[Vampyr]

 lamford, on 2014-March-24, 19:13, said:

Whether or not the Laws require the TD to act as you recommend, I am pretty sure they don't in practice and there is no rectification.

I think that this is the intention of the WBFLC, and it is uncharctaristically sensible. I also do not agree with Jeffrey's assertion that "damage" to the opponents occurs when a truly inadvertent call is corrected to the one the player was trying to grab when his fingers missed.

The WBFLC have tried, in the latest version of the Laws, to create an environment in which an ordinary hand of bridge can be played after an irregularity. Mostly they have failed miserably, but not this time.

[RMB1]

 lamford, on 2014-March-24, 19:13, said:

Whether or not the Laws require the TD to act as you recommend, I am pretty sure they don't in practice and there is no rectification. Perhaps one or two of our senior TDs can confirm this.

I have never liked the footnote. I agree with a desire to play bridge and have auctions untainted by misbids/mispulls, but the footnote does not sit well with the approach of the laws to information from partner.

In the most recent unintended bid ruling, both the intended bid (4♠) and another bid (4♥) were visible. Nobody said anything but if they had I would rule the attempt to bid as an irregularity and any comment (by partner or opponents) was drawing attention to an irregularity.

I do not recall a case where there is "clean" mispull (no reason to suspect a mispull) and partner makes an unnecessary remark that wakes up the unintended bidder. I expect that we would allow the change of call with no further penalty. But I agree that the law requires some further adjustment or penalty.

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2014-March-24, 18:13, said:

The fact that these Laws are not mentioned at all in the minute (and that the footnote was added to 25A with no reference to 73) implies that these Laws are not superseded or over-ridden and cannot be ignored

There was one point I didn't think of when replying to this. The principle which the WBFLC follows is that a more specific Law takes precedence over a general Law, and I think that this includes a more specific minute, which overrides any other Laws with which it clashes.

[nige1]

 Vampyr, on 2014-March-24, 20:23, said:

I think that this is the intention of the WBFLC, and it is uncharctaristically sensible. I also do not agree with Jeffrey's assertion that "damage" to the opponents occurs when a truly inadvertent call is corrected to the one the player was trying to grab when his fingers missed. The WBFLC have tried, in the latest version of the Laws, to create an environment in which an ordinary hand of bridge can be played after an irregularity. Mostly they have failed miserably, but not this time.

Laws that allow the rectification of mechanical errors add unnecessary complexity. They also over-depend on the honesty and self-awareness of players and the mind-reading skills of directors. In my experience, most of opponents' "mechanical errors" appear to have been slips of the mind, but directors don't rule that way. Law-abiding, truthful players with insight into their motives, who are unwilling to rationalize, inevitably suffer disadvantage. It's hard to understand why rule-makers and directors seem so keen to abandon common-sense "fairness" in favour of rule-maker's so-called "equity".

OK, back to the topic. At Brighton, a few years ago, there was a similar case, involving an auction something like this
1N "12-14" (Pass) 2♦ "Hearts" (Pass)
2♥ (All pass)

At the end of play, declarer volunteered that he intended to open 1♠ and believed he had done so, until his partner woke him up with the range announcement. Without the announcement, declarer might not have recognised 2♦ as a transfer. The case was reported and discussed here. In this case, the irregularity (if there was one) was discovered only because declarer drew attention to his mistake.

[aguahombre]

At some point, IMHO, we should stop bitching about the complexity or confusion of our rules and those of other jurisdictions, and use these fora constructively to help each other play or direct Bridge under them.

I have been guilty of this, too; but whining isn't really a solution.

There is a technical writing process which would have made our lives easier in Bridge, but it wasn't followed and is possibly impractical to initiate now for any jurisdiction. It involves several elements:

1) Objective technical writer(s) who are not the policy makers, but whose product are subject to their approval.

2) A (loose-leaf) living "manual" for any set of laws or procedures, with pages dated.

3) A history file for each law or rule.

4) Organization of the documents in outline form (topics/subtopics).

5) Reference notes from one rule to another, and a designated expert thoroughly knowledgeable with the abilitly to correlate between laws and between documents (This person should be part of the approval process.)

6) On-line access to revisions and updates.

7) Periodic audits by entities to ensure the "manuals" within their sphere are up-to-date.


Agreed this will not happen in my lifetime or yours; but the result would not be a nightmare even though it might sound like one.

[campboy]

EBU regulations say that a call is made when removed from the bidding box with apparent intent. Several times a session at my table someone (often me) pulls bidding cards from the bidding box, realises while the cards are still in the air that they have missed the intended top one or that another one has stuck to it, and corrects. This should remain legal. So some mechanism for correcting inadvertent calls should be in place, but I do not see why it has to be in the laws at all. It should simply be part of the bidding box regulations, and the laws then just need to authorise RAs to make such a regulation.

[pran]

 campboy, on 2014-March-25, 09:36, said:

EBU regulations say that a call is made when removed from the bidding box with apparent intent. Several times a session at my table someone (often me) pulls bidding cards from the bidding box, realises while the cards are still in the air that they have missed the intended top one or that another one has stuck to it, and corrects. This should remain legal. So some mechanism for correcting inadvertent calls should be in place, but I do not see why it has to be in the laws at all. It should simply be part of the bidding box regulations, and the laws then just need to authorise RAs to make such a regulation.

Law 25A is there for historical reasons dating back to the time when every call was spoken at the table.

It protects the player who makes an unintended mistake in his speech, or as there has been some evolution in Bridge bidding Methods, to the player who accidentally pulls an unintended bid card from the bid Box. (I assume that similar "protection" exists where written auction is used?)

So yes, this Law has its obvious place in the Law book.

[jallerton]

 Vampyr, on 2014-March-24, 20:23, said:

I think that this is the intention of the WBFLC, and it is uncharctaristically sensible. I also do not agree with Jeffrey's assertion that "damage" to the opponents occurs when a truly inadvertent call is corrected to the one the player was trying to grab when his fingers missed.

No, that is not my assertion. In the vast majority of cases where a player pulls out the wrong bidding card, he/she notices immediately and corrects, or attempts to correct, the call straight away without the influence of any other player. Assuming that the local bidding box regulations deem the unintended call to have been made at all, this is exactly what Law 25A is there for.

 Vampyr, on 2014-March-24, 20:23, said:

The WBFLC have tried, in the latest version of the Laws, to create an environment in which an ordinary hand of bridge can be played after an irregularity. Mostly they have failed miserably, but not this time.

I disagree. Read literally and interpreted sensibly, Law 25A could be fine. The problems come when there is a delayed correction.