[NickRW]

Vampyr, on Sep 18 2010, 04:56 PM, said:

TimG, on Sep 18 2010, 05:48 PM, said:

In the UK, where I believe many weak NT players use natural major suit responses, it would seem the likelihood that someone momentarily forgot which they were doing with this partner is increased.

Where do you normally play? In the London area I have not seen players playing natural responses -- except, of course, at the rubber bridge clubs.

Off topic to the thread, but it is true that *very* few play other than 2C=stayman + red suit xfers (and 2S might mean one of a few things if they have an agreement about it). However it is not 100% universal. I have played, over a weak NT, 2C=weak in ♦/♥ or ♠, or inv no major interest, or inv some 6 card suit; 2D=stayman inv+; 2H/S=inv 5 cards; 2N=clubs weak or strong. Works really quite well. And I know one other player (quite a decent player) who does not like stayman and xfers over weak NT - and would play what I do if he could get anyone else to play it with him.

Nick

[bluejak]

jdonn, on Sep 18 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

Someone please humor me.

Suppose I'm defending and mean to discard the 9 of diamonds but play the 4 of diamonds instead by mistake. Declarer asks my partner "what does that mean?" My partner replies "Discarding an even card means he doesn't like that suit". The moment he says "even card" I look down and realize I did not play what I intended and without pause for thought say I didn't mean to play that card and my play was a mechanical error.

In that situation I am not allowed to change my play, correct? If that is correct, what makes that any different from the situation in the bidding?

(I see the one difference that partner knows I have the 4 of diamonds which he wouldn't otherwise know, but since by UI laws he can't take advantage of that knowledge anyway I don't think it should matter).

The Laws permit a mechanical error to be changed [subject to certain other restrictions] when it is a call or designation. They do not allow it to be changed when it is a play.

If you do not approve of the distinction please either start a thread to discuss it on Changing Laws or Regulations or write to the WBFLC.

Vampyr, on Sep 18 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

But didn't a recent EBL course recommend looking at the player's hand and determining the likelihood of the bid having been unintended? Wasn't the example given a case where the player had thought "hearts" and pulled out a ♥ card instead of a ♦ card to transfer with?

The recent EBL course did not change the general advice that you should not look at a player's hand, but they weakened it slightly: it was suggested that looking at a player's hand might be permitted if there is no other way to decide. When I gave my ruling I did so without looking at the player's hand and the person marking me did not mark me down for this. Furthermore he agreed that there was no agreement that anyone should ever look at the player's hand.

There was no example as you have given it. The actual example was a 1♣ opening on a flat 2-count.

dburn, on Sep 17 2010, 08:06 PM, said:

RMB1, on Sep 17 2010, 10:36 AM, said:

The fact that an alert or announcement (or lack of the same) drew the player's attention to what he had actually bid does not preclude the application of Law 25A.  It is not an illegal use of UI from the alert or announcement to attempt to change the call.

This is not clear to me at all. If the player realised only as a result of his partner's action (alert, announcement, whatever) that he had misbid, then as far as I can see he may not apply to change his call under Law 25A.

My memory is not what it was, so I cannot be sure. But the reason we rule this way, apart from the logic in the Laws and other things mentioned here, as I understand it, is because the EBU L&EC instructed the TDs to do so. Now I know we are both on that Committee, but the problem is that the instruction was made before I joined the Committee, ie a very long time ago, but still a time when I would have thought you were on that Committee.

I have read the interpretations given here. I am not sure they are really convincing. But an interpretation handed down from on high is to be followed. We might argue it if it is definitely seen as wrong by everyone, but where as often happens different people have different views, it seems reasonable to follow the authority's interpretation.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Sep 21 2010, 09:58 AM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 18 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

Someone please humor me.

Suppose I'm defending and mean to discard the 9 of diamonds but play the 4 of diamonds instead by mistake. Declarer asks my partner "what does that mean?" My partner replies "Discarding an even card means he doesn't like that suit". The moment he says "even card" I look down and realize I did not play what I intended and without pause for thought say I didn't mean to play that card and my play was a mechanical error.

