[Hanoi5]

Bidding goes:

1♠-2NT (Jacoby)
3NT (non-minimum without singleton)-6NT

1. After putting 6NT on the table the player says 'No!', s/he takes the 6NT card from the bidding cards leaving the 6♠ showing and calls the Director. S/he says 'I meant to bid 6♠'.
2. After putting 6NT on the table, but before LHO makes a call, the player calls the Director and s/he says 'I meant to bid 6♠'.
3. After putting 6NT on the table, and after all have passed, the player calls the Director and s/he says 'I meant to bid 6♠'.

It's a imp pairs tourney. The 6NT player has a 5-card fit with a doubleton queen. How do you rule?

[Trinidad]

1. and 2. are typical 25A cases. The intended call was 6♠ and the 6NT bid will be replaced by 6♠. After that, everything continues as if the 6NT card never left the bidding box.

3. Tough luck. Partner has called and therefore 25A doesn't apply anymore. The contract is 6NT and the defenders are allowed to use the information that declarer meant to bid 6♠.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2012-March-10, 18:35, said:

1. and 2. are typical 25A cases. The intended call was 6♠ and the 6NT bid will be replaced by 6♠. After that, everything continues as if the 6NT card never left the bidding box.

3. Tough luck. Partner has called and therefore 25A doesn't apply anymore. The contract is 6NT and the defenders are allowed to use the information that declarer meant to bid 6♠.

Rik

Case 2 is not obvious: Like case 1 it depends on the impression from the players attitude. But unlike case 1 it is not clear that the player mispulled from the bidbox rather than changed her mind. The Director must rule according to the impression from the player's attitude.

(Whether or not LHO has made a subsequent call is as such irrelevant. If the player's attitude indicates genuine surprise and an unintended call then Law 25A applies so long as partner has not subsequently called)

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2012-March-11, 03:06, said:

Case 2 is not obvious: Like case 1 it depends on the impression from the players attitude. But unlike case 1 it is not clear that the player mispulled from the bidbox rather than changed her mind. The Director must rule according to the impression from the player's attitude.

(Whether or not LHO has made a subsequent call is as such irrelevant. If the player's attitude indicates genuine surprise and an unintended call then Law 25A applies so long as partner has not subsequently called)

What does it matter whether the player tries to correct the bid himself and then call the TD or (more correct) first calls the TD and tells him that he wants to correct the bid?

In both cases it is equally clear whether this was a change of mind or a mispull. In both cases the player immediately takes action. The reason for these two different actions (attempting to correct the bid or calling the TD) is exactly the same. If 1) is a mispull then 2) is. If 2) is a change of mind then 1) is.

The only thing that you could possibly argue is that the player can use the time for the TD to arrive to the table as "pause for thought". We (better: the WBF LC) decided long ago that it cannot be the intent of Law 25A that a player gets to change his call when he does so by himself and does not get to change his call when he takes the path through the TD. That was a good decision, since we do not want to encourage players to try and fix things themselves. We want to encourage them to call the TD to fix things.

Rik

[blackshoe]

While I agree that we want players to call the TD rather than try to "fix things" themselves, I'm not sure calling the TD is necessarily "better" in a 25A case. The reason is that 25A says "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" (emphasis mine). It's true that the WBFLC has interpreted this law to allow it to be applied when the TD is called instead of the call being changed. I suppose the reading is that the TD call is an attempt to change the call. Of course, players are unlikely to make this fine distinction (as to which is better), but that's okay. So if a player changes a call because the original call was unintended, and someone calls the TD, the TD should determine whether 25A applies, and if so just tell the table to proceed. I do not think the TD should be telling the player to call him, rather than just change his call. On the other hand, with other irregularities, the TD should probably make the point that he should be called.

[YesHoney]

ASSUMING that 6NT was trully unintented:

Case 1
Nobody really places "Pass" card on the table but instead the other 3 players assume it's the end of the auction and instantly pick up all bidding cards.
Could 6NT still be changed?

Case 2
LHO passes and 1S opener, presuming his partner's 6NT is unintended, delays his "Pass" for a bit to give his partner the chance to notice he draw wrong card.
Wouldn't that be a no-no? I wouldn't say it's unethical but still feels wrong.

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2012-March-11, 03:41, said:

What does it matter whether the player tries to correct the bid himself and then call the TD or (more correct) first calls the TD and tells him that he wants to correct the bid?

In both cases it is equally clear whether this was a change of mind or a mispull. In both cases the player immediately takes action. The reason for these two different actions (attempting to correct the bid or calling the TD) is exactly the same. If 1) is a mispull then 2) is. If 2) is a change of mind then 1) is.

