[lamford]

---

Table score 6♠=; MPs converted into VPs. Not at a North London club but somewhere in England in 2014.

Director’s statement of facts:
After South bid 6NT, North said ‘6NT’ in a surprised and questioning manner. I was called by East/West at this point. South indicated to me that she intended to bid 6♠ and that the bidding cards were stuck together. I ruled that 6NT was unintended and applied Law 25A. The clause ‘no matter how he becomes aware of his error’ is relevant. (L&E minutes 11.1.2012; White Book para 8.25.6). South changed her call to 6♠.

This was later appealed on the basis that no fine was given to NS, but the AC upheld the TD decision, but still did not fine NS:
Appeals Committee’s comments:
We upheld the TDs ruling only because he drew our attention to the White Book ‘no matter … aware of it’.
Had our attention not been drawn to the WB we would have reversed the TD’s ruling. We have sympathy with East/West especially when, in this instance, attention was drawn to the 6NT bid by partner. Not for one moment did we believe that North had made the 6NT remark with the intention of getting the 6NT call revised to 6♠, but some players could take advantage of the L&E decision and the WB wording. Reconsider by the L&E??

My view is that the TD and AC are correct to allow the change to 6S=, but then both could adjust the score because of the use of UI by South in changing her call to 6S. This means there is a contradiction in the laws. If one does not follow that route, then one can adjust under 73B1:

B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners
1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

"6NT?" was an extraneous remark. There was damage. Therefore one adjusts. This route, I think, demolishes the terrible WBFLC minute that one can get a Law 25A change however you learn that you have made an error. What do readers think? And what is the maximum fine that one can give to North?

[mycroft]

"15-17" is also 'inappropriate communication' to L73B1 - even though it is *required* communication when partner opens 1NT (15-17). The L&E note is intended for this case among others - when I open 1♠ and partner Announces, we don't have to get into fights about "it's obvious partner woke him up" vs "I was just realizing it when he announced" vs whatever.

If that is considered clearly on the "good" side of L25A (and I have opinions about those people who think otherwise - at least, those who would otherwise insist on "call is made, now there's UI" and wait for their top), then there is no difference in Law between the cases re: Law 25. I can't see why nobody considered, never mind actually applied, a PP on North. "but everybody says things like this sometimes!" "Yep, and almost always there's no problem with it. When it does cause a problem, we award a procedural penalty."

I would not be upset if L&E decided to moderate that to "if the bidder was or could have been made aware by legal or required actions, no matter their source", so that the 1NT "sorry, I meant spades" cases, and the "why is LHO looking at the CC so intently? This is a normal call" cases get handled as simple L25A, and the "WTH,P" cases get adjusted. But I see zero reason for anybody to say "well, L&E says this is L25A, so we aren't going to fine North for the ludicrous comment."

[blackshoe]

I wasn't there, but it seems possible to me that North was surprised by the 6NT bid, and his comment was an expression of that surprise. Yes, he should have better control over his emotions, yet it is not surprising that he slipped this time. So I don't think a "maximum" PP is appropriate. If it were, well, as I read the laws, they place no limit on the TD's discretion in awarding procedural penalties, so absent a regulation — and if there is one in any jurisdiction, I'm not aware of it — the sky's the limit. However, if the size of a PP is a matter of TD judgement, then an AC can certainly overrule him on that size. And should do so, if the size of the penalty is inappropriate.

As for the "communication" thing, I suppose one might argue that an interpretation of law which says that a communication from partner is okay in recognizing that one has made an unintended call is in conflict with Laws 73A1 and B1 and is therefore … what? flawed? invalid? Not sure how far that will fly, given the historical acceptance of the idea that the WBFLC has the power, authority, and duty to provide interpretations of the law where such are needed, and there is no precedent for restricting that power and authority.

South stated explicitly that she had intended to bid 6♠ but the cards stuck together. If you rule that she "used UI" as a basis for her change of call, you're saying flat out that she lied. Especially given that since the LC interpretation ("no matter how she becomes aware of it") there is no precedent for such a ruling. Frankly, if I received such a ruling from a director, I would appeal it, and if the AC upheld the ruling, I would appeal to the National Authority. If it were permitted in the laws, if the NA upheld the ruling, I would, outside of NA, appeal to the WBFLC. Inside NA, my appeal would perforce be to the ACBLLC, which asserts that it is the "National Authority" for such appeals in all of North America, so about all I could do at that point is write to the WBFLC and express my concern that the ruling does not seem to conform to how the LC wishes the law to be interpreted.