In that situation I am not allowed to change my play, correct? If that is correct, what makes that any different from the situation in the bidding?

(I see the one difference that partner knows I have the 4 of diamonds which he wouldn't otherwise know, but since by UI laws he can't take advantage of that knowledge anyway I don't think it should matter).

The Laws permit a mechanical error to be changed [subject to certain other restrictions] when it is a call or designation. They do not allow it to be changed when it is a play.

If you do not approve of the distinction please either start a thread to discuss it on Changing Laws or Regulations or write to the WBFLC.

If you either do not know the answer to a question, do not understand what the question is asking, or only feel like answering a different question, please do not answer the question.

[bluejak]

I did know the answer to the question so answered it. Sorry if you wanted an answer to a different question.

Whether you like it or not the difference between the two situations is that the lawmakers have decided on two different approaches.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Sep 21 2010, 03:58 PM, said:

dburn, on Sep 17 2010, 08:06 PM, said:

RMB1, on Sep 17 2010, 10:36 AM, said:

The fact that an alert or announcement (or lack of the same) drew the player's attention to what he had actually bid does not preclude the application of Law 25A.  It is not an illegal use of UI from the alert or announcement to attempt to change the call.

This is not clear to me at all. If the player realised only as a result of his partner's action (alert, announcement, whatever) that he had misbid, then as far as I can see he may not apply to change his call under Law 25A.

My memory is not what it was, so I cannot be sure. But the reason we rule this way, apart from the logic in the Laws and other things mentioned here, as I understand it, is because the EBU L&EC instructed the TDs to do so. Now I know we are both on that Committee, but the problem is that the instruction was made before I joined the Committee, ie a very long time ago, but still a time when I would have thought you were on that Committee.

I have read the interpretations given here. I am not sure they are really convincing. But an interpretation handed down from on high is to be followed. We might argue it if it is definitely seen as wrong by everyone, but where as often happens different people have different views, it seems reasonable to follow the authority's interpretation.

I agree with the principle of following the Regulatory Authority's interpretation when the meaning of the Law is unclear or ambiguous.

However, if the EBU has an official view on this matter, shouldn't it be disclosed in the EBU White Book? I have just had a look at the White Book sections on Law 25 and Law 73, and I cannot see any refernce to this situation.

So we only have the "Red Book" to go on. Laws 73A1, 73B1 and 73C seem clear to me: they imply that the mis-bidder can not use any information received from partner's alert or other communication.

No-one has yet answered my question as to why Laws 73A1, 73B1 and 73C do not apply; unless anyone can do so satisfactorily then Mr Burn's interpretaion must be the only legal one.

[bluejak]

When you make an unintended call you may change it if you realise in time. That is what the Law says, and Law 73 does not say differently.

Now, I know you can interpret Law 73 as meaning something different, but it is not a certain interpretation: it is just as easy to interpret it as saying nothing of the sort. Therefore, assuming the WBFLC's interpretation of their own Law as wrong seems the wrong way to go.

Or to put it another way, it seems clear to you, it does not seem clear to me, so let us leave it to the referee.

[jallerton]

How has "the WBFLC's interpretation of their own Law" been communicated to tournament directors? Is there a WBF Minute somewhere, or is this just an "interpretation" that spreads by word of mouth between leading TDs?

[pran]

jallerton, on Sep 21 2010, 07:44 PM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 21 2010, 03:58 PM, said:

dburn, on Sep 17 2010, 08:06 PM, said:

RMB1, on Sep 17 2010, 10:36 AM, said:

The fact that an alert or announcement (or lack of the same) drew the player's attention to what he had actually bid does not preclude the application of Law 25A.  It is not an illegal use of UI from the alert or announcement to attempt to change the call.

This is not clear to me at all. If the player realised only as a result of his partner's action (alert, announcement, whatever) that he had misbid, then as far as I can see he may not apply to change his call under Law 25A.

