[bluejak]

There was a bidding sequence where N/S agreed spades and were clearly not interested in going for slam. One of the opponents bid 5♦ and North bid 5NT, obviously intending to bid 5♠. Next player doubled. South now looked surprised, puzzled, worried, grunted, grimaced, looked pointedly at the bidding sequence, checked his hand, put his head on one side, and ....

Eventually North woke up and said 5NT was a mechanical error and wanted to change it. No doubt it was, but how do you rule?

[RMB1]

Was 5NT unintended? It appears so.
Was there pause for thought? There was a pause between looking at the bidding sequence and the announcement that 5NT was a mechanical, a pause that allowed time for thought. I think this must be ruled a pause for thought.

So Law 25A does not apply, and 5NT can not be changed. (South has UI from North's reaction and announcement, which may, for example, prevent South from correcting to 6♠.)

Robin

[bluejak]

The pause is from the realisation. I do not think there was a pause after the realisation, it is the long time before it and partner's antics that are in question.

[pran]

I may be wrong, but if my memory serves me correct then it is too late for a Law 25A correction here. Actions like this from partner end the option to apply Law 25A exactly as if partner's action had been a regular call.

(And if you want a Law then what about 16B1(a) ? )

Regards Sven

[RMB1]

Sorry, I misread the original post.

My belief is different from Sven's, I think Law 25A does apply. There was something (a WBF LC minute?) that said the old Law 25B did not apply if partner had done anything; but that (minute) was not in reference to Law 25A.

Does this boil down to: does Law 25A apply when partner's actions cause the player to notice what he has called?

I believe that if the intended call is not alertable and the actual call is alertable and the events occur in normal tempo: North: bid, South: alert, North: "that's not what I intended"; then Law 25A does apply.

I don't think Law 16B1(a) applies: choosing to correct the original call to the intended call is the only logical alternative.

Robin

[bluejak]

Sven: what LAs has he chosen between?

Law 73B1A?

[blackshoe]

I agree with Robin regarding the alert business, but after the actions described, South has done a lot more than alert. I'm not so sure we should allow a 25A correction in this case. OTOH, it could be that North was thinking "what the heck is your problem?" and didn't see the unintended 5NT bid until he looked down at the table. OTGH, I wonder how we would rule if there weren't bidding boxes — can North ask for a review of the bidding and then get a 25A correction? Does "pause for thought" include trying to remember how the auction went?

[pran]

bluejak, on Sep 14 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

Sven: what LAs has he chosen between?

Law 73B1A?

The LA to change his call rather than to leave it unchanged.

I can't find any L73B1A in my law book.

But there is a distinct possibility that what I remember is what Robin points out: A WBFLC Minute that relates to (the old) L25B and not L25A. I have now researched the minutes and in fact found several that had this effect on Law 25B but none on Law 25A.

It is clear to me that an unexpected alert (in tempo) can wake up a player to legally discover that he has made an inadvertent call so that he can correct it under L25A.

What I am reluctant to accept is if a player may deliberately violate L73D1 and vary his tempo for the apparent (sole) purpose of waking up his partner.

regards Sven

[PeterE]

What's the problem?

Law 25A mentions "pause for thought" (pft). Pft starts when player A discovers his unintended call. Nowhere is said - neither regulated - how this player A becomes aware of his unintended call. In fact it may be even partner B saying something like "what on earth are you doing there, partner?" that may awake the erroneous player A. The TD might penalize player B for his gratitous remark but the main law to be applied stays Law 25A.

[Trinidad]

My take on this:

North is allowed to change his unintended 5NT call to 5♠, since his partner has not bid yet and there was no pause for thought from the moment that North discovered his mechanical error.

But that is part 1 only. South is getting a procedural penalty for a breach of Law 74C2 and/or 74C4.

Rik

[iviehoff]

A significant point here is that South has delayed making his own call in the hope that partner will wake up to the mechanical error before he (South) does make that call, which would bar the correction.

This would be an irregularity even if South hadn't also indulged in illegal communication.

The law on unintended call is that the unintended call was, in effect, not a call at all if identified in time (along with the other conditions). Since it was an irregularity that South extended the time available for identification, I wonder if we can rule it was out of time? Probably that is taking too much of a liberty without an interpretation from on high. So I rule like the others: allow the change and throw the book at South.

