[helene_t]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 1♣    Pass  1♠    2NT
 4♦    Pass  4♠    Pass
 Pass  Pass  


South asked for an undo of the 2NT call after having alerted it as "unusual". East rejected this. South called the TD, who asked why the undo was rejected. East told TD in private that she found it suspicious that the undo was requested after the call had been alerted. TD then said that East should not say such things in private since everyone was entitled to read. Now, TD announced to tournament that undo's must be granted when there is a misclick. Because of this discussion, time was running out. At the five-card end position, North was on lead with a.o. QT of trump, while East held Kxxxx. South had shown out of trumps. NS had taken two trick. The score was adjusted to 4♠-1.

Do you think that East should have granted the undo? If so, was it reasonable to penalize East with one trick (probably costed some 11 or 12 IMPs)?

[EricK]

2NT can't have been a misclick unless the alert and description were also misclicks! So if your description of events is correct, I find it hard to understand the TDs comment.

[barmar]

I don't understand East's comment. Why is it suspicious to alert and explain a misclick? You type in the explanation box before you click the bid.

However, when looking at South's hand, I would be suspicious of his claim that it was a misclick. He does have a two-suiter, which is consistent with the use of Unusual 2NT. But he probably made a mistake and thought West opened 1♦ rather than 1♣ (I assume EW are playing a strong ♣ system).

It seems like people frequently claim "misclick" when what they really mean is "I didn't look carefully enough at the auction/play until after I clicked." With a hand like this, you start thinking "Unusual NT" as soon as you see it, and then it's hard to get it out of your mind.

[McBruce]

"TD then said that East should not say such things in private since everyone was entitled to read."

This TD is (ah, how shall I put it diplomatically?) unqualified.

East strongly suspects that South is requesting a change of call (Law 25A: "Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought...") after a clear pause for thought. East has good reason to suspect this since South first clicked the alert button, then possibly typed unusual, and then clicked the "2" button and then the "NT" button -- and only then claimed a misclick and requested an undo.

But East doesn't want to state such a suspicion publicly. Surely this is reasonable. A blanket rule, such as this one disallowing private chat to the TD, is always a bad policy, since you will always discover a situation where your blanket rule is not going to work. The TD's public announcement that East should not talk privately to the TD makes East look bad for trying to spare the table some unpleasantries. East in this situation should be able to tell the Director privately that the sequence of events is suspicious and urge the TD to use judgment to decide whether this was a true misclick or an attempt to correct a mistake.

But this TD apparently has no judgment to use. Having humliated East in public for attempting to deal with a sticky situation without causing table acrimony, she now announces to the whole tournament a SECOND blanket rule: undos must be granted. And now we have the ultimate stupidity: a TDs blanket rule that contradicts the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. South meant to bid 2NT unusual, changed his mind and tried to escape with an undo, got away with it, and (although we cannot tell for sure without seeing the whole hand) it appears that the TD decided to penalize E-W a trick they could not lose for a rule contrary to the Laws she made up on the spot.

As I say, 'unqualified' is diplomatic.

[jikl]

A horrible ruling.

The 2NT was clearly not a mistake, not an inadvertency. None of the above. It was a bid made with systemic meaning, then the player thought better of it. It is very clear this is the case since the alert was made. South would have been blacklisted from any of my future Tourneys for this. This is in many ways cheating.

When an Undo has a clear meaning as it does in this case, and the hand fits, to ask for an Undo is reprehensible. It is an absolute contravention of any ethics base I would like to see in any people that play in my Tourneys. An Undo should only ever be granted when someone has misclicked, I have done it, everyone has done it, accidental weak jump overcall to 2♠ instead of 2♥ or something.

This is clearly something different.

Personally, I would love to know the name of the director so I can avoid their future sideshows (Tourneys)

Sean