My memory is not what it was, so I cannot be sure. But the reason we rule this way, apart from the logic in the Laws and other things mentioned here, as I understand it, is because the EBU L&EC instructed the TDs to do so. Now I know we are both on that Committee, but the problem is that the instruction was made before I joined the Committee, ie a very long time ago, but still a time when I would have thought you were on that Committee.

I have read the interpretations given here. I am not sure they are really convincing. But an interpretation handed down from on high is to be followed. We might argue it if it is definitely seen as wrong by everyone, but where as often happens different people have different views, it seems reasonable to follow the authority's interpretation.

I agree with the principle of following the Regulatory Authority's interpretation when the meaning of the Law is unclear or ambiguous.

However, if the EBU has an official view on this matter, shouldn't it be disclosed in the EBU White Book? I have just had a look at the White Book sections on Law 25 and Law 73, and I cannot see any refernce to this situation.

So we only have the "Red Book" to go on. Laws 73A1, 73B1 and 73C seem clear to me: they imply that the mis-bidder can not use any information received from partner's alert or other communication.

No-one has yet answered my question as to why Laws 73A1, 73B1 and 73C do not apply; unless anyone can do so satisfactorily then Mr Burn's interpretaion must be the only legal one.

Let me try then:

Law 73 is a general law about communication.
Law 25A is a specific law about inadvertent calls.

Nobody has (or should have) claimed that Law 73 does not apply, but when there is a (possible) conflict between a general law and a more specific law then the more specific law takes precedence.

Is this good enough?

[campboy]

pran, on Sep 22 2010, 11:23 AM, said:

[...] when there is a (possible) conflict between a general law and a more specific law then the more specific law takes precedence.

[citation needed]

Additionally:

i) The introduction to the laws makes it clear that "must" (in 73C) is much stronger than "may" (in 25A), so we might reasonably argue from that that if either law "takes precedence" then it should be the more strongly worded.

ii) The introduction to the laws also says that the omission of a cross reference (such as, I presume, a reference to 73C in 25A) does not limit the application of any law.

iii) I do not believe 73C is a general law at all: it is a specific law about what to do when you have UI.

[pran]

campboy, on Sep 22 2010, 12:43 PM, said:

pran, on Sep 22 2010, 11:23 AM, said:

[...] when there is a (possible) conflict between a general law and a more specific law then the more specific law takes precedence.

[citation needed]

Additionally:

i) The introduction to the laws makes it clear that "must" (in 73C) is much stronger than "may" (in 25A), so we might reasonably argue from that that if either law "takes precedence" then it should be the more strongly worded.

ii) The introduction to the laws also says that the omission of a cross reference (such as, I presume, a reference to 73C in 25A) does not limit the application of any law.

iii) I do not believe 73C is a general law at all: it is a specific law about what to do when you have UI.

The principle (as far as I know) is universal in law theory and not questioned by any law-educated person.

However, since you ask for a citation; what about this from WBFLC minutes Sao Paulo 2009-09-08:
Law 24 is a specific law and, where it applies (the card may be visible to partner) it overrides the generality of Law 16.

It seems to me as if your reference to Law 73C reveals a major misunderstanding both on the generality of a law and also on taking advantage from UI.

Law 73C concerns taking advantage of UI during any phase of the auction and play, Law 25A concerns rectifying an inadvertent misbid by a player who discovers that he has made one. So Law 25A can only apply in a very limited subset of the situations where Law 73C applies. This IMHO clearly leaves Law 25A a specific law and Law 73C a far more general law.

Now to the question of UI itself: The alert that awoke the player was unexpected because it related to the inadvertent call. Had the player intended this call the alert would not at all have been unexpected. Thus it is not "unauthorized information" as referred to in law 73C. But as I have already stated: This question is completely irrelevant as far as the application of Law 25A is concerned.

Because even if we rule that the information that awakens a player of an inadvertent misbid is unauthorized: Is there any foundation for ruling that he is taking "advantage from that unauthorized information" when rectifying his misnomer?