The only thing that you could possibly argue is that the player can use the time for the TD to arrive to the table as "pause for thought". We (better: the WBF LC) decided long ago that it cannot be the intent of Law 25A that a player gets to change his call when he does so by himself and does not get to change his call when he takes the path through the TD. That was a good decision, since we do not want to encourage players to try and fix things themselves. We want to encourage them to call the TD to fix things.

Rik

The difference between case 1 and 2 is that in case 1 it is obvious from the description that the player reacted without pause for thought, this is not obvious from the description of case 2.

It makes no difference whether the player's reaction is an immediate exclamation "no" or an immediate call for the Director. The important point is the apparently complete absence of any "pause for thought".

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2012-March-11, 14:14, said:

The difference between case 1 and 2 is that in case 1 it is obvious from the description that the player reacted without pause for thought, this is not obvious from the description of case 2.

It makes no difference whether the player's reaction is an immediate exclamation "no" or an immediate call for the Director. The important point is the apparently complete absence of any "pause for thought".

That's all true, but from the description in the OP, I do not see that the 6NT/♠ bidder paused for thought before calling the TD.

But you are right. It is hard to distinguish between
1) 6NT.!?!!?......"TD!"
2) 6NT.......!?!!?"TD!"

where in 1) the player actually starts to think "maybe 6NT might also be good" before he decides that it isn't.

As long as we agree that it doesn't make a difference whether they try to change the call or call the TD and tell him that they pulled the wrong card, all is fine with me.

Rik

[barmar]

The potential difference in the two cases can be that the player can use the time it takes for the TD to arrive to decide on the new call, and someone might interpret this as "pause for thought". For instance, in case 2 he could use this time to consider making a cue bid, bidding Blackwood, etc.

But if the player says it was a mispull, and the TD has no reason to disbelieve him, then we should treat both cases equivalently. And the WBFLC decision seems to support this.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-March-11, 17:07, said:

The potential difference in the two cases can be that the player can use the time it takes for the TD to arrive to decide on the new call, and someone might interpret this as "pause for thought". For instance, in case 2 he could use this time to consider making a cue bid, bidding Blackwood, etc.

That's why you should ask him what call he intended to make at the time of his mispull. If he lies, well then he lies. Not much we can do about that. But most players will tell the truth.

[iviehoff]

Hanoi5, on 2012-March-10, 18:17, said:

S/he says 'I meant to bid 6♠'.

This is not sufficient evidence of an unintended bid. People often say "I meant to do X" when they knew perfectly well what they were doing at the moment they did it, but only later realised they had become confused and done the wrong thing, or that it was a foolish thing to do.

The TD should ask the question "What bidding card did you think you had in your hand at the moment you put the 6N card on the table". If the answer is "The 6N card", it was not an unintended bid.

[iviehoff]

YesHoney, on 2012-March-11, 10:11, said:

ASSUMING that 6NT was trully unintented:

Case 1
Nobody really places "Pass" card on the table but instead the other 3 players assume it's the end of the auction and instantly pick up all bidding cards.
Could 6NT still be changed?

Case 2
LHO passes and 1S opener, presuming his partner's 6NT is unintended, delays his "Pass" for a bit to give his partner the chance to notice he draw wrong card.
Wouldn't that be a no-no? I wouldn't say it's unethical but still feels wrong.

Case 2 is easy: it is illegal and therefore unethical.

L73A2 "Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste."

L73F "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)."

Normally deliberate hesitations are about deceiving opponents, hence the references to that. But it is plain that the law on deliberately hesitating applies to any undue benefit you might gain. The player could have known that the hesitation could work to his benefit, so it is illegal and an adjusted score is appropriate.

Case 1 is trickier, as it involves offences by both sides, and implicit assent of the offences. I think I would rule that, although the player's partner has not followed the correct procedure for passing, an irregular pass by your partner is as good as a pass by your partner for timing you out under Law 25. I'm not going to give them any benefit of the doubt for the offences by the opponents, as the irregular passes by the opponents (or at least the first one) were in effect accepted by the player's partner. If I have to quote a law I'll quote Law 11.

[blackshoe]

I think in case 1 it depends on the culture, if that's the right word. In a club where "everybody" picks up the bidding cards when they think the auction is over, it seems a bit much to rule by the letter of the regulation — which if it says "a pass is made by putting out the pass card" or words to that effect says that if no pass card was put out, no pass was made. OTOH, allowing this "custom" to slide when it creates or exacerbates a problem, as here, is also a bit much. So while I would rule as ivie suggested, I would also explain to the table that they should put out their pass cards when they want to pass, and that failure to do so may in future subject them to procedural penalty. And as always when I give a warning like this, I'm prepared to give that penalty if the situation comes up again.