[lamford]

pran, on 2016-April-16, 12:35, said:

There is a major difference between an instant remark that apparently is an automatic reaction to a surprise and an apparently deliberate intervention for whatever reason into partner's auction. I expect any Director to be aware of and cater for that difference.

There is no difference if it is the cause of damage. I recall one player commenting on the unusual design on the playing cards, and an adjustment was made because the ace of spades was the only unusual card, and the information that he had that card proved to be crucial, and his partner could have been aware of the fact. The remark was an innocent reaction to seeing an unusual design, but it was still, as here, an infraction. We adjust if it causes damage, regardless of intent; otherwise we ignore it (although we might give a PP). The benchmark is "would the Probst cheat have known that it could benefit his side to say "6NT? are you sure pard?" or any similar remark - it matters not. And I am surprised that there was no L&E comment or criticism in this case other than the correct observation that the change of call was permitted.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2016-April-16, 12:35, said:

There is a major difference between an instant remark that apparently is an automatic reaction to a surprise and an apparently deliberate intervention for whatever reason into partner's auction. I expect any Director to be aware of and cater for that difference.

You seem convinced that South "cannot help" making his remark. I have, from time to time, seem some pretty wacky bids from partner, and never felt the need to comment during the auction.

But anyway if you really just don't want to call the remark an infraction, call it an irregularity. The result will be the same.

I don't know how ethical the players are where you play and direct; around here, virtually all infractions are unintentional.

[bixby]

pran, on 2016-April-16, 12:35, said:

There is a major difference between an instant remark that apparently is an automatic reaction to a surprise and an apparently deliberate intervention for whatever reason into partner's auction. I expect any Director to be aware of and cater for that difference.

I agree with Lamford that the change of call is permitted by the 25A footnote but that North's remark is still illegal and subject to penalty.

I respectfully disagree with the above remark by Pran. North may have been surprised, but in bridge, particularly duplicate bridge, players are expected to restrain their verbal and physical reactions to surprises. Oddities and surprises come up all the time, and unless North is a complete newbie he or she should have learned to control his or her face and mouth during the bidding and play. The "automatic reaction" of an experienced bridge player to a surprise like South's 6NT bid should be to maintain a "poker face" and say nothing.

As for those who have suggested that this kind of attitude takes the fun away from bridge, I say that for me, bridge is fun when everyone plays by the rules so that play can be fair. What takes away the fun for me is when people get an advantage by breaking the rules, whether they do so intentionally or otherwise.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-16, 13:58, said:

I should look at 74C4.

Sure, but I would never use this law against an inadvertent reaction caused by a genuine surprise.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2016-April-16, 15:19, said:

Sure, but I would never use this law against an inadvertent reaction caused by a genuine surprise.

Honestly, you have to give up this "inadvertent". In truth, it doesn't make a difference, but why do you insist that this person could not have avoided making a remark?

[weejonnie]

Are we reading too much into this? There is actually a tremendous difference between deciding to make a call based on UI and correcting an inadvertent call due to UI. The lawmakers have recognised this by allowing a 25A adjustment specifically in these circumstance.

Otherwise: where do you draw the line? Which, if any, of these will be adjusted? They all fall under 16B and 73C1.

You open 1 Spade and hear partner say "12-14" or "16-18" : You see you pulled out the 1NT card and change it. (Unexpected announcement)
Partner opens 1NT - you raise to 3NT and it is alerted. LHO asks and is told "Asking for aces": You see the 4 Club call in front of you and change it. (Unexpected Alert)
You call 6 Spades - partner says "6NT?". You see the 6NT call in front of you and change it. (Other Extraneous Information from partner)

Now obviously, to allow the first two, 16B1 and 73C1 are being over-ruled by the footnote to 25A - so to be consistent we must allow the third.

I would therefore allow the change of call and penalise NS for incorrect procedure. (Only in the last case since the announcement and alerting ARE correct procedure).

