Taking advantage of the Laws
#1
Posted 2009-August-11, 11:40
#2
Posted 2009-August-11, 12:38
Law 25 A1 said:
Reading the OP ISTM that
a.) 3♣ was unintended;
b.) South did not substitute 4♣ nor did he attempt to do so;
c.) there was substantial pause for thought.
Having the above in mind a legally trained player knows there's no basis for a "mechanical change" any more. In that case it's totally ethical to close your mouth and do not tell the TD things he did not ask for.
It's too late to apply Law 25 A1, so I have no problem with South here.
#3
Posted 2009-August-11, 13:06
Law 25 says that a player "...MAY substitute...". It doesn't say "must" so I think the player really does have an option here.
It also says "without pause for thought." Once the player has thought (s)he might prefer not to change the bid the "pause" has occured, so there is no longer an option.
Indianapolis Bridge Center
#4
Posted 2009-August-11, 13:06
In my opinion mechanical errors can, and should, be corrected before partner bids. This restores some equity to the hand by allowing LHO to change his bid.
I really think the goal should be to get things back on track and not allow a hand result to be skewed for the rest of the field.
Practice Goodwill and Active Ethics
Director "Please"!
#5
Posted 2009-August-11, 13:47
JoAnneM, on Aug 11 2009, 09:06 PM, said:
In my opinion mechanical errors can, and should, be corrected before partner bids. This restores some equity to the hand by allowing LHO to change his bid.
I really think the goal should be to get things back on track and not allow a hand result to be skewed for the rest of the field.
Peter quoted the relevant law. Whether it is "apples or oranges" doesn't matter - it IS law.
"Without pause for thought" refers to what happened from the moment the 3♣ bidder realized his mistake. Which often is later than the moment the bidding card is placed on the table. So if the bidder discovers his mistake before his partner bids, and at once corrects the mispulled bid, the correction is ok.
Harald
#6
Posted 2009-August-11, 14:27
JoAnneM, on Aug 11 2009, 02:06 PM, said:
In my opinion mechanical errors can, and should, be corrected before partner bids. This restores some equity to the hand by allowing LHO to change his bid.
I really think the goal should be to get things back on track and not allow a hand result to be skewed for the rest of the field.
According to TFLB when a player substitutes a call for his call without pause for thought, application of L25A provides for no penalty if the original call was inadvertent.
When the original call was not inadvertent L25A does not so provide. But L25B provides that LHO may condone or not. If not condoned, [in this case the condition of an IB condoned apparently exists] then the substituted call is canceled.
Therefore, once a pause has occurred nothing good can happen to a player that then speaks up about his faux pas. He has no duty to his opponent to further disadvantage his side nor to give aid and comfort to the opponent.
Once the opponent calls then 'things are back on track' and it is irrelevant whether or not you believe that the result is thereby skewed.
#7
Posted 2009-August-11, 16:03
Law 10A "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications where applicable. Players do not have the right to determine ( or waive- see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative"
#8
Posted 2009-August-11, 17:20
Quote
Easy. You put a call on the table. Next player calls. You look down and realise you have made an unintended call - so you say "Aaaaaaaaarrggggggggggghhhhhhhhh: I meant to bid 3♠". No pause for thought.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#9
Posted 2009-August-11, 17:38
JoAnneM, on Aug 11 2009, 02:06 PM, said:
In my opinion mechanical errors can, and should, be corrected before partner bids. This restores some equity to the hand by allowing LHO to change his bid.
I really think the goal should be to get things back on track and not allow a hand result to be skewed for the rest of the field.
This seems to pop up from time to time. "hand result to be skewed for the rest of the field" is and must not be of any consideration when a TD is making a ruling. You say it should be the goal to not let a ruling skew the results for the field. IMO, it would be a bad goal. It will be impossible to remove luck factors that skew the results for the field [crazy bid 7NT that happens to make, for example] and if that is attempted, the laws need to be first changed to allow such considerations, but at that point the game ceases to be bridge.
#10
Posted 2009-August-11, 20:23
One would think that in VANCOUVER we would be well aware of Law 25A, but 1999 is a long time ago...
Please come back to the live game; I directed enough online during COVID for several lifetimes.
Bruce McIntyre,
#11
Posted 2009-August-11, 23:38
#12
Posted 2009-August-12, 08:52
"The onus is on the player to convince the director that a mechanical
irregularity has occured."
http://www.acbl.org/play/bidboxes.html
As to restoring equity. I believe that is actually the instruction to the director, in the Laws, when fielding a call for a revoke. So I don't think I said anything outrageous.
Practice Goodwill and Active Ethics
Director "Please"!
#13
Posted 2009-August-12, 09:22
#14
Posted 2009-August-12, 11:05
As someone else has pointed out, you are not required to change a mechanical error, legally or ethically.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#15
Posted 2009-August-12, 13:41
JoAnneM, on Aug 12 2009, 10:52 AM, said:
irregularity has occured."
This simply means that the director should not, without ensuring that it was (probably) a mechanical
Quote
Not sure what you said, but it probably wasn't outrageous. Might have been unclear, though, or even wrong.
The Scope of the Laws says
Quote
This is the genesis of the "restore equity" approach to the laws. As for revokes,
Law 64C said:
So this law recognizes that in some cases the rectification (transfer of some number of tricks) provided in earlier parts of law 64 may not "restore equity" to the non-offending side (or, in other words, "sufficiiently redress damage"), in which case the TD shall adjust the score. It does not mean that every revoke should result in a score adjustment.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#16
Posted 2009-August-12, 22:06
relpar, on Aug 12 2009, 11:22 AM, said:
So he lied when the Director asked "Did you pull the 3♣ card intentionally or did you pull the wrong card?" or some similar quesiton? I'm not sure if the Laws ever say so explicitly, but I don't think lying to the TD is ethical.
#17
Posted 2009-August-12, 22:34
Quote
Don't see in the OP that the Director ever asked.
Indianapolis Bridge Center
#18
Posted 2009-August-12, 22:49
And as an aside, the example that bluejak gave about mechanical irregularities is very true.
Unless explicitly stated, none of my views here can be taken to represent SCBA or any other organizations.
#19
Posted 2009-August-13, 06:24
barmar, on Aug 13 2009, 05:06 AM, said:
relpar, on Aug 12 2009, 11:22 AM, said:
So he lied when the Director asked "Did you pull the 3♣ card intentionally or did you pull the wrong card?" or some similar quesiton? I'm not sure if the Laws ever say so explicitly, but I don't think lying to the TD is ethical.
Nor do I , which is why competent TDs do not ask embarrassing questions to which they do not need to know the answer.
Law 25A requires a change or attempt to change. So if there is an insufficient bid, and no mention of a change or attempt to change, there is no reason for the TD to find out the player's intention.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>