Everybody at the table will be alerted that he indeed had a misnomer from his reaction when he discovered his mistake. How is he having an advantage and his opponents having a corresponding disadvantage by being allowed to inform the table of his intended call?

The alternative is that everybody knows he had a misnomer but not what he really intended to call. Will that be of any advantage to anybody, and in particular to the game itself?

I don't think so.

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on Sep 22 2010, 07:55 AM, said:

How has "the WBFLC's interpretation of their own Law" been communicated to tournament directors?  Is there a WBF Minute somewhere, or is this just an "interpretation" that spreads by word of mouth between leading TDs?

When I needed to rule on this situation I received guidance from DWS by phoning him. I think that interpretations such as this do need to be promulgated in a more systematic way. Jeffrey is right that it should be in the White Book.

[campboy]

pran, on Sep 22 2010, 02:46 PM, said:

However, since you ask for a citation; what about this from WBFLC minutes Sao Paulo 2009-09-08:
Law 24 is a specific law and, where it applies (the card may be visible to partner) it overrides the generality of Law 16.

Yes, that'll do

Quote

Law 73C concerns taking advantage of UI during any phase of the auction and play, Law 25A concerns rectifying an inadvertent misbid by a player who discovers that he has made one. So Law 25A can only apply in a very limited subset of the situations where Law 73C applies. This IMHO clearly leaves Law 25A a specific law and Law 73C a far more general law.

One might equally well say that Law 73C can only apply in a very limited subset of the situations where Law 25A applies.

Quote

Now to the question of UI itself: The alert that awoke the player was unexpected because it related to the inadvertent call. Had the player intended this call the alert would not at all have been unexpected. Thus it is not "unauthorized information" as referred to in law 73C. But as I have already stated: This question is completely irrelevant as far as the application of Law 25A is concerned.

What? The alert was -- you say yourself -- unexpected. 73C says an unexpected alert is UI. Socrates is mortal.

Quote

Because even if we rule that the information that awakens a player of an inadvertent misbid is unauthorized: Is there any foundation for ruling that he is taking "advantage from that unauthorized information" when rectifying his misnomer?

Of course there is. If he had not seen the alert he may well not have noticed in time to correct it, and so he is likely to get a better score (after correcting it) than he would have done without the alert.

[pran]

campboy, on Sep 22 2010, 04:40 PM, said:

pran, on Sep 22 2010, 02:46 PM, said:

However, since you ask for a citation; what about this from WBFLC minutes Sao Paulo 2009-09-08:
Law 24 is a specific law and, where it applies (the card may be visible to partner) it overrides the generality of Law 16.

Yes, that'll do

Quote

Law 73C concerns taking advantage of UI during any phase of the auction and play, Law 25A concerns rectifying an inadvertent misbid by a player who discovers that he has made one. So Law 25A can only apply in a very limited subset of the situations where Law 73C applies. This IMHO clearly leaves Law 25A a specific law and Law 73C a far more general law.

One might equally well say that Law 73C can only apply in a very limited subset of the situations where Law 25A applies.

The only time (and "situation") Law 25A applies is during the auction when a player claims he has just made an inadvertent call.

Law 73C applies whenever during the auction or the play in any "situation" where the question arises if a player has used unauthorized information to his own advantage regardless of what kind of action is involved.

I should like so see an elaboration on exactly how Law 73C can be seen as more specific than law 25A.

And as I have stated several times: The very first clause in Law 25A1:
Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.
makes it clear that the important condition is for the Director to be convinced the first call was inadvertent, not how or when the player became aware of his mistake (except of course that it must have been in time)

[Pict]

pran, on Sep 22 2010, 11:47 AM, said:

And as I have stated several times: The very first clause in Law 25A1:
Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.
makes it clear that the important condition is for the Director to be convinced the first call was inadvertent, not how or when the player became aware of his mistake (except of course that it must have been in time)

The difficulty I would have with reading 25A1 as Pran suggests, is the phrase 'without pause for thought'.

