[kgr]

1NT-(2D..3♦)
North opens 1NT and East almost bids 2D and changes it to 3D.
South calls the TD and this is the story:
South says that East bids 2D and that bid did almost hit the table. Everybody could see the 2D and West was already reaching for his Alert card, not sure if he already touched it, but it was very close (and clear for South that he was gonna alert 2D). The 2D bid of East was not yet hitting the table and East did put the 2D back in the box and did bid 3D.
The TD asked East to show how the bidding did go. East showed he took the 2D, almost reaching the table and showed he replaced it with 3D. East said that she did misbid. (This wasn't really asked or said at the table, but suppose that East says: I mispulled).
TD said the replacement was fluent and in one movement and ruled that the replacement was ok and no punishment.
Remark: Maybe it is difficult to imagine, but this was a fluent replacement, but still the intention of West to alert during this fluent movement was clear.
How do you rule? (I suppose you don't look at East's cards yet?)

[jhenrikj]

If it was a mispull, the alert does not matter. You are allowed to use ANY information to find out that you have mispulled, even information that normally is UI. There is a new footnote to law 25 that says exactly this.

[kgr]

jhenrikj, on 2012-March-04, 06:21, said:

If it was a mispull, the alert does not matter. You are allowed to use ANY information to find out that you have mispulled, even information that normally is UI. There is a new footnote to law 25 that says exactly this.

Ok..so, how do you rule (Do you believe East that it is a mispull)?

[blackshoe]

First, a lot depends on when your local bidding box regulations say a bid is made (England: when the bidding card is pulled from the box "with intent", USA: When the bidding card is held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made). So we need to know where you are and what your local regulation says.

Second, if East tells me he mispulled, I'm going to need some pretty good evidence to disbelieve him, and I don't see that here.

Third, since in the actual case East apparently said he "misbid", I'll be asking him to clarify what he means by that, and in particular if he intended to bid 2♦ going in, and changed his mind.

If it was a mispull, 3♦ stands, no further rectification (Law 25A). If it was a change of mind, I offer South the chance to accept the change. If he does, 3♦ stands (Law 25B1), inferences from 2♦ are UI to West, AI to NS (Laws 25B3 and 16D). If he does not, 3♦ is cancelled, 2♦ stands (Law 25B2), and inferences from 3♦ are UI to West and AI to NS (Laws 25B3 and 16D).

[kgr]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-04, 08:47, said:

First, a lot depends on when your local bidding box regulations say a bid is made (England: when the bidding card is pulled from the box "with intent", USA: When the bidding card is held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made). So we need to know where you are and what your local regulation says.

Belgium:
A bid is considered to be done once the card is removed from the bidding box with the apparent intention to do this. A player must decide, before touching a card from the bidding box.
A bid can only be changed ​​without penalty under Art.25 A of the International Rules, if the following conditions:
a) The player has taken the wrong card by mistake only.
b) The player changes his bid immediately.
c) The player did not retain physical contact with the card, but it is nevertheless a manual error without reflection. (25A)
d) The partner has not yet done a bid.
The TD may impose a penalty for insufficient attention.

blackshoe, on 2012-March-04, 08:47, said:

Second, if East tells me he mispulled, I'm going to need some pretty good evidence to disbelieve him, and I don't see that here.

What if?:
- They are an occasional partnership and agreed to play Multi-landy before the start of the session.
- The player had a not so good 6c♦
- After the play the player says something like: 2♦ shows a 6c Major.

blackshoe, on 2012-March-04, 08:47, said:

Third, since in the actual case East apparently said he "misbid", I'll be asking him to clarify what he means by that, and in particular if he intended to bid 2♦ going in, and changed his mind.
If it was a mispull, 3♦ stands, no further rectification (Law 25A). If it was a change of mind, I offer South the chance to accept the change. If he does, 3♦ stands (Law 25B1), inferences from 2♦ are UI to West, AI to NS (Laws 25B3 and 16D). If he does not, 3♦ is cancelled, 2♦ stands (Law 25B2), and inferences from 3♦ are UI to West and AI to NS (Laws 25B3 and 16D).

