BBO Discussion Forums: Legal change of call? - BBO Discussion Forums

Our Playing Director made a ruling relating to Law 25, which I suspect is in error.

On board 4 (all vul dealer:W) the bidding started:

No 1S No 1NT
No 2D 2H

At this point South was not completely alert and failed to notice East's 2H bid and passed.
West also passed.

When South awoke (who, how or what wakened him is unclear) he wished to bid, and his partner (The playing TD) allowed him to replace his bid and allowed West's bid to be withdrawn and the auction continued as follows:

3D
No 3H No 4D
No 5D

3H was alerted as showing a control. The contract made +1, and the opponents felt aggrieved.

I am not sure the conditions of Law 25A1 have been met, and indeed, 25A2 seems to cover the circumstances under "...loss of concentration".

I feel the director erred, and 5D should not be allowed.
Suggestions for any correction welcomed

N AK952,A,KT82,A32.
E Q86, KQJ876, 96, T5
S 73, 753, A7543, K97
W JT4, 942, QJ, QJ854

25.A.2. Clearly states that a call should not be freely changed because of a lapse in concentration. I know that I would have allowed a change of call, but barred their partner for the remainder of the auction a couple years ago, but with the rule changes, I'm not sure how to adjudicate this. 25 is a little murky.

It's not murky at all. If the original call was due to inattention, it stands. If the player who made that call substitutes another call (before the director is called) his LHO can accept it, in which case the substitute call stands and the auction continues. If the substitute call is not accepted, it is cancelled, the original call stands and the auction continues. In either case Law 26 may apply, and Law 16C applies to any call withdrawn or cancelled. If the director is called (or as in this case is sitting at the table) he shall not allow the player to substitute a call for a call he originally intended to make, even if that intention is based on inattention.

HardVector, on 2019-July-04, 18:40, said:

Is it? Your first sentence is correct. Nothing more is needed, and of course there no justification for allowing the change of call. Did the director read out the law to the payers?

Vampyr, on 2019-July-04, 22:20, said:

I don’t think so. The TD’s partner was the culprit that didn’t pay attention. If you, out of necessity, have to direct at your own table - a most undesirable situation - your decision should be absolutely above board. Decide against your side if there’s any doubt. You might even appeal if you think your decision was debatable, so someone else can take a look at it.

Not only did playing TD make an awful ruling, he also made a very conservative second bid, which complicates things as he would hardly let 2H go. Say that a real TD had been called and disallowed replacement, how are things going to go?

Vampyr, on 2019-July-04, 22:20, said:

Yes - He read out Law 25A1 in isolation. He did not read out 25A2 which would have avoided the pit he fell into.

Trecar, on 2019-July-05, 04:03, said:

It's clumsy of the laws that the question of intent is tackled explicity only in 25A2 and 25A3, which follow rather uncomfortably. But a TD should still be capable of realising from 25A1 that "discovers that he has not made the call he intended to make" implies that his partner had to intend to bid 3♦ at the moment she passed, which is clearly not so.

Trecar, on 2019-July-04, 17:36, said:

5♦+1 shouldn't be bad for opponents all the same.
The offenders failed to bid 6♦ or to take all 13 tricks, neither of which requires much skill.

sanst, on 2019-July-05, 01:35, said:

At the North London club, when we find ourselves in this position we call over another TD in attendance. Why did the director in this case not do that?

In any case, perhaps L25A should be the last sited part of the law instead of the first, encourage lazy directors to read the whole law before they get to it.

But there is a general problem here, which is that people don’t understand what “unintended” is supposed to mean. Maybe the former “inadvertent” was better, but there were still incorrect rulings.

A footnote could help. Something like: “unintended” means that a player is shocked to see the card in front of her, and never reached for it or expected it to come out.

Also, directors should be very sceptical when a card from a different section of the bidding box is used.

One of the changes in the 2017 laws was to clarify this specific point 25A2. The 2007 laws had the lovely 'pause for thought' and IIRC this had to be clarified as meaning "pause for thought when they discovered the call they had made was incorrect".

Vampyr, on 2019-July-05, 10:30, said:

I once was called by a player who had put a card on the table but was not aware of doing so. He had been thinking about his call with his hand on the cards in the box, an obnoxious habit, but he’s not the only one, and had pulled out a card unconsciously, he claimed. He became aware of that when his LHO put a pass card on the table and warned his partner not to do anything. After his explanation and a look at his hand I ruled that this was a 25A case, about the first time - the obvious mispulls not counting - that I allowed a change of call under this law, but also gave a serious warning about having his hand on the bidding box when contemplating his next call.
This week at a friendly game my RHO put 4♥ on the table, but my LHO had already made that call. The RHO has very bad eyesight and thought her partner had called 3♥. In such a case I won’t call the TD - who would have been me, anyway - but allow a change to “pass”. That’s a case which doesn’t fulfill your conditions, but I expect any decent person to allow the change of call.

It isn't up to players to allow or disallow another player's change of call.

sanst, on 2019-July-05, 13:00, said:

Wow. It would not even occur to me to allow a change of call under these circumstances. The guy even admitted that he was thinking about the call before he made it, if the incorrectness of the ruling is in any doubt.

Vampyr, on 2019-July-05, 20:03, said:

Under which circumstances would you allow a call. In this case the player wasn’t looking at the bidding cards, wasn’t even aware that he had pulled out a card till his LHO made his call. IMO this meets lamford’s “a player is shocked to see the card in front of her, and never reached for it or expected it to come out”.

blackshoe, on 2019-July-05, 18:21, said:

What if you’re the only director available, especially when it’s clear that the player involved didn’t see the card on the table properly? Don’t you take the disabilities of your opponents in account?

I think director was just trying to be nice was not following the rules.

sanst, on 2019-July-06, 01:21, said:

In your case you were the playing director. If no one else is available to make a ruling at your table, then you make it.

The laws don't mention disabilities, but they do give the director wide latitude. I don't disagree with a ruling that a case falls under 25A because of a player's disability — so long as it's made by the director.

sanst, on 2019-July-06, 01:18, said:

I think Lamford's intent was that you're shocked at which card was on the table, not that a card was there at all.

The way we usually express this is that we allow a slip of the fingers, not a slip of the mind. If you absent-mindedly pull a card out of the box, that's a slip of the mind -- unless you have a neurological condition, your hands don't operate of their own accord.