EBU - Law 25 Unintended Call
#1
Posted 2016-January-13, 01:29
2 Dealer then shows his hand saying that with a different partner he would have opened a weak two hearts.
3 This announcement “wakes up” fourth bidder (the final pass) who claims that he meant to open one club.
4 He does have his bid – there are 15 hcp with six clubs headed with AK.
Q1 Can the fourth pass now be changed to a one club bid?
Q2 If so; can dealer bid having exposed all thirteen cards?
Q3 Would there then be any restrictions on the bidding by dealer’s partner?
Q4 If dealer elects not to bid (passes again) can dealer’s partner bid?
Q5 Should the “one club bidder” or his partner become declarer, are all thirteen exposed cards now major penalty cards?
Q6 And would this mean that in effect declarer could play the opponent’s exposed hand?
#2
Posted 2016-January-13, 01:59
#3
Posted 2016-January-13, 03:31
For the sake of the questions, however I'll assume that the director deemed that the pass was unintended as per law 25a.
1) With the assumptions above, yes. A 25A correction can be made either before the end of the auction period, or before the players partner bids, which ever comes first. As the board was passed out the auction period lasts until all 4 hands are returned to the board (law 22)
2) Dealer now has 13 card that have to be left on the table. Dealer can make any bid they chose, but their partner is forced to pass for one round
3)See 2, they have to pass for one round
4)See 2
5)Correct
6)Yes declarer designates which card is played. More than that, there are lead penalties if his partner gets on lead. Assuming the exposed hand has no void, declarer could demand, or prohibit any suit (the penalty cards in that suit are then picked up).
#4
Posted 2016-January-13, 04:09
#5
Posted 2016-January-13, 19:34
I could understand it if the commenter wanted to leave the table during the play of this hand — but as TD I'm afraid I'd have to disallow it, because it would cause the hand to be technically unplayable (no one but the player can touch his cards — he's not dummy). I suppose if he were really upset, I'd sit down and turn cards for him, in effect ensuring the orderly progress of the game (Law 81C1).
Fourth seat who claims that he was going to open the bidding, after his opponent's comment, is going to have to be very convincing for me to allow him to change his call.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#6
Posted 2016-January-14, 13:10
blackshoe, on 2016-January-13, 19:34, said:
Maybe true, but I can't remember the last time we had a pass-out where the players didn't all show their hands so we could speculate on whether anyone could make something, what might happen at the tables where someone plays mini-NT, etc. The short auction and no play period leaves lots of extra time for post mortem.
#7
Posted 2016-January-14, 16:55
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#8
Posted 2016-January-15, 09:55
We've all been playing for long times, has anyone ever experienced a situation like this?
#9
Posted 2016-January-15, 15:36
I was the player director and my partner was the fourth pass.
Because there was no other director available, I did have to rule and said that it was a passed out board.
It turned out to be a bad board for us – but it might not have been.
I posted the situation just in case I might be called to deal with a similar event at another table within the next half century and also to hope some side issues would be aired. They have; in particular the “very convincing argument”. My OP described the hand (15 hcp with 6 clubs headed by AK) so clearly biddable and not border-line. So what has the director to be convinced about?.
Presumably the director should not rule any differently just because it is the fourth pass and not an earlier one. And how would the director reject a mechanical error explanation without implying a lie having been told?
#10
Posted 2016-January-15, 15:55
Sky Red, on 2016-January-15, 15:36, said:
I was the player director and my partner was the fourth pass.
Because there was no other director available, I did have to rule and said that it was a passed out board.
It turned out to be a bad board for us – but it might not have been.
I posted the situation just in case I might be called to deal with a similar event at another table within the next half century and also to hope some side issues would be aired. They have; in particular the “very convincing argument”. My OP described the hand (15 hcp with 6 clubs headed by AK) so clearly biddable and not border-line. So what has the director to be convinced about?.
Presumably the director should not rule any differently just because it is the fourth pass and not an earlier one. And how would the director reject a mechanical error explanation without implying a lie having been told?
The Director must be convinced that it was a genuine slip of the hand and not a slip of the mind, inattention, distraction or similar.
