[bluejak]

Oh, I don't think so. In my experience - remember, I see far more of these cases than anyone else - Law 25A cases are basically never insufficient bids.

All the same, there seems to be an argument that since it is not fair for the poor player we should ignore what the Law says. As ever, I don't like this, especially when it is the player who has made the mistake who “suffers”.

Compare a player who mispulls and then there are two calls. He cannot change it now – the Law says so. Are you going to say, if he only realised after two calls, that it is unfair on the poor player so we should ignore the Law? No, I did not think so.

[blackshoe]

Precisely. I think we have to allow a player in this situation to tell the TD, when he arrives (or more likely when the player gets the floor, since whoever called gets to talk first) that the call was unintended, and he realized it when the TD was called. The TD should then, IMO, allow a Law 25A change. If the scenario is different, somebody points out that it's insufficient, bu no one has yet called the TD, then the player needs to indicate that he wants to change it because it isn't the call he intended.

[mjj29]

 bluejak, on 2011-August-16, 19:19, said:

Oh, I don't think so. In my experience - remember, I see far more of these cases than anyone else - Law 25A cases are basically never insufficient bids.

All the same, there seems to be an argument that since it is not fair for the poor player we should ignore what the Law says. As ever, I don't like this, especially when it is the player who has made the mistake who “suffers”.

Compare a player who mispulls and then there are two calls. He cannot change it now – the Law says so. Are you going to say, if he only realised after two calls, that it is unfair on the poor player so we should ignore the Law? No, I did not think so.

Sorry, I meant "of the cases where the TD will be called before the player can attempt to change per law-25A, most of these will be insufficient bids", obviously, most 25A cases don't fall into that category and then clearly the player must attempt to change for 25A to be used.

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2011-August-16, 19:19, said:

Oh, I don't think so. In my experience - remember, I see far more of these cases than anyone else - Law 25A cases are basically never insufficient bids.
[...]

(Enhancement made by me). I am somewhat surprised by this statement?
Although I agree that insufficient bids in most cases will not satisfy Law 25a as inadvertent calls I cannot dismiss the possibility. In fact I have had situations where I have accepted that the IB was indeed inadvertent and subject to Law 25A rectification.

One example could be the auction 1♥ - 1♣ when the intended call was for instance 1♠ and all the circumstances around the auction (including body language) support this as a fact.

So I think it is a bit too "handy" to just state that an insufficient bid can never be inadvertent.

[blackshoe]

Never, like ever, is a very long time.

[barmar]

I suspect bluejak was mainly thinking of the cases where the player bids the intended denomination, but at an insufficient level. This is rarely due to a mechanical error, although they'll often claim it was. And that's why self-serving statements get such a bad reputation.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2011-August-17, 10:31, said:

I suspect bluejak was mainly thinking of the cases where the player bids the intended denomination, but at an insufficient level. This is rarely due to a mechanical error, although they'll often claim it was. And that's why self-serving statements get such a bad reputation.

And to complete my example:
Although exceptionally I have (apparently unlike him) experienced also an insufficient bid convincingly being inadvertent for a sufficient bid in the same denomination.

The application of Law 25A must always be a matter of unbiased judgement mainly of manners, "body language" and other circumstances, far less of the actual cards held by the offender.

(I believe it is generally appreciated now that the Director must never make a ruling during auction or play apparently from knowledge of the still unexposed cards held by the offender.)

[shyams]

 bluejak, on 2011-August-15, 18:26, said:

This is the sort of thinking that was intriguing me. East committed an infraction and it is possible he is going to gain because of it. That does not seem to be what the Laws intend.

I agree that East committed an infraction.

However, would it be worth discussing if the presence or absence of a stop card is authorised information per Law 16A1? South's contention can be valid only if we deem the use of (and, as an extension, the absence of use of) a stop card to be authorised information. Otherwise he based his 3♣ bid on extraneous information (guesses, assumptions or whatever else) and East cannot be blamed for getting a good board as a consequence of South's error.

The director may decide to give a PP to East but that's independent of the table result

[pran]

 shyams, on 2011-August-17, 15:49, said:

I agree that East committed an infraction.

However, would it be worth discussing if the presence or absence of a stop card is authorised information per Law 16A1? South's contention can be valid only if we deem the use of (and, as an extension, the absence of use of) a stop card to be authorised information. Otherwise he based his 3♣ bid on extraneous information (guesses, assumptions or whatever else) and East cannot be blamed for getting a good board as a consequence of South's error.

The director may decide to give a PP to East but that's independent of the table result

STOP and ALERT cards (or the spoken equivalents) are not part of legal calls and do not provide any information as such unless they are used when not required or not used when required.

So (unless a regulation to the opposite is in effect) the information that can be derived from the unexpected use or non-use of STOP and/or ALERT is not authorized for the side that used or did not use the STOP or ALERT in question.

(I would consider Law 16B1a rather than Law 16A1 to be the relevant law in this connection.)

[jallerton]

 jallerton, on 2011-August-16, 00:51, said:

Taking a literal interpretation of the wording of Law 25A, I'd have to agree with you, as Law 25A says:

"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."

However, many Regulatory Authorities seem to allow a change under Law 25A even when there has been a significant pause for thought. They allow a change as long as the player attempts to change his call as soon as he realises his error.

 mjj29, on 2011-August-16, 01:09, said:

If the player has not realised his error, there has not been a pause for thought. There may have been a pause for other reasons, but he wasn't thinking about whether he'd made the right call.

