[DaveB]

The following is from a Club game under EBU jurisdiction.

Case 1
You are called to the table where the only call is Dealer's 1C.
The player asks if he can change his bid. You take the player away from the table and ask why he bid 1C.
He shrugs and says he has no idea.

Do you agree that the bid is NOT unintended?
(If it matters to you he had a hand with 6 good Spades and a singleton Club)

Case 2
As above except that the player approaches you away from the table.
You determine that in your opinion the bid is not unintended. So do you
(a) go to the table and rule that the bid is intended and so cannot be changed, or
(b) go to the table and rule that the bidding should just continue, or
© tell the player to return to the table and just carry on

The bidding now carries on as follows - 1C 1N P P//2S

Is there Unauthorised Information here (to Dealer's partner)
(1) If you have ruled at the table that there is a call that cannot be changed as in Case 1 or Case 2(a)
(2) If you have just let play continue as in Case 2(a) or Case 2(b)

Thanks for any opinions.

[RMB1]

Interesting cases.

Case 1. If we read Law 25A, we see for the call to be changed there has to be an intended call to change to. If the player had no intention when making the call (other than the intention to make some call) it can be argued that there is no intended call and the call that was made must stand.

Case 2. I think the status of conversation between a player and a TD away from the table is often covered by Law 81C2 "to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their
rights and responsibilities thereunder." If a player comes to speak to me away from the table I always go back to the table.

If there is no ruling to be given: I explain that the player wanted clarification on a point of law or the players rights, ask if there is anything players at the table want to draw attention to anything, and instruct play to continue. (I can offer to explain more at the end of the hand.)

If there is a ruling to be given: I attempt to confirm the facts I was given away from the table and treat it as if I were called to the table.

So in this case, my answer is closest to (b).

There is unauthorised information from the fact that the player said he wanted to change his call or from the fact that the player left the table to talk to the TD.

[barmar]

 RMB1, on 2016-May-06, 08:27, said:

There is unauthorised information from the fact that the player said he wanted to change his call or from the fact that the player left the table to talk to the TD.

But the UI from just talking to the TD is less likely to suggest anything specific to his partner, so he may not be constrained in his actions.

[DaveB]

Thanks for the responses.

I was not aware of L81C2 so useful to add to my armoury.
However in this case it appears to me that a judgement ruling as to whether the 1C is inadvertent or not is required.
Such a ruling is surely appealable. L92A states "A contestant may appeal for a review of any ruling ** made at his table ** ...
So do you really have any option???

Quote

But the UI from just talking to the TD is less likely to suggest anything specific to his partner, so he may not be constrained in his actions

May be true in general but how many scenarios can you imagine where the Dealer goes from the table to consult the Director after a single bid?
A Laws knowledgeable player would be likely to have UI where many players would not.

I am actually not convinced that UI laws are applicable.
L9B© "Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled."
L16A1© "It is information ... arising from the legal procedures ..."

[axman]

 DaveB, on 2016-May-06, 07:30, said:

The following is from a Club game under EBU jurisdiction.

Case 1
You are called to the table where the only call is Dealer's 1C.
The player asks if he can change his bid. You take the player away from the table and ask why he bid 1C.
He shrugs and says he has no idea.

Do you agree that the bid is NOT unintended?
(If it matters to you he had a hand with 6 good Spades and a singleton Club)

Case 2
As above except that the player approaches you away from the table.
You determine that in your opinion the bid is not unintended. So do you
(a) go to the table and rule that the bid is intended and so cannot be changed, or
(b) go to the table and rule that the bidding should just continue, or
© tell the player to return to the table and just carry on

The bidding now carries on as follows - 1C 1N P P//2S

Is there Unauthorised Information here (to Dealer's partner)
(1) If you have ruled at the table that there is a call that cannot be changed as in Case 1 or Case 2(a)
(2) If you have just let play continue as in Case 2(a) or Case 2(b)

Thanks for any opinions.

In both instances dealer is asking a question [apparently to ascertain if there is a penalty for changing his 1C]. In both instances it appears that what he does depends upon the answer. At a minimum, this is pause for thought. Those activities are a L16 source of UI to pard. L25 does not permit a change in either instance; but if he persists with a change anyway, then 25B applies (including a PP) as well as a DP for insubordination.

[RMB1]

 DaveB, on 2016-May-07, 05:52, said:

I was not aware of L81C2 so useful to add to my armoury.
However in this case it appears to me that a judgement ruling as to whether the 1C is inadvertent or not is required.
Such a ruling is surely appealable. L92A states "A contestant may appeal for a review of any ruling ** made at his table ** ...
So do you really have any option???