Re: "Had our attention not been drawn to the WB we would have reversed the TD’s ruling."

It is the TD's duty to draw an AC's attention to such things. However, given the interpretation in the WB, if the AC reversed the TD's ruling, they would have been wrong, and that reversal would be subject to appeal to the National Authority. Even if the TD neglected to inform then of the interpretation.

I'm also not at all sure that there was "damage" in this case. If 25A can be applied, then the possibility of the declaring side playing in 6NT never existed, so there is no expectation, even if 6NT would not make, that the defense might defeat the slam. No expectation means no damage, and no damage means no basis for score adjustment.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-15, 12:52, said:

If 25A can be applied, then the possibility of the declaring side playing in 6NT never existed, so there is no expectation, even if 6NT would not make, that the defense might defeat the slam. No expectation means no damage, and no damage means no basis for score adjustment.

You could argue that if North had not made the "remark", but had shrugged and passed, assuming West had done so, then it would be too late to apply Law 25A which is only available before one's partner has called. Of course, we have no idea whether South would have noticed before his partner passed. And another question. Is it ethical for North to take for ever to pass, hoping that his partner eventually notices? I would say not.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2016-April-15, 13:14, said:

Is it ethical for North to take for ever to pass, hoping that his partner eventually notices? I would say not.

I agree. He's attempting to communicate via tempo, which is not allowed.

Also, he's violating 73D about maintaining steady tempo and manner, particularly when variations may work to their benefit. If he's hesitating specifically so that his partner will notice his unintended bid, it's clear that he expects the hesitation to work to their benefit.

[pran]

I consider a ruling that the contract shall be 6NT is causing the result on that board to be based on a technicality rather than on playing bridge.

There is (and must of course be) a time limit for when Law 25A may be applied, but so long as this time limit has not been exceeded I believe bridge interests are best served here by accepting South's intention to bid 6Sp and that 6NT was definitely not intended. North's reaction was apparently a matter of surprise, not of a deliberate action.

[barmar]

pran, on 2016-April-15, 14:51, said:

I consider a ruling that the contract shall be 6NT is causing the result on that board to be based on a technicality rather than on playing bridge.

I think that's the intent of the "no matter how he becomes aware of it" interpretation -- we want to get a normal bridge result, so we're willing to allow corrections of truly unintended bids even if the notice is due to what would otherwise be UI.

[FrancesHinden]

It's not an EBU or WBFLC interpretation of the Law, it is the Law as approved by the WBF (at least outside the ACBL).

"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."

Footnote to Law 25A (Dec 2011)

[Vampyr]

FrancesHinden, on 2016-April-15, 16:57, said:

It's not an EBU or WBFLC interpretation of the Law, it is the Law as approved by the WBF (at least outside the ACBL).

"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."

Footnote to Law 25A (Dec 2011)

I think that the point lamford is trying to highlight is that NS may do better due to North's remark, even after receiving a PP. A law-abiding North will not make such a comment, so no 25A correction will be possible.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-15, 17:08, said:

I think that the point lamford is trying to highlight is that NS may do better due to North's remark, even after receiving a PP. A law-abiding North will not make such a comment, so no 25A correction will be possible.

Vampyr hits the nail on the head.

L25 is a typical equity law.

• It penalizes a law-abiding North, whose partner is likely to play in 6N.
• It rewards a North who deliberately or carelessly breaks the law.
• It penalises an honest South who admits his 6N was intentional.
• If encourages and rewards a dishonest South whose 6N was not a mechanical error,

The rules would be simpler and fairer, If they made no exception for mechanical-error and provided no player-choices as to how to correct an infraction.

In general, equity law

• targets old-guard players, who naively comply with the law.
• encourages and rewards law-breaking and cheating,

Honest players express concern about such matters but equity-law makes the life of law-makers and directors more interesting and reduces hassle from law-breakers.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-15, 17:08, said:

I think that the point lamford is trying to highlight is that NS may do better due to North's remark, even after receiving a PP. A law-abiding North will not make such a comment, so no 25A correction will be possible.

I don't think that this is a question of a law-abiding North. It is more a question of a "self-controlled" North, for instance like an English Gentleman with a stiff upper lip.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2016-April-16, 02:25, said:

I don't think that this is a question of a law-abiding North. It is more a question of a "self-controlled" North, for instance like an English Gentleman with a stiff upper lip.

Self control? What is North, 5?

