[kruba]

North --- East ---- South
1NT ------- P --------- 2S (alerted)

There was a pause after the 2S, but South says he wasn’t looking at the table, so didn't notice the 2S until after the alert. South now says, I didn't mean to bid 2S, I meant to bid 2H (which would have been announced). South was woken up by the alert. West had not bid. South says it was a mechanical error. Is South allowed to change his bid to 2H?

[RMB1]

As described: yes.

If it was a mechanical error and he attempted to change (=said 2♠ wasn't the intendend bid) as soon as he knew that he had 2♠ then Law 25A applies.

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.

[dburn]

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.

[blackshoe]

We've had this discussion. If a player changes, or attempts to change, an unintended call "without pause for thought" from the time he became aware that the call he made was not the one he intended, then provided his partner has not yet called, he is allowed to change the call. That is the current accepted practice in ruling. If you disagree with this practice, "changing laws and regulations" is the place to discuss it.

[jallerton]

Quote

LAW 16 AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION

A. Players’ Use of Information

1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:

   (a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or

   ( it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or

   © it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or

   (d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.

2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations.

3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).

4. If there is a violation of this law causing damage the Director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12C.

B. Extraneous Information from Partner

1. (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

As you have discussed this before, perhaps you could enlighten us why Law 16A3 does not apply.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Sep 17 2010, 02:24 PM, said:

We've had this discussion. If a player changes, or attempts to change, an unintended call "without pause for thought" from the time he became aware that the call he made was not the one he intended, then provided his partner has not yet called, he is allowed to change the call. That is the current accepted practice in ruling. If you disagree with this practice, "changing laws and regulations" is the place to discuss it.

When was this discussed before? And anyway why does the forums agreeing something make it a law, or an official interpretation of a law? What you said seems clearly wrong to me, of course he can't change his call if he discovered it was something else due to UI. You can't take advantage of UI in any way and I doubt this type of occurence is the one exception to that.

[lamford]

Stefanie tells me that there was a WBFLC pronouncement on this. Essentially, the auction is always AI, and a Law 25A correction is allowed however you discovered you had made a mechanical error. I must admit that it is not necessarily the conclusion I would have reached either.

[jdonn]

Ok apparently this is the one time you're allowed to take advantage of UI!

[gordontd]

jallerton, on Sep 17 2010, 10:45 PM, said:

As you have discussed this before, perhaps you could enlighten us why Law 16A3 does not apply.

The player would not be basing their call on such other information. The player has already decided on a call without the assistance of any UI, but now realises that the intended call has not been made.

[MBV53]

Too late to change the call also UI appiles.

[shyams]

MBV53, on Sep 18 2010, 08:18 AM, said:

Too late to change the call also UI appiles.

Thiis (and other posts by you) pose a small concern

I was planning to play in a "proper" tournament in India next year. But if there are TD calls, can I trust the TD to get it right?

[pran]

lamford, on Sep 17 2010, 11:10 PM, said:

Stefanie tells me that there was a WBFLC pronouncement on this. Essentially, the auction is always AI, and a Law 25A correction is allowed however you discovered you had made a mechanical error. I must admit that it is not necessarily the conclusion I would have reached either.

That is the law.

Not because of a WBFLC interpretation but simply from the clause in Law 25A: "until his partner makes a call".

If the "pause" should be measured from the moment the unintended call was actually made this clause would be meaningless. Thus the "pause" is measured from the moment the player becomes aware of his mistake regardless of how he became aware of it. (AI or UI is not a relevant question in this situation.)

[campboy]

Well, 25A taken alone certainly permits the change of call. The question is whether law 73C applies; actually changing your call to what you intended could be considered an advantage which you have gained from the UI. At least we have an official pronouncement on this so that we can all rule consistently.

[lamford]

gordontd, on Sep 17 2010, 06:52 PM, said:

The player has already decided on a call without the assistance of any UI, but now realises that the intended call has not been made.

That seems pretty convincing to me.

[pran]

lamford, on Sep 18 2010, 11:23 AM, said:

gordontd, on Sep 17 2010, 06:52 PM, said:

The player has already decided on a call without the assistance of any UI, but now realises that the intended call has not been made.

That seems pretty convincing to me.

Precisely.

(And how he came to realize it is irrelevant)

[Gerben42]

In principle I agree with 25A, but...

this special auction has some extra traps. If opener showed a weak NT responder has a weak hand with 5♠ and intended to transfer, I would probably rule against him on the basis that he might have forgotten about transfers.

[Vampyr]

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?

I agree with anyone who has read this that this practice is abhorrent, but I was told that this was the guidance given.

Edit: missed Gerben's post; anyway his post proves that I am not having paranoid delusions.

[barmar]

I think the TD is expected to judge whether the player is telling the truth about whether it was a mechanical error or he forgot transfers. In general, the Laws assume players are honest -- if a player lies to a TD, that's cheating.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on Sep 18 2010, 03:27 PM, said:

I think the TD is expected to judge whether the player is telling the truth about whether it was a mechanical error or he forgot transfers.  In general, the Laws assume players are honest -- if a player lies to a TD, that's cheating.

Well, DWS was at this EBL course. Perhaps he can tell us more.

[jdonn]

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).