[Vampyr]

weejonnie, on 2016-April-16, 17:39, said:

I would therefore allow the change of call and penalise NS for incorrect procedure. (Only in the last case since the announcement and alerting ARE correct procedure).

Yes, of course. It's a very easy and obvious ruling.

The thing that concerns me, though, is that NS will likely score better, even with the the PP, than they would without the infraction. I think that L23 has to be applied, but I am unsure how. Perhaps just another, larger, PP.

I don't think that there is any way to compensate the opponents, which is a shame, unless L23 cancels the remark and change of call. I don't think the latter can be done. It is a shame that the L23 footnote does not finish "unless it is through a violation of procedure by partner", and am surprised that the lawmakers seem to have forgotten to include this.

EDIT: it could be that the lawmakers intended that you could ask, "did you mean to pull out 6♥, partner?" with no penalty. But that would be so unusual that it would need a specific mention.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-16, 21:44, said:

It is a shame that the L23 footnote does not finish "unless it is through a violation of procedure by partner", and am surprised that the lawmakers seem to have forgotten to include this.

I'm not sure that they did forget to include this. I think there is some evidence that this was their specific intention.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2016-April-17, 01:19, said:

I'm not sure that they did forget to include this. I think there is some evidence that this was their specific intention.

So when partner makes a bid that we know is a mispull, we should query it and expect that our result will improve even after the PP? What about L73B1? Does it not apply when there is no prescribed penalty, just a PP at the director's discretion? What about L23? The PP doesn't even accrue to them. They are injured for sure.

What happens when partner queries a bid and there was no mispull?

And... why has there been no education? Why do players not know that they can avert disaster and suffer a smaller penalty by asking partner whether they are sure when partner's bid looks odd?

Anyway, abuse (especially from people who don't quite understand the law) seem too easy. You make a bid that you intended as forcing, and follow it up with "are you sure you meant to pass?" You have seen situations like the OP, so you think this is OK... Etc.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2016-April-17, 01:19, said:

I'm not sure that they did forget to include this. I think there is some evidence that this was their specific intention.

I think that both of you are referring to the Law 25A footnote, rather than the Law 23 footnote. The former is only in the WBFLC minutes, not in published versions, which adds to the difficulty of the TD. That minute states:

"A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error."

I see no problem with this, although I don't know whether they considered partner querying your call, and it does not stop the TD then adjusting for the remark. It is the same as the hand at a North London Club where someone gained by leading low from KQJx, even though a WBFLC minute specifically allowed him to do so (his partner had the ace as an MPC). It was agreed by most that we can then compensate the non-offenders for use of UI, or apply Law 23, it mattered not. In this case, I think we compensate the non-offenders (even SB) by applying Law 23. It is clear that anyone checking up to see if his partner has made a mispull could benefit from a remark or comment. Therefore we adjust. This does not conflict with Law 25A or its footnote in the slightest. We could instead apply Law 73. Does anyone really want to play bridge where someone can cheat by asking his partner if he really meant to make that bid and get away with it?

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-16, 21:44, said:

The thing that concerns me, though, is that NS will likely score better, even with the the PP, than they would without the infraction. I think that L23 has to be applied, but I am unsure how. Perhaps just another, larger

The power of the TD to award an adjusted score under L23 is almost unlimited. He awards compensation for the damage caused by the offence. The hand is still played in 6S, but then the score is corrected to 6NT-2, just as it would be corrected if South had used UI from some earlier remark. Or such percentage of 6NT-2 as the TD deems would have occurred.

The footnote to Law 25A allows South to change his call for the mispull. It does not prohibit the TD from adjusting for a separate infraction, nor does it imply that.

[weejonnie]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-17, 02:30, said:

So when partner makes a bid that we know is a mispull, we should query it and expect that our result will improve even after the PP? What about L73B1? Does it not apply when there is no prescribed penalty, just a PP at the director's discretion? What about L23? The PP doesn't even accrue to them. They are injured for sure.

