[Chris3875]

Amongst our group of keen but inexperienced directors we are currently trying to get our heads around Law 25 Unintended Call. The perception has been that the change has to be made quickly - that the "pause for thought" requirement almost becomes the old chestnut of not taking your pen from the bidding pad!

I am trying to get the idea across that we should be more focusing on the "pause for thought" and that someone could make a call and perhaps not realise what they had written for some time - maybe even until after LHO had made a call.

I seem to recall reading on one of the Directors' websites that it is even possible that PARTNER could in some way alert the bidder to the unintended call.

Can you give me a couple of scenarios I can use to best illustrate this please.

[Chris3875]

I just found the following written in "Zone 7 Law Interpretation, Regulation and Guidance" (effrective 1st June 2008) -

Quote

A bid may be treated as unintentional under this law even if the player's attention is drawn to it by the action of his partner alerting the bid or an opponents' question. Once again the clear intention of the hand is the guideline the director should use. Cue bidding 2S over 1S with a hand that has only 13 points and a 6-card club suit clearly suggests it is appropriate to allow a change under this Law. By contrast, bidding 2H in response to 1NT with a heart suit when playing transfers, would not qualify.

Would you agree with these examples?

[campboy]

Bidding pads make it much harder to make an unintended call, so bear in mind that any regulations you read may be designed with bidding boxes in mind. In that case the "no pause for thought" should be from the time you notice which card you pulled out. I am always sceptical about people who claim that they didn't notice which card had come out, but I suppose it does happen.

I think the regulation you quote is terrible, because it suggests the director should look at the hand when deciding whether to allow the change. He shouldn't.

[Chris3875]

I'm not sure that the regulation is actually suggesting that you look at the hand - merely indicating that with such a hand, an unintended bid of 2S over 1S COULD occur. Maybe the person was thinking "ops bid 1S, I'm going to bid 2C" then brain conniption takes over and they write 2S.

I suppose what I'm asking is, after partner alerts the bid and the player realises (to his horror) what he has actually written, could this be interpreted as an unintended bid? I think yes - and this is the point I want to make to my peer directors - that the bid doesn't have to be altered in the same breath or the same stroke of the pen.

[campboy]

Yes, you just need to attempt to change as soon as you realise what call you made.

After all, law 25A allows a change after LHO has called, which would make no sense under the "same stroke of the pen" interpretation.

[Chris3875]

excellent! that has been my interpretation too - but I am struggling to get the message across.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on Feb 2 2010, 12:17 AM, said:

I think the regulation you quote is terrible, because it suggests the director should look at the hand when deciding whether to allow the change. He shouldn't.

The example is terrible, too.

[Chris3875]

Give me a couple of better ones to use please

[Vampyr]

Chris3875, on Feb 2 2010, 02:00 AM, said:

Give me a couple of better ones to use please

I don't think that any example of this sort can be useful. What can possibly be the difference between an unintended bid that happens to accidentally show a feature of the hand, and one that doesn't?

[iviehoff]

Chris3875, on Feb 1 2010, 11:00 PM, said:

Would you agree with these examples?

They are poorly written examples because they jump to conclusions without taking into account all the issues, and fail to explain the reasoning. By trying to simplify, they end up confusing.

I agree it is more likely that 2S (for 2C) over 1S is unintended than 2H (for 2D) over 1N. But really you can't say either way on that information alone. To suggest that you can is plain wrong.

What this tried and failed pathetically to do was to distinguish between unintended bids and "brainfarts". A brainfart is when, at the time you make the bid, you are perfectly aware what you are doing, but because of a stupid mistake, make the wrong bid. A brainfart, so defined, is not an unintended bid for the purpose of this law. An unintended bid is one where, at the time you were making it, you thought you were making a different one.

With that explanation, some colour can now be given to these examples. Bidding 2H rather than 2D over 1N when playing transfers is usually a brainfart rather than unintended, and the director should be sceptical of a claim that it is unintended. But by applying the test "what did you think you were writing at the time you wrote it" he can usually tell the difference. Likewise, 2S instead of 2C over 1N is probably more likely unintended than brainfart. Though the same test should be applied, as it could perfectly well be a brainfart.

"Without pause for thought" applies from the time at which you become aware of your unintended bid. Since calling the director suspends time for the purposes of the game, if you call "director" as soon as you notice your unintended bid, you are in time to correct it, even though you do not say what the correction is, and indeed should not say what the correction is, until after the director arrives and he invites you to correct it.

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on Feb 2 2010, 05:39 AM, said:

Chris3875, on Feb 2 2010, 02:00 AM, said:

Give me a couple of better ones to use please

I don't think that any example of this sort can be useful. What can possibly be the difference between an unintended bid that happens to accidentally show a feature of the hand, and one that doesn't?

In principle there is no difference, but the director may chose not to believe that it was a mechanical error because there is an alternative plausible explanation.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on Feb 2 2010, 01:12 PM, said:

In principle there is no difference, but the director may chose not to believe that it was a mechanical error because there is an alternative plausible explanation.

Yes, as iviehoff mentioned above. There is certainly chance that the person thought "I shall transfer to hearts" and wrote a heart bid. It is astonishing, though that a regulation should assume that that is what happened.

[bluejak]

It is with great regret I have to tell you that the advice from San Remo is that if you cannot decide otherwise, you should take the player away from the table, and even look at their hand.