If you believe it was a mispull, is that the end of the case?
Or do you tell NS that they can call you at end of the hand? Will you look at East hand at end of the hand?

[Trinidad]

The bidding card being close to the table is a red herring. Consider the following situation:
- East pulls out the 2♦ card and places it on the table.
- West pulls the alert card.
- East looks at the alert card, looks down at the 2♦ card, says "Oops" and calls the TD.

As long as East intended to bid 3♦ he can change his call according to Law 25A.

So, at first, the location of the bidding card (near the table, on the table, just above the bidding box) is completely irrelevant.

What is relevant is East's intent: If he intended to bid 2♦, he may not change his call. If he intended to bid 3♦, he is allowed to change his call. So, the TD needs to figure out what East intended.

Therefore, as the TD, I am not interested in where the 2♦ card was when it was pulled back. I am interested in East's reaction to the alert. If I make (or think I am making) a non alertable call and my partner alerts, I start to wonder what is going wrong. I will not pull back my bidding card.
- I might put my card on the table before I realize that it may be a good idea to take a look at it.
- I might stop putting down the card, turn my head to it while it is still in the air and then see that I pulled the wrong card.
Whatever I do, I will not pull back the card "in a fluent motion".

Conclusion, if the alert woke East up that he might have pulled the wrong card, before East will pull back his card he will look at it first. After all, East thinks that he bid 3♦ and he only has a reason to pull it once he sees that it is not the 3♦ card. So, pulling the card will not be the first thing he does.

In this case, the description that the OP gives seems to be so that East pulled back the card without even looking at it. ("TD said the replacement was fluent and in one movement and ruled that the replacement was ok and no punishment.") If East indeed didn't look at the bidding card at all, I consider that pretty strong evidence that East wanted to bid 2♦, saw the alert, realized that 2♦ was conventional and pulled back his card. He didn't need to look at the card because he already knew it was the 2♦ card.

Of course, only the TD at the table can judge what really happened. But it is important for the TD to think what things players would do in both scenarios. Maybe TDs should take drama classes to help them wth that.

Rik

[ahydra]

We had almost that exact same situation the other day. RHO opens 2C (Benji) and his partner alerts. Then RHO looks down and goes "oops, that should be 1C". We didn't bother calling the TD since we were happy to believe that he meant 1C.

And, to be honest, this seems a sensible approach to have, even when the "offender"'s partner alerts or looks like he's going to. If the hand turns out to not match (e.g. a 2D artificial overcall later changed to 3D (weak) because the player forgot the system, but he actually has 11 points), the non-offenders can call the TD back at the end of the hand. But we'd hope that the average player wouldn't be dishonest like that.

ahydra

[pran]

Maybe somebody should take a look at:

Law 25A1 said:

Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.

(My enhancement)

What the regulation says about when a call has been made is irrelevant.

Whether the player changed his call in a fluent action is also irrelevant.

And even whether the player's LHO has subsequently called is irrelevant.

What matters is whether the player, once he became aware of his mistake, at that time substituted or at least tried to substitute his intended call for his apparently unintended call without pause for thought. (Provided that his partner has not subsequently called.)

[gordontd]

pran, on 2012-March-04, 16:44, said:

What the regulation says about when a call has been made is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant: if the call has not been made, it can be changed even if it's a change of mind. If it has been made, only an inadvertent call can be changed, and only if the other conditions of L25A have been met.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2012-March-04, 22:49, said:

It's not irrelevant: if the call has not been made, it can be changed even if it's a change of mind. If it has been made, only an inadvertent call can be changed, and only if the other conditions of L25A have been met.

I think rather that if a call has not been made, any action that looks like a call can be changed in whatever way the player wants that makes it a call. Or, in some cases, the player can cancel it entirely. This is similar to, but not the same as, a Law 25A situation, since the latter requires that a call have been made.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-04, 23:51, said:

I think rather that if a call has not been made, any action that looks like a call can be changed in whatever way the player wants that makes it a call. Or, in some cases, the player can cancel it entirely. This is similar to, but not the same as, a Law 25A situation, since the latter requires that a call have been made.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or trying to differ?