What happens when partner queries a bid and there was no mispull?

And... why has there been no education? Why do players not know that they can avert disaster and suffer a smaller penalty by asking partner whether they are sure when partner's bid looks odd?

Anyway, abuse (especially from people who don't quite understand the law) seem too easy. You make a bid that you intended as forcing, and follow it up with "are you sure you meant to pass?" You have seen situations like the OP, so you think this is OK... Etc.

In the last case, I think the director will get it right as the pass card isn't at all close to the bidding cards, whereas in the OP the 6 Spade and 6 NT cards are, I think, tangential.

In theory the director can ascertain what was probably in the bidder's mind when they pulled out the card (at least that happens in all the test questions about the laws I come across).

The only trouble is: in real life that doesn't happen 100% of the time.

So at the end of the day: we allow the 6 Spade bid under law 25. Because of North's irregularity we then adjust to 6NT under Law 23 (and penalise NS) (Providing UI is not an irregularity per se, of course - so we have to go to law 20G (asking questions solely for the benefit of partner) or 74C4 (Commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call attention to a significant occurrence, or to the number of tricks still required for success)

[Vampyr]

weejonnie, on 2016-April-17, 04:22, said:

In the last case, I think the director will get it right as the pass card isn't at all close to the bidding cards, whereas in the OP the 6 Spade and 6 NT cards are, I think, tangential.

Tangential is right! So assume it's a forcing pass, where partner could have been reaching for the double card.

[pran]

lamford, on 2016-April-17, 03:55, said:

[...]
It is the same as the hand at a North London Club where someone gained by leading low from KQJx, even though a WBFLC minute specifically allowed him to do so (his partner had the ace as an MPC).

I think that a clarification here is in order:

(First of all, if there is a typo here and the player was not leading but rather was following suit to a card led from the declaring side then he is certainly free to play his low rather than one of his honours in that suit. The fact that his partner eventually must play his Ace is AI)

When a player has the lead while his partner has MPC then we have three alternatives for the choice of which card to lead:

1: Declarer requires a lead in the MPC suit: The player may not choose which card to lead from the knowledge of the (no longer) MPC.
2: Declarer forbids a lead in the MPC suit: The player may not choose which suit to lead from the knowledge of the (no longer) MPC.
3: Declarer leaves the lead free: The player may not choose which suit to lead from the knowledge of the MPC, but he is free to choose which card in that suit to lead if he (legally) chooses the MPC suit. (The fact that his partner then must follow suit with his Ace is AI.)

lamford, on 2016-April-17, 03:55, said:

It was agreed by most that we then compensate the non-offenders for use of UI, or apply Law 23, it mattered not. In this case, I think we compensate the non-offenders by applying Law 23. It is clear that anyone checking up to see if his partner has made a mispull could benefit from a remark or comment. Therefore we adjust. This does, not conflict with Law 25A or its footnote in the slightest. We could instead apply Law 73. Does anyone really want to play bridge where someone can cheat by asking his partner if he really meant to make that bid and get away with it?

[lamford]

pran, on 2016-April-17, 04:54, said:

3: Declarer leaves the lead free: The player may not choose which suit to lead from the knowledge of the MPC, but he is free to choose which card in that suit to lead if he (legally) chooses the MPC suit. (The fact that his partner then must follow suit with his Ace is AI.)

This was the situation, and the defender did have an obvious club lead, as you might expect with KQJx, but the majority view, including dburn emphatically, was that the fact that his partner possessed the ace of the suit was UI, although the fact that he had to play it if the suit was led was AI, and they would adjust for use of UI if a low card was led. A nonsense, of course, but in keeping with the rest of the laws. But we are straying from the main theme of this thread; adjusting for a remark or gesture that damages the non-offenders.

[blackshoe]

I don't think the analogy currently be discussed is helpful. After all, there was no law 25A equivalent in that scenario.