To get the TD to rule on whether the change is permitted you need to attempt to change, anything said away from the table is an opinion not a ruling.

 DaveB, on 2016-May-07, 05:52, said:

I am actually not convinced that UI laws are applicable.
L9B© "Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled."
L16A1© "It is information ... arising from the legal procedures ..."

I am not convinced that leaving the table to talk to the TD (without the permission of the TD) is part of the legal procedures.
Summoning the TD may not cause a player to forfeit rights, but it might cause his partner to forfeit rights/options.

Law 16A1© relates to authorised information from legal procedures but ends with "(but see B1 following)". I think that partner summoning the TD and anything partner says to the TD is extraneous and unauthorised.

[Vampyr]

 axman, on 2016-May-07, 10:04, said:

In both instances dealer is asking a question [apparently to ascertain if there is a penalty for changing his 1C]. In both instances it appears that what he does depends upon the answer. At a minimum, this is pause for thought. Those activities are a L16 source of UI to pard. L25 does not permit a change in either instance; but if he persists with a change anyway, then 25B applies (including a PP) as well as a DP for insubordination.

Finding out what your options are is not a pause for thought.

[DaveB]

Quote

To get the TD to rule on whether the change is permitted you need to attempt to change, anything said away from the table is an opinion not a ruling

Well we can agree on that, but what the player needs here is a *ruling* (that his 1C was not inadvertent) so that he can appeal later if necessary.

Quote

I am not convinced that leaving the table to talk to the TD (without the permission of the TD) is part of the legal procedures

Are you claiming there is a difference between leaving the table to talk to a Director and summoning the Director and asking to speak to him away from the table?

Quote

Summoning the TD may not cause a player to forfeit rights, but it might cause his partner to forfeit rights/options.

The reference to *a* player is surely to ALL players at the table. If does not make sense for it to depend on exactly which player shouted "Director".
For it to refer specifically to the summoner it should refer to *the* player.

[RMB1]

 Vampyr, on 2016-May-07, 12:42, said:

Finding out what your options are is not a pause for thought.

Why not?

It is a pause between when you realise what call you have made and when you attempt to change it, and there is time for thaought?

[RMB1]

 DaveB, on 2016-May-07, 13:01, said:

Are you claiming there is a difference between leaving the table to talk to a Director and summoning the Director and asking to speak to him away from the table?

Yes. The latter is correct procedure. Leaving the table is not necessary because the same effect can be achieved by calling the TD first. Leaving the table unnecessarily is a violation of Law 74C8.

[Zelandakh]

 RMB1, on 2016-May-07, 13:19, said:

Why not?

It is a pause between when you realise what call you have made and when you attempt to change it, and there is time for thaought?

Because it gives an advantage to rules lawyers that know their rights. A little old lady should not be disadvantaged against SB merely because she has not memorised the laws about when she is allowed to do something. If a player accidentally dropped a bidding card and summoned you rather than immediately picking it up and putting another card down, would you also rule that that was not to be changed?

[gordontd]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-May-09, 10:21, said:

Because it gives an advantage to rules lawyers that know their rights. A little old lady should not be disadvantaged against SB merely because she has not memorised the laws about when she is allowed to do something. If a player accidentally dropped a bidding card and summoned you rather than immediately picking it up and putting another card down, would you also rule that that was not to be changed?

I think we usually take a pretty broad view on what constitutes an attempt to change a call, and include any indication of surprise and unhappiness that the call has appeared on the table, but a considered request for information doesn't seem to come within that range.

[Zelandakh]

 gordontd, on 2016-May-09, 10:58, said:

I think we usually take a pretty broad view on what constitutes an attempt to change a call, and include any indication of surprise and unhappiness that the call has appeared on the table, but a considered request for information doesn't seem to come within that range.

In the OP, the player has specifically asked if they can change their call, either at the table after a TD call or in discussion away from the table. Again, are you saying that if a little old lady that accidentally dropped a bidding card and subsequently asked "Can I change that?" rather than actually doing it has forfeited her rights? The given situation does not seem to be any different from that and it seems to me should be handled the same way.

[Trinidad]

 RMB1, on 2016-May-07, 13:19, said:

Why not?

It is a pause between when you realise what call you have made and when you attempt to change it, and there is time for thaought?

There is a pause and there is time for thought. That does not mean that the pause was for thought.

There can be a very long time between the unintended bid and the change of call. (I can easily imagine a situation where this time can exceed 5 minutes.)

If there was an intended bid, the actual thought was before the unintended call. That means that for a true unintended call, there is no need for a pause for thought. (But there may be need for pause for other reasons.)

An example:

• You decide to open the bidding with 2♣.
  