[pran]

gordontd, on 2012-March-05, 02:22, said:

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or trying to differ?

I believe his point (to which I fully agree) is that if there has not been a call (according to regulation or otherwise) then there is no call to be changed, so Law 25A does not apply (nor does any other law appliccable to "calls").

Consequently the player may take back whatever action he is about to take on making a call, with no other consequence than possible UI to his partner.

(My point was that if a "call" was unintended then it could be changed regardless of what any regulation says about calls: If it by regulation was a call then it could be changed under Law 25A, if not then the player had obviously not yet committed himself with any call.)

[kgr]

---

This was the complete hand

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-March-05, 07:16, said:

I believe his point (to which I fully agree) is that if there has not been a call (according to regulation or otherwise) then there is no call to be changed, so Law 25A does not apply (nor does any other law appliccable to "calls").

Consequently the player may take back whatever action he is about to take on making a call, with no other consequence than possible UI to his partner.

(My point was that if a "call" was unintended then it could be changed regardless of what any regulation says about calls: If it by regulation was a call then it could be changed under Law 25A, if not then the player had obviously not yet committed himself with any call.)

This.

[bluejak]

kgr, on 2012-March-04, 12:00, said:

Belgium:
A bid is considered to be done once the card is removed from the bidding box with the apparent intention to do this. A player must decide, before touching a card from the bidding box.
A bid can only be changed ​​without penalty under Art.25 A of the International Rules, if the following conditions:
a) The player has taken the wrong card by mistake only.
b) The player changes his bid immediately.
c) The player did not retain physical contact with the card, but it is nevertheless a manual error without reflection. (25A)
d) The partner has not yet done a bid.
The TD may impose a penalty for insufficient attention.

There used to be quite a few regulations like this. Regrettably, I believe {b} and {c} are completely illegal, and Belgium should change its regulations.

Law 25A applies - it is a matter of law, after all - even if the player lets go of the bidding cards, and applies even if the change is not immediate, so long as it is immediate after the realisation of the error.

kgr, on 2012-March-04, 12:00, said:

If you believe it was a mispull, is that the end of the case?
Or do you tell NS that they can call you at end of the hand? Will you look at East hand at end of the hand?

I do not really see the point of looking at the hand. You know you will see a long string of diamonds. There are two cases:

• It was a mispull, he intended to bid 3D, he has lots of diamonds
  
• It was a brain failure, he forgot 2D was artificial, he changed his mind when he remembered, he has lots of diamonds

The chances are enormous that it was the second case not the first, so the chance of him convincing me to allow the change is very small indeed.

As to whether it is the end of the case, whatever you decide, you have made a judgement, so it is appealable.

[kgr]

bluejak, on 2012-March-15, 18:48, said:

I do not really see the point of looking at the hand. You know you will see a long string of diamonds.

Maybe North was very convincing and you believed that it was a mispull.
When the hand is played you see the North hand (see above) and you know that this player would DBL and not bid 3♦ with a 6c♦.
Or EW tells you that North said something at the end of the hand like 'We play multi-landy, don't we?'

bluejak, on 2012-March-15, 18:48, said:

There are two cases:

• It was a mispull, he intended to bid 3D, he has lots of diamonds
  
• It was a brain failure, he forgot 2D was artificial, he changed his mind when he remembered, he has lots of diamonds

The chances are enormous that it was the second case not the first, so the chance of him convincing me to allow the change is very small indeed.

As to whether it is the end of the case, whatever you decide, you have made a judgement, so it is appealable.

I was also convinced that it was the second case (in contrary to other the TD and other posters).
Suppose you first allowed the change because you thought it was a mispull and then at the end of the hand you are convinced that it was a change of mind and not a mispull. How will you correct this? (you can see full hand above). Do you give an artificial score or do you try to reconstruct what would happen without the UI of the alert (e.g 4S doubled) ?

[bluejak]

Well, it is easy to answer whether I give an artificial score: of course not, I do not give illegal rulings, which an artificial score is.

If I think I have given a wrong ruling I just adjust under Law 82C or whatever it is - someone correct me please.