[jhenrikj]

I've asked two EBL Chief TD's and one Assistent Chief TD about this and they all agreed that we always allow 25A substitution if the conditions in 25A are met no matter how the player was made aware of his misbid.

One of the two CTD's is also a member of WBFLC.

So if the knowledge that you have made an unintended call is AI (as it must be since we are allowed to use it) before partner has bid, it must be AI also after partner has bid.

[jallerton]

jallerton, on 2011-August-26, 10:56, said:

Law 19A says that a player "may" double the last preceding bid as long as it has been made by an opponent. But if the player is in posession of UI and doubling would not carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI, Law 73C directs that the player "must" not double.

Law 25A says that a player "may" correct an unintended call as long as his partner has not yet called. But if the player is in posession of UI and correcting the unintended call would not carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, Law 73C directs that the player "must" not make the correction.

lamford, on 2011-August-26, 11:11, said:

This is the interpretation I prefer, but I think that the player may change an unintended call, howsoever he learns of his error. I recall that gordontd offered the view that the player had originally decided on another call, and therefore he is not taking advantage of the UI, as the decision to make the call was earlier than the UI. That was also a valid argument, and I think is the one the WBFLC adopts.

....but the decision to correct the unintended call was made after receiving the UI.

blackshoe, on 2011-August-26, 11:04, said:

Maybe, but it's contrary to the way I understand the laws to be interpreted. Perhaps you can convince the WBFLC to issue a new interpretation, but until then I think we should not involve Law 73C in a 25A situation.

Has the WBFLC issued one of its statements pretending that the Laws say something else "interpretations" on this issue? If so what does it say?

I am only aware of the one from the year 2000 which converts "without pause for thoguht" to "without pause for thought once he becomes aware that he has made an unintended call" (though the fact that this wording was not incorporated into the 2007 Laws suggests that it may no longer be in point).

and of the following definitions in the Introduction to the Laws:

"may" do: failure to do so is not wrong.

"must" do: the strongest word, a serious matter indeed.

[blackshoe]

AFAIK, the WBFLC has said that unless they explicitly cancel an old interpretation, it's still valid.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2011-August-27, 10:38, said:

I am only aware of the one from the year 2000 which converts "without pause for thoguht" to "without pause for thought once he becomes aware that he has made an unintended call" (though the fact that this wording was not incorporated into the 2007 Laws suggests that it may no longer be in point).

So what are you suggesting? That we do not rule the way that everyone has learnt to do, in the way that all authorities are agreed?

I do not understand the point in challenging agreed interpretations.

[jallerton]

I'm suggesting that if the WBFLC considers the wording of a particular Law to be sufficiently unclear that it needs to issue an "interpretation", then it makes jolly sure that the wording of the Law in question is altered to become unambiguous when the next edition of the Laws is published.

I'm suggesting that if the WBFLC decides that it would prefer the Law said something else, then it alters the wording of the Law accordingly when the next edition of the Laws is published.

I'm suggesting that if an intelligent club TD wants to make a 'book' ruling, he should be able to deduce the correct ruling by consulting a book known as "The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007". It should not be necessary to know two Chief EBL TDs (or even to know that there could be more than one 'Chief' EBL TD!) to ask if some unwritten rules exist, every time a club TD wants to make a 'book' ruling.

Anyway, that's a slightly off-topic diversion.

Ed stated:

blackshoe, on 2011-August-26, 11:04, said:

Maybe, but it's contrary to the way I understand the laws to be interpreted. Perhaps you can convince the WBFLC to issue a new interpretation, but until then I think we should not involve Law 73C in a 25A situation.

which seemed to imply that the WBFLC had issued an interpretation regarding Law 73C in unintended call situations. Can he (or anybody else) enlighten us as to what exactly this says?

[barmar]

Yes, it would be best if all interpretations were incorporated into the next revision of the Laws, but apparently that doesn't always happen. Are you suggesting that all interpretations that predate the current revision should be cancelled, i.e. they're presumed to have changed their mind about all these intpretations that weren't incorporated?

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2011-August-29, 09:33, said:

Ed … seemed to imply that the WBFLC had issued an interpretation regarding Law 73C in unintended call situations. Can he (or anybody else) enlighten us as to what exactly this says?

