[mtvesuvius]

The following hand occurred at a regional, I was South on this deal, playing with a regular partner of mine. Bracket 2 Knockout, our opponents aren't the greatest ever. We play a strong club with relays and a variable NT. The deal was (with further explanations below):

---

IMPs

OK, so, over 2♣ we play systems on, and partner bid 2♦ which was Alerted (not asked), and I bid 3♥ which was also alerted and not asked about. Now that I was fully shaped out, our methods were that partner could bid 4♦ asking me to bid 4♥ and telling me he is about to sign off. 4♥ was effectively Keycard in clubs (with some modifications). 4♠ would have effectively been ♦ RKC, etc.

After the 4♥ call, my RHO put a pass on the table, and I began to count out my response (the 5♣ call). Before I had even made a move toward the bidding box, partner realizes they have pulled the wrong card. They meant to bid 4♦ to sign off in 4♥. First of all, what would you rule there? Would you allow the change?

So the director ruled that the 4♥ bid remains, and clearly I now have some UI -- I responded as I would have to club keycard. My 5♣ call basically showed 2 keycards and the trump queen. Now my LHO doubles...

Partner's pass is in theory a relay beginning a spiral scan. Redouble would have been business. This means that partner couldn't be bidding keycard in clubs, otherwise they would have redoubled for sure. Therefore it now seems like AI that partner has messed up someplace. My correct spiral scan response was 5♠, but I thought I could justify based on bridge logic that partner must have done something wrong, and therefore I now bid 5♦, showing 0 or 2 top diamond honours. Seeing that they couldn't get to 5♥ now, partner passed before the doubling started. The end result was down 6, and -300 for us. Do you believe that I have AI? Just how much AI do I have -- Am I authorized to know partner probably has hearts to some degree, and could I lie and bid 5♥ instead (1 or 3 top diamond honours and 0 or 2 top club honours)?

Anyway, it is 1:30AM here, so if I forgot anything I'll fill it in in the morning.

P.S. No, partner didn't forget that 2♦ was a GF relay, they just decided to do it very light.

[paulg]

I am unsurprised that the Director left the 4♥ call on the table. Firstly your partner would have to be very convincing that he had pulled the wrong card rather than forgotten the system, and secondly it is your small break in tempo (unsurprising since you need to think) that seems to have awakened him to the fact that the wrong card is on the table. It seems a very tough decision for the Director to allow a change. But I am not an expert in this area and it will be interesting to hear the views of the professional directors here.

In terms of bidding over the double, I would ask some questions first. Does key-carding actually set the suit, or can partner sign off in a different suit after the spiral scan? If so, then I think you are wrong and I would adjust to something presumably costing a lot of imps. If not, then there is still the question of whether he is trying for a grand slam. This may be unlikely given LHO's bidding but, like always in these situations, it is easier to make the decision that 'something has gone wrong' when there is UI to that effect. On the AC I would vote that you have used UI, but I would go with the majority view as I know I tend to be more extreme than most in these cases.

Interesting problem.

[Vampyr]

paulg, on 2011-August-16, 03:37, said:

I am unsurprised that the Director left the 4♥ call on the table. Firstly your partner would have to be very convincing that he had pulled the wrong card rather than forgotten the system, and secondly it is your small break in tempo (unsurprising since you need to think) that seems to have awakened him to the fact that the wrong card is on the table.

This first point is very valid, the second, not so much.

[bluejak]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-August-16, 01:29, said:

After the 4♥ call, my RHO put a pass on the table, and I began to count out my response (the 5♣ call). Before I had even made a move toward the bidding box, partner realizes they have pulled the wrong card. They meant to bid 4♦ to sign off in 4♥. First of all, what would you rule there? Would you allow the change?

No. You have told us the call was not unintended so Law 25A does not apply.

paulg, on 2011-August-16, 03:37, said:

I am unsurprised that the Director left the 4♥ call on the table. Firstly your partner would have to be very convincing that he had pulled the wrong card rather than forgotten the system, and secondly it is your small break in tempo (unsurprising since you need to think) that seems to have awakened him to the fact that the wrong card is on the table. It seems a very tough decision for the Director to allow a change. But I am not an expert in this area and it will be interesting to hear the views of the professional directors here.

It seems a very easy decision. The OP states that the call was not unintended but a mistake. So, unless North lied, the TD knows immediately that Law 25A does not apply.