If there has been "a pause for other reasons" then there has been a pause long enough to be a "pause for thought".
If you read Law 25A you will see that it makes no reference to the point at which a player realises his error.

[shyams]

 pran, on 2011-August-17, 16:15, said:

STOP and ALERT cards (or the spoken equivalents) are not part of legal calls and do not provide any information as such unless they are used when not required or not used when required.

So (unless a regulation to the opposite is in effect) the information that can be derived from the unexpected use or non-use of STOP and/or ALERT is not authorized for the side that used or did not use the STOP or ALERT in question.

(I would consider Law 16B1a rather than Law 16A1 to be the relevant law in this connection.)

I meant 16A1 -- South's contention is that the missing stop card caused a problem. My contention is that 16A1 does not allow South to derive any information from the presence or absence of a stop card (edit: used/not used by East). This is the 16A1 that begins approx as "a player may use information if" and does not talk about partner or opponent.

[bluejak]

 jallerton, on 2011-August-17, 16:20, said:

If there has been "a pause for other reasons" then there has been a pause long enough to be a "pause for thought".
If you read Law 25A you will see that it makes no reference to the point at which a player realises his error.

It is accepted as a world-wide interpretation of this Law that the pause for thought is from the realisation.

[pran]

 shyams, on 2011-August-17, 16:26, said:

 pran, on 2011-August-17, 16:15, said:

STOP and ALERT cards (or the spoken equivalents) are not part of legal calls and do not provide any information as such unless they are used when not required or not used when required.

So (unless a regulation to the opposite is in effect) the information that can be derived from the unexpected use or non-use of STOP and/or ALERT is not authorized for the side that used or did not use the STOP or ALERT in question.

(I would consider Law 16B1a rather than Law 16A1 to be the relevant law in this connection.)

I meant 16A1 -- South's contention is that the missing stop card caused a problem. My contention is that 16A1 does not allow South to derive any information from the presence or absence of a stop card (edit: used/not used by East). This is the 16A1 that begins approx as "a player may use information if" and does not talk about partner or opponent.

For this purpose I think you will have to look at

Law 73D1 said:

It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

(My enhancements)
The use or non-use of STOP is (part of) the manner in which a call is made.

(But as improper use of STOP or ALERT is an irregularity the Director may always use Law 23 if he judges that the irregularity has been deliberate.)

[campboy]

 mfa1010, on 2011-August-16, 03:43, said:

With such loose application of Law 23 the "could have known" condition loses its content completely.

I agree with mfa1010. Law 23 needs the player to potentially be aware that the irregularity "could well damage the non-offending side". While damage of this form is possible, that possibility is too remote to say that it "could well" occur.

If it is not unusual for this player to fail to use the stop card then he should get a PP, but I don't see any reason to adjust the score.

[pran]

 campboy, on 2011-August-18, 04:13, said:

I agree with mfa1010. Law 23 needs the player to potentially be aware that the irregularity "could well damage the non-offending side". While damage of this form is possible, that possibility is too remote to say that it "could well" occur.

If it is not unusual for this player to fail to use the stop card then he should get a PP, but I don't see any reason to adjust the score.

You may have noticed that I used the word "deliberate"? That brings us a long way towards "could have known".

[campboy]

 pran, on 2011-August-18, 05:00, said:

You may have noticed that I used the word "deliberate"? That brings us a long way towards "could have known".

No, it doesn't, because what we need to establish that he "could have known" (that the infraction "could well" cause damage) is not true. (The fact that my post appeared immediately after yours is coincidence anyway; like mfa I was addressing jallerton's use of law 23, but I came to the thread late.)

[pran]

 campboy, on 2011-August-18, 05:27, said:

No, it doesn't, because what we need to establish that he "could have known" (that the infraction "could well" cause damage) is not true. (The fact that my post appeared immediately after yours is coincidence anyway; like mfa I was addressing jallerton's use of law 23, but I came to the thread late.)

Yes, I was wondering which post you addressed

However, when I judge that a player has deliberately committed an irregularity (not neccessarily an infraction) I always wonder what was his reason for that irregularity. And it doesn't take me much to rule that he "could have been aware" of the possible (or likely) damage to opponents from this irregularity if opponents indeed were damaged.

If instead I find that the irregularity was rather accidental I am more likely to consider if the claimed damage was rather self-inflected.

It all is a matter of judgement on the spot, so I cannot give any precise rule for when I adjust under Law 23 and when not.

[mfa1010]

 campboy, on 2011-August-18, 05:27, said:

No, it doesn't, because what we need to establish that he "could have known".

Right. Deliberate infractions don't broaden the area for redress. Instead they tend to lead to PPs .

[mfa1010]

 campboy, on 2011-August-18, 04:13, said:

Law 23 needs the player to potentially be aware that the irregularity "could well damage the non-offending side". While damage of this form is possible, that possibility is too remote to say that it "could well" occur.

Thanks for pointing out the word "well". It is strengthening the "could have known" condition in law 23 even further.

The relevant test is now this (if we consider applying law 23):

Could second hand have known that by failing to use the stop procedure (stop card/saying "stop"), third hand could well happen to make an insufficient bid and ensue subsequent damage?

My judgment is also: No, too far fetched.

[mfa1010]

 bluejak, on 2011-August-15, 18:26, said:

This is the sort of thinking that was intriguing me. East committed an infraction and it is possible he is going to gain because of it. That does not seem to be what the Laws intend.

But they don't intend that it must not happen either. There is no bridge laws dogma saying that one is not allowed to get lucky or that his opponent is not allowed to make a mistake.