I was suggesting that the WBFLC had issued an interpretation of Law 25A, not Law 73C.

barmar, on 2011-August-29, 15:01, said:

Yes, it would be best if all interpretations were incorporated into the next revision of the Laws, but apparently that doesn't always happen. Are you suggesting that all interpretations that predate the current revision should be cancelled, i.e. they're presumed to have changed their mind about all these intpretations that weren't incorporated?

I don't know what he's suggesting, but as I said, AFAIK, the WBFLC has said that this is not the case (that interpretations issued prior to the current version of the laws are no longer valid).

[jallerton]

barmar, on 2011-August-29, 15:01, said:

Yes, it would be best if all interpretations were incorporated into the next revision of the Laws, but apparently that doesn't always happen. Are you suggesting that all interpretations that predate the current revision should be cancelled, i.e. they're presumed to have changed their mind about all these intpretations that weren't incorporated?

I'm suggesting that is what should happen (and you seem to agree with me); I don't know enough to tell you what does happen in practice. Common sense would tell us that some "interpretations" are no longer relevant, but I'm not aware of any WBFLC list of withdrawn/still relevant "interpretations".

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-29, 21:09, said:

I was suggesting that the WBFLC had issued an interpretation of Law 25A, not Law 73C.

In that case, you might wish to revise your previous post of:

blackshoe, on 2011-August-26, 11:04, said:

Maybe, but it's contrary to the way I understand the laws to be interpreted. Perhaps you can convince the WBFLC to issue a new interpretation, but until then I think we should not involve Law 73C in a 25A situation.

Let's read Law 25A and the interpretation from eleven years ago:

2007 Law 25A said:

LAW 25 - LEGAL AND ILLEGAL CHANGES OF CALL
A. Unintended Call
1. 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.
2. No substitution of call may be made when his partner has made a subsequent call.
3. If the auction ends before it reaches the player’s partner no substitution may occur after the end of the auction period (see Law 22).
4. If a substitution is allowed the LHO may withdraw any call he made over the first call. Information from the withdrawn call is authorised only to his side. There is no further rectification.

WBFLC minutes 2000-08-30#6 said:

Law 25A: Correction of an unintended call [WBFLC]
The attempt to correct must immediately follow the realisation of the mistake when bidding boxes are in use.
For example, a player places a bidding card on the table, then gazes off into space. Eventually, he looks down and sees it is not the card he intended. So long as he attempts to change it now he is in time [if his partner has not subsequently called] even if it is quite some time after the call was originally placed. If LHO has called before this attempt to change he may withdraw his call without penalty [Law 25A4]. The withdrawn call is unauthorised to the side that originally made the wrong call but authorised to the other side [Law 16D].

There is nothing in Law 25A or the quoted interpretation to suggest that a player may use unauthorised information to wake himself up to the fact that he has made an unintended call (and Law 25A4 admits that the concept of unauthorised information exists).

On the other hand Law 73C demands that the player must carefully avoid taking any advantage from any unauthorised information received from partner's remark, question, explanation, gesture,mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, etc.

Conclusion: a player who has made an unintended call may exercise his rights under Law 25A but only as long as he complies with his obligations under other Laws, including Law 73C.

[blackshoe]

You apparently think the interpretation you quote leads to an assumption that if it is partner's action which gives rise to one's understanding that one's call was unintended, Law 73C applies. The interpretation does not, as I read it, say that.

[jhenrikj]

In the WBFLC minute quoted above, the information that is UI is the information from the withdrawn call from LHO of the uninteded call to the side who made the unintended call.

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-31, 16:26, said:

You apparently think the interpretation you quote leads to an assumption that if it is partner's action which gives rise to one's understanding that one's call was unintended, Law 73C applies. The interpretation does not, as I read it, say that.

No, Law 73C is a general "must" Law which applies to all players for the whole of the auction and play. There is nothing in either Law 25A or the quoted "interpretation" to suggest that there is some magical exception to Law 73C in this situation. Therefore, Law 73C continues to apply.

[barmar]

Let's say you don't notice that RHO has bid. Then partner says "it's your turn to bid". Must you continue waiting for RHO to bid, because his reminder was UI that you must ignore? Or does that not count as "taking advantage"?

So I guess this comes down to what counts as taking advantage. Is noticing an unintended bid really taking advantage?