[paulg]

bluejak, on 2011-August-16, 05:57, said:

mtvesuvius, on 2011-August-16, 01:29, said:

After the 4♥ call, my RHO put a pass on the table, and I began to count out my response (the 5♣ call). Before I had even made a move toward the bidding box, partner realizes they have pulled the wrong card. They meant to bid 4♦ to sign off in 4♥. First of all, what would you rule there? Would you allow the change?

No. You have told us the call was not unintended so Law 25A does not apply.

I interpreted Adam's post to mean that his partner intended to bid 4♦ but made a mechanical error, picking one bidding card to the right of the intended one, and placed 4♥ on the table. This makes the problem interesting rather than Simple Rulings.

[blackshoe]

I'm with Paul. I don't see anything in the OP that says that 4♥ was not unintended.

[mtvesuvius]

paulg, on 2011-August-16, 06:37, said:

I interpreted Adam's post to mean that his partner intended to bid 4♦ but made a mechanical error, picking one bidding card to the right of the intended one, and placed 4♥ on the table. This makes the problem interesting rather than Simple Rulings.

Yes, as far as I know, 4♦ was a mechanical error, however the director decided that since it was too likely he just had a system forget (although he's been playing this system for about 3 years and is the author of the system notes etc), and so therefore the 4♥ call stands.

Partner can only keycard in a suit if they want to play there as far as I know. I guess you could get creative if your actually strain is higher ranking, but I haven't ever seen/done that.

[bluejak]

Sorry, I seem to have missed the point. If it was a mechanical error then of course it may be changed. What difference does it make how long he has been playing it? I have been playing Stayman for about 54 years: does that mean I cannot make a mechanical error with a 2♣ response to 1NT?

[peachy]

It was a mechanical error and noticed in time (per the requirements of the law) so there should be no reason to not allow the change. I am surprised at the ruling that the call stands.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-August-16, 17:35, said:

Sorry, I seem to have missed the point. If it was a mechanical error then of course it may be changed. What difference does it make how long he has been playing it? I have been playing Stayman for about 54 years: does that mean I cannot make a mechanical error with a 2♣ response to 1NT?

That IS the point, and the TD apparently missed it. The player knows their system well, yet the TD still ruled that forgetting was more likely than a mechanical error.

I think he was blinded by the fact that the heart call could be natural, and perhaps a bias against self-serving statements. Too many players try to claim mechanical errors when they actually had a brain fart, and this sometimes prejudices TDs against such claims.

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2011-August-17, 00:15, said:

Too many players try to claim mechanical errors when they actually had a brain fart, and this sometimes prejudices TDs against such claims.

I think creative claims of this sort are a very real problem with the law as it is currently applied, which most people on this forum probably recognise but are reluctant to say explicitly because acknowledging it risks leaving the poor old TD with an almost insoluble problem.

I notice in another current thread Bluejak says that in his (very wide) experience Law 25A cases are never insufficient bids. This seems a reasonable assumption to me - it is just so likely that an insufficient bid is the result of a brain fart rather than a mechanical error. Not all TDs agree, however - I certainly had an insufficient bid against me at this year's Spring 4s corrected under Law 25A. I felt at the time that the TD was being very generous to my opponent, but of course there is nothing for a player to do but simply accept such a ruling without argument. I also felt there was a potential for UI from the insufficient bid, but once again the decision to treat it as a mechanical error rules this out since by definition there can be no useful information from a genuine mechanical error.

[paulg]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-August-16, 11:03, said:

Yes, as far as I know, 4♦ was a mechanical error, however the director decided that since it was too likely he just had a system forget (although he's been playing this system for about 3 years and is the author of the system notes etc), and so therefore the 4♥ call stands.

I guess your partner was just too polite to the TD - some ranting that he'd obviously pulled the wrong card from the box might have been more convincing. I play similar methods myself, although I don't play as much as you, and it is really easy to forget them momentarily in the heat of battle especially in an unusual auction, like when there is competition or you have overbid and want the auction to stop as quickly as possible. However in these circumstances I would expect your partner to not ask for a change.

mtvesuvius, on 2011-August-16, 11:03, said:

Partner can only keycard in a suit if they want to play there as far as I know. I guess you could get creative if your actually strain is higher ranking, but I haven't ever seen/done that.

People often get creative in the slam zone, especially if asking in a lower suit gives them more space. I'd just accept that we are getting a poor score and make my normal response.