[sanst]

nige1, on 2016-April-16, 00:54, said:

Vampyr hits the nail on the head.

L25 is a typical equity law.

• It penalizes a law-abiding North, whose partner is likely to play in 6N.
• It rewards a North who deliberately or carelessly breaks the law.
• It penalises an honest South who admits his 6N was intentional.
• If encourages and rewards a dishonest South whose 6N was not a mechanical error,

The rules would be simpler and fairer, If they made no exception for mechanical-error and provided no player-choices as to how to correct an infraction.

In general, equity law

• targets old-guard players, who naively comply with the law.
• encourages and rewards law-breaking and cheating,

Honest players express concern about such matters but equity-law makes the life of law-makers and directors more interesting and reduces hassle from law-breakers.

Nonsense. There is nothing non-law-abiding in the remark of N, since the law allows it. And even worse, without any proof you assume that S could well be a cheat. Brigde is a game and supposed to be fun. You make it sound like a trial in a criminal court, based on "guilty unless proven innocent".

[lamford]

sanst, on 2016-April-16, 02:47, said:

Nonsense. There is nothing non-law-abiding in the remark of N, since the law allows it.

It is clear that the Law allows South to correct the call to 6S; as FrancesHinden clarifies there is now a footnote in the laws. However, that does not mean North was allowed to communicate by making a remark. Just as North would not be allowed to communicate by a long delay to give South a chance to correct her error. The nonsense is the suggestion that North's remark was lawful.

So, the correct procedure is to allow the correction - the law says we must do that. At the end of the hand, if the remark has damaged the non-offending side we adjust. In this case, South might have noticed her mispull without the comment, so we might adjust to something like 50% of 6NT-2, 50% of 6S=. Presumably all of the former if weighted scores are not allowed.

The TD, AC and L&E wrongly concatenated the correction of the call and the remark and applied one law to both. There is no inconsistency here. If a player is aware of a mispull because of an announcement or alert, then we do not adjust, as the announcement or alert is not an infraction.

[blackshoe]

No player is going to understand "you are allowed to change your call, but you are now not allowed to get a good score because your unintended bid surprised your partner."

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-16, 07:52, said:

No player is going to understand "you are allowed to change your call, but you are now not allowed to get a good score because your unintended bid surprised your partner."

And I cannot imagine any well trained Director awarding an adjusted score in this case.

[lamford]

pran, on 2016-April-16, 08:30, said:

And I cannot imagine any well trained Director awarding an adjusted score in this case.

I can imagine a well-trained Director wrongly failing to award an adjusted score in this case. It happened.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-16, 07:52, said:

No player is going to understand "you are allowed to change your call, but you are now not allowed to get a good score because your unintended bid surprised your partner."

The player is allowed to change his or her unintended call, whether or not it surprised her partner. Let us say that while South was thinking over 5S, North had chipped in with "Of course I have a heart control, as I know you don't". South now bids 6S. If you failed to adjust for the remark, you would be negligent in your duty. It is exactly the same here. You allow the change of call because 6NT was accidental, but you adjust for the remark on the basis that South could well have not noticed her error before her partner called over 6NT, in which case the chance of a law 25A correction would have gone.

You are mixing up the right to change, with the quite separate adjustment for a remark leading to damage to the non-offenders. And I am quite shocked that experienced directors are getting this wrong. The footnote does not say that the right to a Law 25A change allows the partner to query whether you have made a mistake. What it does allow is a change when partner's announcement or alert tells you that you have mispulled. That is ruled to be authorised. You can change your call as well if partner makes an illegal remark, of course. The adjustment for the remark is then quite separate.

[pran]

lamford, on 2016-April-16, 09:09, said:

The player is allowed to change his or her unintended call, whether or not it surprised her partner. Let us say that while South was thinking over 5S, North had chipped in with "Of course I have a heart control, as I know you don't". South now bids 6S. If you failed to adjust for the remark, you would be negligent in your duty. It is exactly the same here. You allow the change of call because 6NT was accidental, but you adjust for the remark on the basis that South could well have not noticed her error before her partner called over 6NT, in which case the chance of a law 25A correction would have gone.[...]

There is a major difference between an instant remark that apparently is an automatic reaction to a surprise and an apparently deliberate intervention for whatever reason into partner's auction. I expect any Director to be aware of and cater for that difference.

[Vampyr]

sanst, on 2016-April-16, 02:47, said:

Nonsense. There is nothing non-law-abiding in the remark of N, since the law allows it.

I should look at 74C4.