[timjand]

EBU, UK

Bidding goes 1D - 3C (overcall, no stop card).

At this point, the partner of the 3C bidder says, "Did you mean to stop?"

The 3C bidder then says, "No, I intended to bid 2C".

He says he simply pulled out the wrong card and did not notice until his partner's remark.

Now, law 25A and the footnote says that an unintended call can be changed until your partner calls, "no matter how he may become aware of the error." The white book clarifies, for example stating that if you notice an unintended call because, for example, your partner alerts a bid that is alertable, it is OK to change it. Eg 1D - 2D (Alert) - Oh, I meant to bid 2C.

However in this instance I have difficulty with it since the "Did you mean to stop?" remark is clearly itself an infraction. It would also seem to open the door to all sorts of "partner did you mean to do that" interventions which would be absolutely unacceptable.

Is it correct to rule that the 3C bid stands and partner must bid as if it were a jump overcall?

Tim

[campboy]

IMO you can't disallow the change to 2♣ (because the conditions for law 25A are met), but what you can do in this sort of case is adjust the score afterwards if they do better as a result. Partner's remark is an irregularity which might well damage the other side, so you can use Law 23 to adjust to what you think would have happened if the remark had not been made.

[gordontd]

timjand, on 2016-February-02, 03:23, said:

EBU, UK

Bidding goes 1D - 3C (overcall, no stop card).

At this point, the partner of the 3C bidder says, "Did you mean to stop?"

The 3C bidder then says, "No, I intended to bid 2C".

He says he simply pulled out the wrong card and did not notice until his partner's remark.

Now, law 25A and the footnote says that an unintended call can be changed until your partner calls, "no matter how he may become aware of the error." The white book clarifies, for example stating that if you notice an unintended call because, for example, your partner alerts a bid that is alertable, it is OK to change it. Eg 1D - 2D (Alert) - Oh, I meant to bid 2C.

However in this instance I have difficulty with it since the "Did you mean to stop?" remark is clearly itself an infraction. It would also seem to open the door to all sorts of "partner did you mean to do that" interventions which would be absolutely unacceptable.

Is it correct to rule that the 3C bid stands and partner must bid as if it were a jump overcall?

Tim

Having had a few discussions about these sort of rulings I think a change should be allowed without penalty providing we are satisfied that all the other conditions for a change of call under L25B have been met. As to opening the door to lots of interventions by partner, it would be reasonable to issue procedural penalties for improper communication whenever it is decided that the conditions for a change of call have not been met.

[timjand]

campboy, on 2016-February-02, 03:40, said:

IMO you can't disallow the change to 2♣ (because the conditions for law 25A are met), but what you can do in this sort of case is adjust the score afterwards if they do better as a result. Partner's remark is an irregularity which might well damage the other side, so you can use Law 23 to adjust to what you think would have happened if the remark had not been made.

Thanks, but can you clarify. Let's assume that 3C has a bad outcome, say because it is weak and encourages partner to pass when in fact 5C is on. Would you adjust the score to 3C+2 on the grounds that without the illegal intervention the partnership would not find 5C? In which case I'm not really clear why it is a good idea to allow the change of call in the first place.

Tim

[campboy]

timjand, on 2016-February-02, 06:31, said:

Thanks, but can you clarify. Let's assume that 3C has a bad outcome, say because it is weak and encourages partner to pass when in fact 5C is on. Would you adjust the score to 3C+2 on the grounds that without the illegal intervention the partnership would not find 5C? In which case I'm not really clear why it is a good idea to allow the change of call in the first place.

Yes. I think this is a legal route to a fair result. It would be simpler if the laws said I could force the player to stick with his original call, of course, but they don't. (I believe the player when he says he pulled the wrong card.)

Anyway, you should attach more weight to Gordon's opinion than to mine!

[gordontd]

campboy, on 2016-February-02, 06:51, said:

Yes. I think this is a legal route to a fair result. It would be simpler if the laws said I could force the player to stick with his original call, of course, but they don't. (I believe the player when he says he pulled the wrong card.)

Anyway, you should attach more weight to Gordon's opinion than to mine!

Only because I got some opinions from members of the WBFLC when this came up for discussion before, and at least one of them believes that the footnote creates an unlimited right to enquire of partner whether they intended the call.

[timjand]

gordontd, on 2016-February-02, 07:00, said:

Only because I got some opinions from members of the WBFLC when this came up for discussion before, and at least one of them believes that the footnote creates an unlimited right to enquire of partner whether they intended the call.

Hmm, that is what seems unacceptable to me (but I am not making the laws). Would you nevertheless adjust the score if the enquiry resulted in a better outcome? Or is it like the (annoying to me) "Having none, partner"?

Tim

[barmar]

timjand, on 2016-February-02, 06:31, said:

Thanks, but can you clarify. Let's assume that 3C has a bad outcome, say because it is weak and encourages partner to pass when in fact 5C is on. Would you adjust the score to 3C+2 on the grounds that without the illegal intervention the partnership would not find 5C? In which case I'm not really clear why it is a good idea to allow the change of call in the first place.

The law about change of call is very general, and doesn't try to cover all possibilities. So rather than going into detail about when to allow it, we empower the TD to determine after the fact whether the NOS was damaged and the offender could have known that his offense could help them.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2016-February-02, 03:41, said:

Having had a few discussions about these sort of rulings I think a change should be allowed without penalty providing we are satisfied that all the other conditions for a change of call under L25B have been met. As to opening the door to lots of interventions by partner, it would be reasonable to issue procedural penalties for improper communication whenever it is decided that the conditions for a change of call have not been met.

What about a PP when the conditions for a change of call have been met, but the remark was highly improper (as in the OP)?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2016-February-02, 10:53, said:

What about a PP when the conditions for a change of call have been met, but the remark was highly improper (as in the OP)?

That's what I thought the resolution of this case would have been.