|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
International Bridge Laws ForumIf you need help with the Laws or rulings from |
| To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message. Please specify your country in your query where indicated. Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations. |
| Welcome, Register :: Log in |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
[cill] Reply |
My pd opened 2 D (multi). While I explained
to my LHO its meaning, my pd noticed he by mistake took a wrong bidding ticket from the bidding box (he intended to bid 3 D). What should be the ruling? TIA. [Edited solely to include Subject] |
Ed  172 posts Forum Host Reply |
Law 25A allows a player to change his inadvertent call, if he does so "without pause for thought". I don't think this law applies to this case. Law 25B says "Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when Section A does not apply". If LHO has not called, which seems to be the case, then LHO (your partner's LHO, your RHO) may accept 3D, in which case the auction proceeds without penalty. If LHO does not accept 3D, then your partner must either (a) Let 2D stand, in which case you must pass at your next turn to bid (and Law 23 will apply if the pass damages the opponents), or (b) make any other legal call (including, but not limited to, 3D), in which case the auction proceeds normally, you have UI on which you must not base your calls, and your side can only achieve average minus on this board. In either case you are subject to lead penalties if your side defends.
|
|
Ed 172 posts Forum Host Reply |
Hm. I just noticed you said you explained to your LHO the meaning of partner's bid. If the bidding has gone round to him, which it should have if he is asking questions, then your partner's call cannot be changed. You still have UI.
|
bluejak  428 posts Forum Host Reply |
Ed is certainly right if the bidding has gone round to LHO. It is too late to change the 2
 bid, and the partner of the 2 bid has unauthorised information that he must avoid using as far as possible: he must continue to treat it as a 2 Multi opening.However, if the original query means that the player was explaining it before he has made his call, then I do not agree with Ed's answer. While he is right that Law 25A only allows a mechanical error to be chenged if the change is made or attempted without pause for thought, that pause for thought applies from the realisation of the mistake. So if opener immediately says he made the wrong call once he realises it may change it to 3 . Of course the Director must be called, and he will tell you whether it may be changed.
|
|
Ed 172 posts Forum Host Reply |
Hm. It occurred to me at the time I first read the original post that the 2D bidder may have been "awakened" by his partner's explanation. Surely that makes a difference? |
|
bluejak 428 posts Forum Host Reply |
I thought that at one time, but discussion amongst EBU Panel TDs convinced us that this approach was wrong.
The player intended to bid 3 otherwise this Law never applies. It does not matter how he finds out he has pulled the wrong card ["mispulled"]: he is allowed to correct it.Nothing in the wording of Law 25A suggests otherwise. |
|
[AlanW] Reply |
Would you always take a player's word at face value if he said he intended to bid 3D or would you want to look at his hand as well? Isn't it possible he wanted to open a weak 2D but when he realised he was playing 2D multi he immediately wanted to 'correct' the bid to 3D? (In my experience people more often pull out the card next to the one they want rather than 5 bids away.) |
|
[James Vickers] Reply |
This is something I always have difficulty with. I think it is generally accepted that looking at offender's hand and trying to divine what their intentions were is not the way to proceed, but I have problems taking offender's word at face value.
When the TD at our local club is called to deal with an insufficient bid he always asks: "Is that what you intended to bid, or did you pull the wrong card out?" Players at our club are now wise to this one, and the incidence of "genuine" insufficient bids has declined to zero. The last time I made an insufficient bid and called the director my opponent leaned over to me while we were waiting for him to arrive and said in a conspiratorial whisper: "Tell him you mispulled - he'll let you take it back!" I was discussing this with a fellow TD at a tournament recently. He invokes L25A only if the offender has taken the neighbouring card out of the box by mistake. (Bear in mind it is just as easy to be out by one column as it is to be out by one row, i.e. it is as easy to pull out 3D instead of 2D as it is to pull out 3C for 3D.) I think this approach is also too restrictive. I consider (within generous limits) any card pulled from the same section of the bidding box to be a possible mispull, I don't look at their hand, but I always check with the opponents that there was no apparent pause for thought. I am still in two minds about whether I should prompt them to say whether it was a "mechanical error" or not. I would be interested to hear if other directors have any advice on this subject. James |
|
bluejak 428 posts Forum Host Reply |
First of all, let me be clear on one thing: a Director NEVER, NEVER, NEVER looks at the player's hand.
Suppose that a player bids 1  but then says he intended to bid 1 . You look at his hand and see five cards in each suit - now what are you going to say? Looking in a player's hand leads to Directors giving unauthorised information, and it is the worst form of such information - that given by a Director through not doing his job correctly.Players do take silly cards out of the bidding box. If you are not prepared to allow that you are not ruling right. A player who takes out 2 when he means 3 has a right to change it, and no Director should ever refuse that right because he only allows changes to the next door card.Cheating must be stamped out of this game, and lying to a Director is one of the worst types, fortunately very rare. The Director shouod wait until the time he is sure he is being lied to, issue a full board penalty, and then tell everyone in the club that this form of cheating is not to be tolerated. Trust me, it will stop immediately. Since you know that insufficient bids are very rarely mispulls treat such statements with a reasonable lack of sympathy, ruling against often. But do not get into the situation where you will not rule when someone really does mispull.
|
|
[James Vickers] Reply |
David, I agree with what you say about looking at offender's hand, that mispulls are not always the adjacent card, and that insufficient bids are seldom mispulls.
Just to set the record straight, though, in all the bidding boxes I have ever used 3D IS next to 2D and so is quite a likely candidate for a mispull. As I said, unlike other directors of my acquaintance I am fairly generous in my interpretation of mispulls, but if anyone claimed to have pulled out, say, 2D instead of 6NT I would be sceptical. I know we have disagreed on this before, but I think that lying to the director is much more common than you think, but I don't consider it such a heinous crime because I think it is rarely perpetrated with malicious intent. Imagine the scene: A player sees partner open 2NT, looks at their long heart suit and decides to transfer. They pull out their usual transfer call of 2D, without thinking it should be a level higher than usual. This will be claimed as a mispull by many players at my club, even though it is nothing of the sort. When this kind of thing happens at my club the director is rarely called (unless I am at the table). When the irregularity is pointed out, offender just says: "Sorry, I meant to bid 3D", corrects the bid and the auction continues. Since this is what normally happens, on the rare occasions when the director is called, offender thinks to themself: "This is monstrously unfair. No-one ever calls the director in this situation, now I'm going to be penalised and get a poor score. I don't see why I should suffer just because that idiot Vickers is at the table." They will then often (in my experience) lie through their teeth in order to avoid what they consider an injustice. I don't agree with this behaviour, and would never perpetrate such action myself, but I would not try to hound such players out of the club. You might say this is deplorable, but it is (arguably) human nature. Now to the important question I want answered: in the case of an insufficient bid, do you prompt offender to say whether the bid was a mispull (always, sometimes, never?), and if so, how? Anyone? James |
|
bluejak 428 posts Forum Host Reply |
OK, But I do not think people usually pick the wrong card out when it is 3 and 2 because of its position, rather their brain tells them something wrong in the instant they are reaching for the box. Anyway, all I am suggesting is to ask them without a pre-conceived view of how you are to rule - and the same applies to 2 instead of 6NT. See what they say. Some answers may be credible.
I am not trying to hound them out of the club! I am just trying to stop this happening, and the heavy approach will only be needed once.
No, I don't.
|
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
8 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 7 guest(s). (The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003) bluejak |
|
Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm. | Register :: Log in The time is now 00:43:14 Wed Aug 27 2003 |
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
Legend :: 
Read Topic :: 
Unread Topic
Read Topic :: Unread Topic
Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status