On the other hand, the spirit of 73C seems to be that you should bid and play as if you were never even aware of partner's remarks, gestures, mannerisms, etc.; we're often told to imagine you're playing with screens. If you were playing with screens, you'd never hear the alert or explanation, and would not get woken up to the fact that you made an unintended bid.

Although this isn't quite compatible with other UI Laws. They prohibit you from taking the action suggested by the UI if there's another LA. So you can't simply ignore the UI, you must note it and do the opposite of what it suggests.

[pran]

barmar, on 2011-September-02, 00:40, said:

Let's say you don't notice that RHO has bid. Then partner says "it's your turn to bid". Must you continue waiting for RHO to bid, because his reminder was UI that you must ignore? Or does that not count as "taking advantage"?

So I guess this comes down to what counts as taking advantage. Is noticing an unintended bid really taking advantage?

On the other hand, the spirit of 73C seems to be that you should bid and play as if you were never even aware of partner's remarks, gestures, mannerisms, etc.; we're often told to imagine you're playing with screens. If you were playing with screens, you'd never hear the alert or explanation, and would not get woken up to the fact that you made an unintended bid.

Although this isn't quite compatible with other UI Laws. They prohibit you from taking the action suggested by the UI if there's another LA. So you can't simply ignore the UI, you must note it and do the opposite of what it suggests.

And the latter leads to an interesting question:
For the sake of argument let us accept that the player has UI awakening him to the fact that he has made an unintended call.

We have two relevant laws on this situation:

16B1a said:

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.

and

73C said:

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

Assuming that Law 16B1a prevails then we must rule that the inadvertent call was, and still is no logical alternative for the player to his intended call. Consequently he may replace his unintended call with his intended call (provided the conditions in Law 25A are satisfied).

What if Law 73C prevails? Then the following scenario becomes a reality (it has happened more than once): A player receives UI which demonstrably suggests one particular action over another, so he selects an action other than the suggested one. Subsequently this selected action turns out to having been very advantageous to the player as compared to the outcome had he instead selected the (illegaly) suggested action.

Shall we adjust the result based on Law 73C, or shall we let the table result stand because the player has complied with Law 16B and just been unexpected lucky?

It is clear to me that trying (Law 25A) to correct an unintended call is not taking advantage of unauthorized information even if he became aware of his mistake because of some action by his partner.

[campboy]

Why should either law "prevail"? The fact that 16B does not forbid something is no bar to ruling that law 73C does.

I agree with JAllerton. It seems clear to me that it is advantageous to become aware of your unintended call in time to correct it.

[pran]

campboy, on 2011-September-02, 15:19, said:

Why should either law "prevail"? The fact that 16B does not forbid something is no bar to ruling that law 73C does.

I agree with JAllerton. It seems clear to me that it is advantageous to become aware of your unintended call in time to correct it.

"Does not forbid"?????

Law 16B1a said:

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

[campboy]

Let me spell it out for you. You wrote

Quote

Assuming that Law 16B1a prevails then we must rule that the inadvertent call was, and still is no logical alternative for the player to his intended call. Consequently he may replace his unintended call with his intended call (provided the conditions in Law 25A are satisfied).

Now I agree that there is nothing in 16B which prevents the player from making the correction, but it does not follow that he may do so. If the correction breaks 73C then it does not matter that it doesn't break 16B.

[blackshoe]

It would seem, if those who are advocating invoking 73C in this case are correct, that the only time 25A is applicable is when the player, without help from his partner, realizes his call was unintended on his own, or possibly with help from opponents. Is that your position?

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-03, 07:12, said:

It would seem, ..., that the only time 25A is applicable is when the player, without help from his partner, realizes his call was unintended on his own, or possibly with help from opponents.

I am "unhappy" that partner's alert can lead to a Law 25A change. But my "position" is that it can: because that is how I have been instructed..

I would be happy if a Law 25A change were only permitted if there had been no help from anyone (partner or opponents). I do not like a change being permitted after an opponent asks "is that natural?"

I am not sure who interpreted "without pause for thought" as starting from when a player realised what they bid, rather than (the obvious interpretation ) from when the call was made; but I think they did the game a disservice.

[blackshoe]

Clearly if a player is thinking about what to have for dinner, or admiring Wendy's legs, he's not thinking about the bidding, and so is not going to realize he's not made the call he intended. I don't think interpreting "pause for thought" as "pause for thought about the bidding" or "pause for thought from the time he realizes he screwed up" is a bad thing.