[FrancesHinden]

Trinidad, on Sep 15 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

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

We might be over-doing the fining bit here.
If I thought we had agreed spades but were clearly not going to slam, and my partner bid 5NT, I would try not to look it, but I would certainly _be_ surprised and puzzled.

In particular, it would take me a long time to call over the double. Not because I am trying to 'wake partner up' but because I am trying to work out what on earth 5NT meant.

[gnasher]

iviehoff, on Sep 15 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

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.

If you ask "Was that a mechanical error?" and it wasn't, he'll say so. Likewise, if it was a mechanical error, but he noticed some time ago and decided not to try to change it, he will, one assumes, persist with this plan.

Quote

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is that you make whatever call is appropriate, and if that wakes North up to a mechanical error in time, then it gets withdrawn if done in the right way.

It sounds as though you'd be quite happy for North not to notice his error in time. If so, I think that's dreadful.

This is qualitatively different from, for example, having the penalty for a revoke enforced. After a revoke, it is no longer possible for the deal to continue normally, so the rules provide an artificial way to deal with the problem. After a mechanical error, it is still possible for the deal to continue normally and for a bridge result to occur. The rules recognise that difference by allowing a mechanical error to be changed without penalty.

If you are know, or are almost certain, that your LHO has made a mechanical error and hasn't noticed it, but you bid over it anyway without saying anything, you are attempting to replace the bridge result that was still possible with an artificial result that favours your side. Can you really not see anything wrong with that?

[Jlall]

Gnasher, I agree with you but surely you don't expect most people to try to not take advantage of the situation? If you do that is where I disagree with you.

Some people like to argue that since they can't expect their random opps to give them the same courtesy, they won't ask in a situation like this unless they know their opps would so that it's equal. IMO that is wrong, because of the reason gnasher has stated.

[awm]

The rules regarding mechanical bidding errors and mechanical play errors are very different. I suspect this is a hold-over from the early days of bidding boxes.

For example, say I win a trick and am about to lead to the next trick. I detach the card I wish to play from my hand, but before I can place it on the table another card from my hand falls face up on the table. Everyone knows this is a mechanical error and not an intentional play, and this fact is noticed immediately (well before anyone else has played to the trick). And yet my face up on the table card is a "played card" and I must live with the consequences.

Compare this to the same situation in bidding. I intend to pull a particular call from the bidding box but another call is inadvertently removed from the box and placed on the table. Even if I don't notice this mistake right away (say until after LHO has called), I'm still entitled to replace my bid with the intended one, more or less without penalty. This occasionally leads to furious debate about slips of the fingers versus slips of the mind and what exactly is the meaning of "without pause for thought."

[campboy]

awm, on Sep 15 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

For example, say I win a trick and am about to lead to the next trick. I detach the card I wish to play from my hand, but before I can place it on the table another card from my hand falls face up on the table. Everyone knows this is a mechanical error and not an intentional play, and this fact is noticed immediately (well before anyone else has played to the trick). And yet my face up on the table card is a "played card" and I must live with the consequences.

No, it isn't. It's a dropped card; it does not come under 45C1 since it was not "held", it was dropped.

It is, however, a penalty card (assuming you are defending), and since you have not yet played to the trick there are the normal penalty card restrictions on what you may play.

The reason why there are different rules for the two situations are certainly not a "hold-over". It is simply that partner does not get any information from seeing a 5NT card fall out of your bidding box, as he already knew it was in there. When a defender's card is exposed, however, play cannot always continue normally.

[blackshoe]

And me. Although I'd still like to know if "pause for thought" includes trying to remember how the auction went (absent bidding boxes).

[awm]

My example wasn't best but the principle holds.

1: I pull the wrong card from hand and play it. Even if I notice instantly (well before leftie plays) I am out of luck. Even if I am declarer (so no ui possible) it is a played card. Mechanical error? Doesn't matter.

2: I pull out the wrong bid from box and play it. Even if leftie has already called I can correct it. No penalty (except leftie call is ui). Of course I must convince director it was mechanical error but this is rarely hard. In fact the old laws even let me change call when NOT mechanical error; good change IMO.

[PeterE]

blackshoe, on Sep 15 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

Although I'd still like to know if "pause for thought" includes trying to remember how the auction went (absent bidding boxes).

No, Ed, definitely not.
"Unintended" means, that the player knew (at the moment he called) what call he was going to make - totally "independent" of the previous bidding.
Any attempt to remember to previous bidding (or it's meanings) is - per definition and per dictionary meaning of the Englisch language - a pause for thought.

[blackshoe]

PeterE, on Sep 16 2009, 02:48 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 15 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

Although I'd still like to know if "pause for thought" includes trying to remember how the auction went (absent bidding boxes).