• You pull the 2♣ card out of the bidding box. (At least that is what you think.)
  
• Your partner alerts. You are not surprised since your 2♣ is weak with diamonds or something strong.
  
• Your LHO asks for an explanation.
  
• Your partner replies that it "can be a doubleton".
  
• You think "?!?", look at partner and look at your bidding card and see the 1♣ card instead of the 2♣ card.
  
• You call the TD.
  
• The TD is busy somewhere else.
  
• You walk away from the table to look for the TD who says that he will be with you in a minute (which turns out to be 3 minutes).
  
• The TD comes and you explain what has happened.
  
• The TD tells you that you can replace the 1♣ card for the intended call.
  
• You put the 2♣ card on the table.

A lot of time has past between the 1♣ card hitting the table and the correction to 2♣. But not a second of it was "for thought". After all, you had decided to bid 2♣ (and done all the thinking) before the 1♣ card touched the table.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 gordontd, on 2016-May-09, 10:58, said:

I think we usually take a pretty broad view on what constitutes an attempt to change a call, and include any indication of surprise and unhappiness that the call has appeared on the table, but a considered request for information doesn't seem to come within that range.

If you wish to change the call and do not know what is permitted, what are you supposed to do? A player may be uncertain and think that "attempting to change their call" will make matters worse.

In real life, people do not attempt to change their call; they summon the director. A player who is unsure whether an inadvertent call (we should probably say inadvertent bidding card) may make an immediate decision to ask the director what the possibilities are. There has not, therefore, been a pause for thought.

I think that, as another poster implied, people on these forums do not realise that few players know the laws as well as we do. Perhaps they should make stuff up rather than consulting the director.

[axman]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-May-09, 12:30, said:

Again, are you saying that if a little old lady that accidentally dropped a bidding card and subsequently asked "Can I change that?" rather than actually doing it has forfeited her rights? The given situation does not seem to be any different from that and it seems to me should be handled the same way.

It is not a matter of forfeiture. The TD explains the current status. In this case, what matters to the LOL is the effect going forward, namely that right now- there has been thought since what matters is what is permitted without penalty rather than what the original intention was.

It indeed would be beneficial to additionally explain that if action had taken place immediately, then the correction would have stood; and the LOL would have remembered the advice for the next time!

[Vampyr]

 axman, on 2016-May-10, 09:17, said:

It is not a matter of forfeiture. The TD explains the current status. In this case, what matters to the LOL is the effect going forward, namely that right now- there has been thought since what matters is what is permitted without penalty rather than what the original intention was.

It indeed would be beneficial to additionally explain that if action had taken place immediately, then the correction would have stood; and the LOL would have remembered the advice for the next time!

Fine, the LOL might remember, but the legions of players who imagine that one calls the director when something goes wrong would still be in the dark.

[RMB1]

 Vampyr, on 2016-May-10, 10:20, said:

Fine, the LOL might remember, but the legions of players who imagine that one calls the director when something goes wrong would still be in the dark.

I have no problem that calling the TD is an attempt to change the unintended call.

I do not think that leaving the table without saying anything to the table is an attempt to change.

[Zelandakh]

 RMB1, on 2016-May-10, 10:55, said:

I have no problem that calling the TD is an attempt to change the unintended call.

Glad to hear it! I hope axman will take notice.

 RMB1, on 2016-May-10, 10:55, said:

I do not think that leaving the table without saying anything to the table is an attempt to change.

Why do you assume that a player approaching you and asking you a law question has said nothing to the table? In many clubs, this is standard procedure and it is not a bad thing if it avoids the shout and subsequent embarassment and stigma.

Here's a scenario, a LOL/LOG drops a bidding card and tells the table (s)he needs the TD, sees one available in the area and asks him if (s)he can change their call. Nothing could be more natural. There was no pause for thought other than in finding the most appropriate way to proceed. I would hope everyone would allow the substitution in this case.

It seems to me that most of the rulings being in this thread assume things not given, that the player is trying to "get one over" on the TD. If that is the case then it should become clear rather quickly from the usual procedure. Not to do that because of some assumption seems to me to be bad TDmanship, something I would not expect from most of the contributors to this thread.

[gordontd]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-May-09, 12:30, said:

In the OP, the player has specifically asked if they can change their call, either at the table after a TD call or in discussion away from the table. Again, are you saying that if a little old lady that accidentally dropped a bidding card and subsequently asked "Can I change that?" rather than actually doing it has forfeited her rights? The given situation does not seem to be any different from that and it seems to me should be handled the same way.

I don't think anything I've said suggests otherwise and I'm surprised both you and Vampyr have interpreted my words that way.