It seems to me the main theme of this thread is "how do we get around Law 25A?" :-(

When a player corrects an unintended bid, the unintended bid in effect never happened. I don't see how you can adjust to a contract that never happened. If you can, then I suppose if the auction goes 1♠-6♠ and opener expresses surprise you can adjust this contract to 6NT if it doesn't make.

[pran]

pran, on 2016-April-17, 04:54, said:

3: Declarer leaves the lead free: The player may not choose which suit to lead from the knowledge of the MPC, but he is free to choose which card in that suit to lead if he (legally) chooses the MPC suit. (The fact that his partner then must follow suit with his Ace is AI.)

lamford, on 2016-April-17, 05:13, said:

This was the situation, and the defender did have an obvious club lead, as you might expect with KQJx, but the majority view, including dburn emphatically, was that the fact that his partner possessed the ace of the suit was UI, although the fact that he had to play it if the suit was led was AI, and they would adjust for use of UI if a low card was led. A nonsense, of course, but in keeping with the rest of the laws. But we are straying from the main theme of this thread; adjusting for a remark or gesture that damages the non-offenders.

With an obvious club lead not influenced by the MPC and the ♣A visible as MPC the player is absolutely free to lead a small club.

Now the amusing fact is that if Declarer had requested a club lead then the MPC would have been restored to the offender's hand (before the actual lead), and it's existence would now be UI to the player.

Consequently the player would have to lead one of his high clubs because a low club was no longer his only logical alternative and could be suggested by the UI.

[mink]

Defenders are allowed to ask each other if they revoked (Law 61B3). (Except if, like in Germany, the Regulating Authority prohibits this.) So a question about a revoke (at a place where this is not prohibited) is not subject to Law 73B or 74C4. This is clear to everyone, and nobody would expect that the fact that Law61B3 overrules Law 73B an 74C4 needs to be stated explicitly in Law 61B3.

This is different in the case of the footnote to Law 25A: here, the notion that one partner asks the other is not mentioned. Therefore, I would expect that this footnote does not overrule Law 73B an 74C4 unless this was stated explicitly in the footnote. Furthermore, there is no indication that the phrase "no matter how" does include something illegal done by partner. If something illegal has an unexpected consequence, the Laws state this instead of leaving it undiscussed. So I conclude that some illegal action by partner can never trigger the "no matter how" clause. Consequently, as a TD, I would forbid the change of a call if the player becomes aware of his error by partner's remark, and award a procedural penalty for the remark.

If the player was really allowed to change his call based on Law 25A after such a remark by partner, then the remark could not be illegal, and there would be no basis for a procedural penalty or an adjusted score via Law 23.

Karl

[lamford]

pran, on 2016-April-17, 10:22, said:

With an obvious club lead not influenced by the MPC and the ♣A visible as MPC the player is absolutely free to lead a small club.

Not the case. You allow him to lead a low club, but then you adjust for the use of UI if leading a low club gains, and leading the king of clubs is a logical alternative, which it might well be from KQJx. The WBFLC minute is ineffective, because the intelligent TD "ignores" it and applies:

50E3. If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side he shall award an adjusted score.

In the case of the underlead of KQJx, it is clear to apply 50E3. We discussed this ad nauseum when a similar incident occurred at a North London club, so there is no need to revisit it. Aardv and you were about the only two lone wolves, if one can have more than one.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-17, 09:49, said:

I don't think the analogy currently be discussed is helpful. After all, there was no law 25A equivalent in that scenario.

It seems to me the main theme of this thread is "how do we get around Law 25A?" :-(

When a player corrects an unintended bid, the unintended bid in effect never happened. I don't see how you can adjust to a contract that never happened. If you can, then I suppose if the auction goes 1♠-6♠ and opener expresses surprise you can adjust this contract to 6NT if it doesn't make.

No, we adjust to our opinion of what the contract would have been, without the infraction. In this example, if North had not illegally expressed surprise. 6NT-2 is clearly a potential contract.