[jeremy69]

Provided I was convinced that it was a mechanical error(and it sounds like it) I too would allow the change but I think that South's actions are very poor indeed and that would determine my response. A standard PP seems inadequate. It seems clear to me that South's actions were deliberate and illegal and he/she would have known this so I would either double the fine or award a DP as well. One way or another the offender would know that this sort of action should not be repeated!

[gnasher]

I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time in East's company. What sort of bridge player doubles 5NT rather than asking whether North actually meant to bid that?

[bluejak]

gnasher, on Sep 15 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time in East's company.  What sort of bridge player doubles 5NT rather than asking whether North actually meant to bid that?

About 99.9% of bridge players, I would think.

jeremy69, on Sep 15 2009, 10:08 AM, said:

Provided I was convinced that it was a mechanical error(and it sounds like it) I too would allow the change but I think that South's actions are very poor indeed and that would determine my response. A standard PP seems inadequate. It seems clear to me that South's actions were deliberate and illegal and he/she would have known this so I would either double the fine or award a DP as well. One way or another the offender would know that this sort of action should not be repeated!

There is nothing wrong with double standard PP or even triple standard. But I cannot see the justification for a DP.

pran, on Sep 15 2009, 12:38 AM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 14 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

Sven: what LAs has he chosen between?

The LA to change his call rather than to leave it unchanged.

The way the Law is worded makes it clear that a player intends a call and subject to certain restrictions Law 25A allows him to have that call as part of the auction even if he made a different apparent call. It seems a reach to me that both the intended call and the unintended call can be considered LAs.

pran, on Sep 15 2009, 12:38 AM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 14 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

Law 73B1A?

I can't find any L73B1A in my law book.

True: Law 73B1.



So are we agreed that Law 25A applies, but partner gets fined?

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on Sep 15 2009, 04:36 PM, said:

So are we agreed that Law 25A applies, but partner gets fined?

Count me in.

Rik

[RMB1]

What if South just said "Partner, is that the call you intended?" ?

Robin

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Sep 15 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

gnasher, on Sep 15 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time in East's company.  What sort of bridge player doubles 5NT rather than asking whether North actually meant to bid that?

About 99.9% of bridge players, I would think.

As I understand your description of the situation, it's obvious to everybody except North that 5NT was a mechanical error. Is that correct?

If so, of your 99.9% who double 5NT, how many of them do so knowing that the rules allow you to take back a mechanical error?

[bluejak]

RMB1, on Sep 15 2009, 04:15 PM, said:

What if South just said "Partner, is that the call you intended?" ?

Surely that is a breach of Law 73B1 [no A this time, Sven ]?

I believe bridge is a game of mistakes, and I see no problem with gaining from opponents' mistakes, and I think stopping partner making a mistake should only be done in specified situations where it is allowed.

[iviehoff]

gnasher, on Sep 15 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

As I understand your description of the situation, it's obvious to everybody except North that 5NT was a mechanical error. Is that correct?

If so, of your 99.9% who double 5NT, how many of them do so knowing that the rules allow you to take back a mechanical error?

First, East can't tell it is a mechanical error. It might be a different kind of mistake which isn't correctable. Like when the Italian player bid 6S instead of 6H in the recent Bermuda Bowl, not because of a mechanical error, but because he forgot H was the agreed suit.

Second, mechanical errors are only correctable if certain other conditions are fulfilled. As far as East can tell, North might know he made a mechanical error but didn't think to correct it in time, so is going to have to live with it.

I have never heard of a player drawing his RHO's attention to what call he might have put on the table in front of him, except when the call itself is irregular, eg insufficient.

The normal situation is that you make whatever call is appropriate, and if that wakes North up to a mechanical error in time, then it gets withdrawn if done in the right way.

[dan_ehh]

This may be a long shot, but:

L73A2 says calls should be made without undue hesitation. The hesitation here was definitely undue - the only reason for it was that south knew north did not intend to make this call.
L72B1 says what south did is not allowed even if he is willing to suffer the penalty.
Combined with L23, I think the change of the call should NOT be allowed, AND perhaps south deserves a DP seeing as this was not a hesitation with a "bridge reason". (Although maybe skip the DP since he is probably headed for a bad result anyway)

P.S.
I would even say this is a breach of L73B1. The fact that south did not actually say "Partner, is that the call you intended?" does not mean info was not passed by the hesitation. When I call your cell and you don't pick up, you still get the info that "I was looking for you".