I do not really see how a player shall be able to convince me that he really intended to open the auction at the time he passed, in particular if there has been any kind of discussion and exposure of hands following the fourth pass.
#11
Posted 2016-January-15, 18:06
Sky Red, on 2016-January-13, 01:29, said:
2 Dealer then shows his hand saying that with a different partner he would have opened a weak two hearts.
3 This announcement “wakes up” fourth bidder (the final pass) who claims that he meant to open one club.
Fourth bidder woke up too late to be rewarded with an exposed hand auction and 13 penalty cards. I'm not in the EBU but does the criteria for correcting such a mistake ie. in the same breath not cover this?
What is baby oil made of?
#12
Posted 2016-January-16, 02:45
ggwhiz, on 2016-January-15, 18:06, said:
The laws say no such thing as "in the same breath", the criterion is "without pause for thought".
And the question is whether the player can convince the Director that he never intended to pass?
#13
Posted 2016-January-16, 15:49
This is not without controversy, and we've discussed it before. The law regarding unintended bidding has been around long before bidding boxes, so it applied to slips of the tongue. It's hard for some of us to imagine how those could be something other than slips of the mind, rather than mechanical errors as with bidding boxes, yet the Laws admitted the possibility (and do so similarly with unintended designations during the play). The traditional "same breath" criteria came from spoken bidding -- "1 Heart ... oops I mean 1 Spade"; I suppose this is just because almost any other attempt to claim an unintended call would be very unconvincing.
I can imagine the possibility that someone thinks "1 Heart", but due to a brain fart they say "1 Spade" without even realizing it. I'm sure we've all had situations in our lives where we were sure we said something, but the other person says we said something else. So when the director comes, you'd say "I meant to bid 1 Spade, and that's what I thought I said." The TD might believe you you seem sincere and he looks at your hand and sees 5 spades and few hearts. Although it's likely that you won't realize your unintended call until it's too late to correct it (because partner has already called).
#14
Posted 2016-January-17, 09:49
barmar, on 2016-January-16, 15:49, said:
Playing in Germany, I sometimes mix up "Coeur" (heart) and "Karo" (diamond) and could easily imagine doing so in spoken bidding. Not everyone plays in their primary language.
#15
Posted 2016-January-17, 11:18
Zelandakh, on 2016-January-17, 09:49, said:
Quite so, but completely irrelevant here.
This thread is about a passed out board and one of the players claiming Law 25A rectification so that his/her pass could be changed to a bid.
#16
Posted 2016-January-17, 11:30
barmar, on 2016-January-15, 09:55, said:
Vampyr, on 2016-January-13, 01:59, said:
blackshoe, on 2016-January-13, 19:34, said:
barmar, on 2016-January-15, 09:55, said:
pran, on 2016-January-15, 15:55, said:
pran, on 2016-January-16, 02:45, said:
IMO, mechanical-error rules add no value to the game, complicate the laws, generate contentious rulings, and penalize honest players. Such rules should be scrapped.
#17
Posted 2016-January-17, 12:36
nige1, on 2016-January-17, 11:30, said:
My impression is that particularly before 1930 (or so) Bridge and Whist were games for Gentlemen, with little need for elaborate rules. Everybody "knew" what was correct.
But there came of course to be exceptions, like the declarer in a 3NT contract who discarded a small (say) Club on the opening led Ace of Hearts and then won the next trick with his stiff King of Hearts, after which he made his twelve tricks and paid the standard three tricks penalty scoring game just made.
Culbertson shall have been asked by the player holding six hearts to AQJ whether this could be correct, and responded that "yes, such are the rules on revoke".
Maybe our Laws on Duplicate Bridge aren't that bad after all?
#18
Posted 2016-January-17, 13:01
pran, on 2016-January-17, 12:36, said:
TFLB, L23 said:
#19
Posted 2016-January-17, 13:22
"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)."
So, once the auction has ended with three consecutive passes, that is it.
#20
Posted 2016-January-17, 13:54
lamford, on 2016-January-17, 13:22, said:
So, once the auction has ended with three consecutive passes, that is it.
The auction period does not end at the end of the auction. When no one has bid, the auction period ends when the hands are returned to the board.
"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."