No, Ed, definitely not.
"Unintended" means, that the player knew (at the moment he called) what call he was going to make - totally "independent" of the previous bidding.
Any attempt to remember to previous bidding (or it's meanings) is - per definition and per dictionary meaning of the Englisch language - a pause for thought.

First you say "no, 'pause for thought' does not include trying to remember how the auction went", and then you say it does. One of us is confused.

I was referring to the possiblity that he can't remember his last bid. Unlikely, sure, but I'm trying to find a boundary here, not suggesting that I think this a likely scenario at the table.

"Unintended call" means he didn't intend to make that call. How can he know whether the call he made is the one he intended if (for whatever reason) he doesn't know what call he made? And if he doesn't, what can he do to find out? What can he not do?

[McBruce]

North has hesitated for quite some time, more than would be necessary in an unusual auction. This is an infraction of L74B4 ("...acting during the auction or play so as to call attention to a significant occurrence..."), and the evidence is overwhelming that North's behavior is designed to prevent damage to his side through an unintended bid. North is clearly aware as he performs his act ("at the time of his irregularity") that it is likely to cause the opponents to get a poorer score. Law 23 is the remedy. If South wishes to correct to 5♠, let it happen, but apply Law 23 and adjust the score if the opponents receive a poorer score because of the change. A PP to North is certainly reasonable as well.

Oddly enough, an ethical South will elect NOT to make the change if woken up by partner's act to comply with L73C. A practical ethical South will say "isn't it amazing how clean the 5NT card is compared to the others that get more usage," thereby showing that he is aware he bid 5NT and establishing pause for thought if he tries to change it. Now North's timewasting is not getting him anywhere.

[iviehoff]

gnasher, on Sep 15 2009, 10:23 PM, said:

If you ask "Was that a mechanical error?" and it wasn't, he'll say so. Likewise, if it was a mechanical error, but he noticed some time ago and decided not to try to change it, he will, one assumes, persist with this plan.

Of course I'm not happy about the mechanical error not being corrected. I'd rather not win like that.

But asking the question would be worse. It could well be an irregularity, and I am much less happy to put myself at risk of committing an irregularity to help the opponent out of his mistake.

I have the right to draw attention to an opponent's irregularity. A mechanical error is an irregularity, so I can draw attention to it. But I am not sure that it is a mechanical error. If I am not reasonably confident that there has been an irregularity I must keep my mouth shut, and there is a good reason for that.

For example, the answer to the question may be "no", in which case North must not answer my question. Even worse, the answer might be "yes, but it is not correctable". Again, North must not say that, he must keep his mouth shut. Only in the situation that it is a correctable mechanical error may North answer my question. In other situations, North may not answer the question, but even his silence is problematic.

So it really is best not to ask.

As campboy says, most "mistakes" of this nature are uncorrectable, eg, a mechanical error in pulling the wrong card out of your hand and tabling it is not correctable. Even a bidding mechanical error is only correctable in specific conditions. It really is not my responsibility to try and maximise my opponent's possibility of finding himself within those conditions. But what I'm certainly not going to be doing is doubling as fast as possible to limit his possibility of benefiting from those conditions.

[Trinidad]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 15 2009, 10:58 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Sep 15 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

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

We might be over-doing the fining bit here.
If I thought we had agreed spades but were clearly not going to slam, and my partner bid 5NT, I would try not to look it, but I would certainly _be_ surprised and puzzled.

In particular, it would take me a long time to call over the double. Not because I am trying to 'wake partner up' but because I am trying to work out what on earth 5NT meant.

I agree with you that it will take South some time to understand the 5NT bid. I also agree that South' face may (will!) be expressions of surprise. I don't have any problem with a player who tries to work out what 5NT means. That is all natural, sincere and without the intention to wake up partner.

But the way I read the original post is that South was actively trying to draw North' attention and my reply is given in that context. From the original post:

Quote

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

This description leaves the possibility that South was just thinking what 5NT meant. But I don't think that I am "seeing things that aren't there" when I read this as "South was acting with the intent to wake up North.".

--------
Assuming that South indeed tried to wake up his partner, I have a lot more sympathy for a South player who simply asks: "Did you mean to bid that?". This would just show that the player doesn't know better. But a player who uses "Antics at the table" knows that he is not supposed to wake up partner, and then tries to do it anyway. He only does it in such a way that he thinks that he has deniability.

Rik

[pran]

bluejak, on Sep 15 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

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.

A or no A
I think the bottom line must be that North is entitled to correct his mechanical error but South is "entitled" to some penalty for seriously improper activity at the table.

That penalty could be anything from a warning to a penalty that brings the North/South result back to what an uncorrected mechanical error would have resulted in.

regards Sven

[PeterE]

blackshoe, on Sep 16 2009, 02:12 AM, said:

First you say "no, 'pause for thought' does not include trying to remember how the auction went", and then you say it does. One of us is confused.