If I mentally walk through partner alerting, my wondering what he is talking about, looking at the table, thinking whoops, I'd struggle to persuade myself on a basis of unaided logic that I had not paused for thought.

So I think that despite what Pran argues, we should have a written statement of guidance, so that issues of Law 73 and pause for thought can be set aside and Law 25 can be applied as the authorities intend (if indeed this is what they intend).

[campboy]

I don't think there is any question of not allowing a change of call. We don't go about preventing players from breaching 73C; rather, we adjust the score after the hand if they do. Of course, if we think that it is legal to do that (and the EBU tells me it is not, so for the purposes of directing that is my opinion) then we should advise the player of the implications of 73C at the time.

[Pict]

campboy, on Sep 22 2010, 12:15 PM, said:

I don't think there is any question of not allowing a change of call. We don't go about preventing players from breaching 73C; rather, we adjust the score after the hand if they do. Of course, if we think that it is legal to do that (and the EBU tells me it is not, so for the purposes of directing that is my opinion) then we should advise the player of the implications of 73C at the time.

This is an odd statement, if you look back at dburn's contribution that triggered this part of the discussion. He seemed to think that a player could not ask to replace his bid after an alert wakes him up, rather than later facing an adjustment.

[Vampyr]

Pict, on Sep 22 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

If I mentally walk through partner alerting, my wondering what he is talking about, looking at the table, thinking whoops, I'd struggle to persuade myself on a basis of unaided logic that I had not paused for thought.

Yes, and before partner's call you may have been thinking about what colour your girlfriend's underwear was, but the "pause for thought" described here is thought about the bid you have made. It "starts ticking" when you have noticed what bid you actually have in front of you, not when you physically make the bid.

[Pict]

Vampyr, on Sep 22 2010, 12:50 PM, said:

Pict, on Sep 22 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

If I mentally walk through partner alerting, my wondering what he is talking about, looking at the table, thinking whoops, I'd struggle to persuade myself on a basis of unaided logic that I had not paused for thought.

Yes, and before partner's call you may have been thinking about what colour your girlfriend's underwear was, but the "pause for thought" described here is thought about the bid you have made. It "starts ticking" when you have noticed what bid you actually have in front of you, not when you physically make the bid.

In which case it would appear the pause for thought phrase adds nothing to the Law (would better have been omitted) and Pran was right to ignore it, and concentrate on correction 'in time'.

Is that what you are implying?

[Vampyr]

Pict, on Sep 22 2010, 06:28 PM, said:

campboy, on Sep 22 2010, 12:15 PM, said:

I don't think there is any question of not allowing a change of call. We don't go about preventing players from breaching 73C; rather, we adjust the score after the hand if they do. Of course, if we think that it is legal to do that (and the EBU tells me it is not, so for the purposes of directing that is my opinion) then we should advise the player of the implications of 73C at the time.

This is an odd statement, if you look back at dburn's contribution that triggered this part of the discussion. He seemed to think that a player could not ask to replace his bid after an alert wakes him up, rather than later facing an adjustment.

It's not an odd statement. I think that what campboy means is that there is no question as to the legality in EBU-land, rather than claiming that there is no one in England who is unaware that it is so.

[Vampyr]

Pict, on Sep 22 2010, 06:55 PM, said:

In which case it would appear the pause for thought phrase adds nothing to the Law (would better have been omitted) and Pran was right to ignore it, and concentrate on correction 'in time'.

Is that what you are implying?

Not quite. Because the "time" could be spent thinking "oh, shi t, I forgot the system -- that bid is not correct". This, obviously, is not legal. It does require a bit of mind-reading if a player chooses to lie, but there must be a reaction of genuine surprise -- eg what the %$!@ is that bid doing on the table in front of me? In practice there may still be a pause if the player doesn't know what he is supposed to do about it, and no action may be taken anyway, because I would think that Mr. Burn's misapprehension is fairly common.