether the call made is unintended. It is not recommended that a TD should look at a player’s hand except as a last resort because the TD will give information about the hand. Best is to ask the player questions. Assuming bidding boxes, the most important question is: “What did you intend to call at the moment your hand reached out to the bidding box?”

Usually this question will elicit the information as to whether the player had made an unintended call (the call may be changed) or whether they had pulled out their originally intended call and subsequently there was a change of mind (the call may not be changed).

Wonder where I found that. For more information, please reread.(*)

To give the (playing) Chief TD credit, they were asked the wrong question, and they gave the correct answer to the question asked. With a little more time to think, I'm reasonably certain that "why am I being asked this? Oh, is [TD] sure it was 'unintended'?" would have passed through their brain, and would have asked the correct riposte (whether that be "what happened?" or "how do you know it was unintended?" or "what did they do and what did they intend to do?", or whatever came to mind).

(*)Wonderful publication, when do we get our version? But for the one person who's eyes just lit up, please read the immediately following section (8.25.3) for a classic example of "not to be used over here"!

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-June-28, 11:30, said:

Wonder where I found that. For more information, please reread.(*)

To give the (playing) Chief TD credit, they were asked the wrong question, and they gave the correct answer to the question asked. With a little more time to think, I'm reasonably certain that "why am I being asked this? Oh, is [TD] sure it was 'unintended'?" would have passed through their brain, and would have asked the correct riposte (whether that be "what happened?" or "how do you know it was unintended?" or "what did they do and what did they intend to do?", or whatever came to mind).

(*)Wonderful publication, when do we get our version? But for the one person who's eyes just lit up, please read the immediately following section (8.25.3) for a classic example of "not to be used over here"!

[EDIT: negative comment based upon misreading White Book deleted]

I do agree that the (playing) Chief TD was asked the wrong question, although I hope the fact that he was playing did not incide, because if not he should not be playing or not be Chief. Could not happen here.

We all get things wrong (whatever our level) but the important thing is to be ready to recognize it. A few months ago I penalized a card of Declarer, but hurried back to the table when it dawned upon me (nobody complained and luckily it did not damage).

[mycroft]

There's nothing wrong with that section at all. It is a perfectly valid RA decision to make on "when a call is made", and (most of) the rest of the world has gone with it (including the WBF? Don't know their BB regs ATM, but of course when every event is played with screens, those regulations matter more).

I actually happen to like it, and wish it were the regulation we have here in the ACBL. But for hysterical raisins (mostly "first mover"), it isn't, and for similar reasons it won't be.

As I said, the number of 25A from fumblefinger/fingernail catch/card stick cases go up significantly, but the 16/73 cases go down - as, I expect, do the "at or near the table, in an obviously played position" judgement calls and their attendant 20 cm-difference demonstrations that have to match "your 'short think' is their "long long *long* tank" is probably about 12 seconds"-level. (Oh, what am I saying? "of course it never left the box" vs "it was up and starting to turn". That game never gets old)

Just that, as the quoted page says (reversed to make the point), while a far wider audience will find it useful, the White Book is only official for events run by the EBU. And in this case, and many others, it will be a *massive* issue here in ACBL-land if it is read without reference to our regulations (and similarly, I'm sure, for FIGB).

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-June-29, 10:23, said:

There's nothing wrong with that section at all. It is a perfectly valid RA decision to make on "when a call is made", and (most of) the rest of the world has gone with it (including the WBF? Don't know their BB regs ATM, but of course when every event is played with screens, those regulations matter more).

I actually happen to like it, and wish it were the regulation we have here in the ACBL. But for hysterical raisins (mostly "first mover"), it isn't, and for similar reasons it won't be.

As I said, the number of 25A from fumblefinger/fingernail catch/card stick cases go up significantly, but the 16/73 cases go down - as, I expect, do the "at or near the table, in an obviously played position" judgement calls and their attendant 20 cm-difference demonstrations that have to match "your 'short think' is their "long long *long* tank" is probably about 12 seconds"-level. (Oh, what am I saying? "of course it never left the box" vs "it was up and starting to turn". That game never gets old)

Just that, as the quoted page says (reversed to make the point), while a far wider audience will find it useful, the White Book is only official for events run by the EBU. And in this case, and many others, it will be a *massive* issue here in ACBL-land if it is read without reference to our regulations (and similarly, I'm sure, for FIGB).

You are quite right, sorry: I misread it as doing a U-turn on 25A interpretation which is not the case at all.
I fully agree, I like it too and wish it were the regulation we have here in FIGB (alas we are stuck with "on the table" and all the issues that ensue).