Yes, sorry this time it was me who couldn't read

[axman]

iviehoff, on Sep 16 2009, 03:07 AM, said:

A mechanical error is an irregularity, so I can draw attention to it.

There is some misconception.

To be an irregularity, 5N must be an IB, a breach of L16/73, a BOOT, a failure to satisfy an enforced pass, or failure to repeat a call as required. Absent these, calling different than intended is not an irregularity, as of now.

However, to be thorough, when a player corrects his call that is an irregularity if the opponents believe that all the the conditions of L25A weren't satisfied.

[iviehoff]

axman, on Sep 16 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

iviehoff, on Sep 16 2009, 03:07 AM, said:

A mechanical error is an irregularity, so I can draw attention to it.

There is some misconception.

To be an irregularity, 5N must be an IB, a breach of L16/73, a BOOT, a failure to satisfy an enforced pass, or failure to repeat a call as required. Absent these, calling different than intended is not an irregularity, as of now.

However, to be thorough, when a player corrects his call that is an irregularity if the opponents believe that all the the conditions of L25A weren't satisfied.

If you are correct, then gnasher's question is always extraneous, and my argument is reinforced.

But I think you are confusing infraction and irregularity. The things you mention are all infractions. An irregularity "is a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player". I think a mechanical error is a deviation from the correct procedure for making the intended call. I believe Bluejak has argued as such in the past.

[bluejak]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 15 2009, 09:58 PM, said:

We might be over-doing the fining bit here.
If I thought we had agreed spades but were clearly not going to slam, and my partner bid 5NT, I would try not to look it, but I would certainly _be_ surprised and puzzled.

In particular, it would take me a long time to call over the double.  Not because I am trying to 'wake partner up' but because I am trying to work out what on earth 5NT meant.

The opening post said:

South now looked surprised, puzzled, worried, grunted, grimaced, looked pointedly at the bidding sequence, checked his hand, put his head on one side, and ....

I believe the suggestions of a PP are because of the actions by which South attempted to communicate with partner, not the slowness of his call.

gnasher, on Sep 15 2009, 10:23 PM, said:

If you are know, or are almost certain, that your LHO has made a mechanical error and hasn't noticed it, but you bid over it anyway without saying anything, you are attempting to replace the bridge result that was still possible with an artificial result that favours your side. Can you really not see anything wrong with that?

The only thing wrong with that is I do not think it is true. I am trying to take advantage of an opponent's error to get a favourable bridge result, which is the normal reaction to an opponent's error.

blackshoe, on Sep 16 2009, 08:12 AM, said:

I was referring to the possiblity that he can't remember his last bid. Unlikely, sure, but I'm trying to find a boundary here, not suggesting that I think this a likely scenario at the table.

"Unintended call" means he didn't intend to make that call. How can he know whether the call he made is the one he intended if (for whatever reason) he doesn't know what call he made? And if he doesn't, what can he do to find out? What can he not do?

Like Peter [I think] I believe that this is not what I thought you were saying. The 'pause for thought' is from the realisation: if you do not know what call you made you have not yet realised you have made an unintended call.

[blackshoe]

axman, on Sep 16 2009, 08:52 AM, said:

However, to be thorough, when a player corrects his call that is an irregularity if the opponents believe that all the the conditions of L25A weren't satisfied.

More correctly, I think, "when a player corrects his call, that is an irregularity for which rectification, if any, will be determined by the Director".

IOW, what the opponents believe is not relevant — the determination is solely the TD's.

[blackshoe]

pran, on Sep 16 2009, 06:11 AM, said:

That penalty could be anything from a warning to a penalty that brings the North/South result back to what an uncorrected mechanical error would have resulted in.

It is my view that awarding procedural penalties in an amount designed to "rectify" the score is not just bad practice, it's illegal. If you have a legal justification for adjusting the score, do so in accordance with Law 12. Once that's done, it's done. Awarding of PPs is a separate issue, and the size of the PP should be based solely on guidance from higher authority, local practice, and the TD's judgement of the severity of the offense, without any consideration of whether the rectification provided in the laws for the offense concerned is "adequate".

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Sep 16 2009, 11:29 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 16 2009, 08:12 AM, said:

I was referring to the possiblity that he can't remember his last bid. Unlikely, sure, but I'm trying to find a boundary here, not suggesting that I think this a likely scenario at the table.

"Unintended call" means he didn't intend to make that call. How can he know whether the call he made is the one he intended if (for whatever reason) he doesn't know what call he made? And if he doesn't, what can he do to find out? What can he not do?

Like Peter [I think] I believe that this is not what I thought you were saying. The 'pause for thought' is from the realisation: if you do not know what call you made you have not yet realised you have made an unintended call.

Sorry for the confusion, then. But my questions remain. Given that he is not aware that he has made an unintended call, what can he do or not do (in situations where the call is not obviously displayed so that he — and presumably everyone else — can see it) in search of determining what call he made?