[bluejak]

WellSpyder, on 2011-August-17, 02:37, said:

I notice in another current thread Bluejak says that in his (very wide) experience Law 25A cases are never insufficient bids. This seems a reasonable assumption to me - it is just so likely that an insufficient bid is the result of a brain fart rather than a mechanical error. Not all TDs agree, however - I certainly had an insufficient bid against me at this year's Spring 4s corrected under Law 25A. I felt at the time that the TD was being very generous to my opponent, but of course there is nothing for a player to do but simply accept such a ruling without argument.

While I am particularly not suggesting it, in my view it is a judgement as to whether a call is unintended, so it could be appealed.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-August-17, 14:35, said:

While I am particularly not suggesting it, in my view it is a judgement as to whether a call is unintended, so it could be appealed.

Certainly!
But I do hope that no AC would ever overrule a Director's judgement solely on the ground that an insufficient bid cannot be unintended, or in other words: That they just do not believe in the Director's judgement? They should in case show how the Director's judgement (in their opinion) was flawed.

[McBruce]

It may prove impossible to do so without getting criticism here, but I'm going to try...

It sounds to me like the TD made a poor judgment, deciding apparently that 4♥ was a system forget, rather than a thumb slip. But if the way the OP describes the auction is similar to the information the TD was given...

"4♥ was effectively Keycard in clubs (with some modifications)" -- Why "effectively"?

"My 5♣ call basically showed 2 keycards and the trump queen" -- Why "basically"?

"Partner's pass is in theory a relay beginning a spiral scan" -- I don't know what a spiral scan is, and I suspect some of your opponents don't either.

...I think most Directors would have some doubt in their minds about whether both players were completely down with the system after an 8-count makes a game force opposite 11-13, and the misbid is discovered after partner "counts out" a keycard response. Players who know their system usually can explain it without a qualifying or technical word in most of the sentences. And, sure, perhaps at the table the answers the TD got were entirely different from the way the OP was written.

In any case, whatever my concerns that this might be a system forget, the farthest I would go would be to remind everyone that a change under 25A must be made without pause for thought, and let the opponents protest if they felt there was one. They were there from the time the 4♥ card hit the table to the time that the misbid was discovered; I wasn't.

[blackshoe]

Apropos of nothing, Spiral Scan is a method of discovering which side kings, queens, and sometimes even jacks partner has after his response to your RKCB inquiry. Not sure who invented it, but it's part of Romex.

IME, some people are incapable of giving a straightforward explanation without words like "effectively" and "basically" — but I agree the reason for the wording is worth pursuing.

[paulg]

McBruce, on 2011-August-18, 22:54, said:

"4♥ was effectively Keycard in clubs (with some modifications)" -- Why "effectively"?

"My 5♣ call basically showed 2 keycards and the trump queen" -- Why "basically"?

Give the kid a break!

I think Adam is simplifying the auction to common and understandable terms, basically.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-August-17, 15:42, said:

Certainly!
But I do hope that no AC would ever overrule a Director's judgement solely on the ground that an insufficient bid cannot be unintended, or in other words: That they just do not believe in the Director's judgement? They should in case show how the Director's judgement (in their opinion) was flawed.

When an AC overturns a TD's ruling, the most common reason by far is that they disagree with the TD's judgement. It is completely normal and needs no explanation.

[axman]

bluejak, on 2011-August-19, 11:37, said:

When an AC overturns a TD's ruling, the most common reason by far is that they disagree with the TD's judgement. It is completely normal and needs no explanation.

The primary reason that most bad appeals are lodged is that when ruling the TD does not:
A] state the agreed facts
B] explain his reasons for his finding of disputed facts
C] quote the relevant law
D] explain his judgment in interpreting the facts

Notably, if TD did the above they would not be giving so many rulings that should be appealed; and for the rulings that are appealed the appellants at least would be able to judge the relevant issues to bring forward.

Which is to say that AC should do the same and to fail to do so is a dereliction of duty and a disservice.

[Phil]

McBruce, on 2011-August-18, 22:54, said:

In any case, whatever my concerns that this might be a system forget, the farthest I would go would be to remind everyone that a change under 25A must be made without pause for thought, and let the opponents protest if they felt there was one. They were there from the time the 4♥ card hit the table to the time that the misbid was discovered; I wasn't.

We've discussed on here that the interval "without pause for thought", starts after its noticed by the player.