[shevek]

---

Hypothetical, to make it 100% clear that 4♠ was an aberration (unintended).
Law 25 doesn't mention UI, so what happens if North

- sits still for a long time, waiting for South to wake up
- looks puzzled
- looks angry
- says "Did you mean to bid that?"

TIA

[Trinidad]

There are two parts to this:

Communicating with partner is not allowed. That means that the four things on your list are not allowed and deserve a PP.

However, if South wakes up because of a legal action by North (e.g. an alert) then he is allowed to wake up.

For me the border lies around the place where it takes North a few seconds to realize what is happening and decide that he should bid 5♥ (whereas deciding about pass would take 0.1 seconds). That is a legitimate bridge reason, and therefore legal. This would normally be UI to South, but -as you said- UI laws do not apply when discovering an irregularity.

But waiting, looking, talking, rolling eyes, coughing, for the purpose of waking up partner ... are all illegal communication. And those laws do apply to every situation.

Rik

[iviehoff]

A footnote to Law 25A was added in 2011:

"A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error."

This includes illegal acts by partner. Thus we must allow the correction of the unintended bid, and concentrate on penalising the illegal act.

(It was commonly argued this was the correct interpretation even before the footnote.)

[aguahombre]

iviehoff, on 2014-March-14, 04:35, said:

A footnote to Law 25A was added in 2011:

"A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error."

This includes illegal acts by partner. Thus we must allow the correction of the unintended bid, and concentrate on penalising the illegal act.

(It was commonly argued this was the correct interpretation even before the footnote.)

Works for me. The opponents get equity with the field (perhaps even an advantage when LHO can retract his call when the replacement is made without there being AI to that side), and if replacer's partner has done something illegal we have PP's or split scores. The NOS loses some undeserved gifts, and I can live with that.

[jallerton]

shevek, on 2014-March-13, 04:41, said:

Hypothetical, to make it 100% clear that 4♠ was an aberration (unintended).
Law 25 doesn't mention UI, so what happens if North

- sits still for a long time, waiting for South to wake up
- looks puzzled
- looks angry
- says "Did you mean to bid that?"

TIA

A good question. In my opinion, the lawmakers did not think through the consequences of this Law and its interaction with other Laws when they wrote it.

Trinidad, on 2014-March-13, 05:14, said:

There are two parts to this:

Communicating with partner is not allowed. That means that the four things on your list are not allowed and deserve a PP.

However, if South wakes up because of a legal action by North (e.g. an alert) then he is allowed to wake up.

For me the border lies around the place where it takes North a few seconds to realize what is happening and decide that he should bid 5♥ (whereas deciding about pass would take 0.1 seconds). That is a legitimate bridge reason, and therefore legal. This would normally be UI to South, but -as you said- UI laws do not apply when discovering an irregularity.

But waiting, looking, talking, rolling eyes, coughing, for the purpose of waking up partner ... are all illegal communication. And those laws do apply to every situation.

Rik

This looks like a good answer. However:

1. For many people, looking puzzled or even angry is an involuntary reaction, so it seems harsh to punish this. If you handed out PPs every time anyone looked puzzled, the winners of many bridge events would be the only people who managed to keep a straight face throughout!

2. You are correct to bring up the subject of illegal communication. However, if you read the Laws concerned (my bold):

Quote

LAW 73: COMMUNICATION A. Appropriate Communication between Partners
1. Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays.
2. Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick.

B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners
1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

you will see that although alerts form part of the legal procedures of the game, this is solely for the opponents' benefit and to use any information from partner's alerts, annoucements and explanations constitutes illegal communication.

iviehoff said:

A footnote to Law 25A was added in 2011:

"A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error."

This includes illegal acts by partner. Thus we must allow the correction of the unintended bid, and concentrate on penalising the illegal act.

(It was commonly argued this was the correct interpretation even before the footnote.)

Yes, indeed. Now we have the unhappy situation where Law 25A and the new footnote allow a player to correct an unintended call* but in many cases such a correction will breach Law 73A1/73B1. So if a player chooses to change his call then his breach of Law 73 should be subject to potential rectification as well as potential procedural penalties.


*whether a call really was unintended is another difficult issue for the TD to determine

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2014-March-14, 04:35, said:

A footnote to Law 25A was added in 2011:

"A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error."

This includes illegal acts by partner. Thus we must allow the correction of the unintended bid, and concentrate on penalising the illegal act.

(It was commonly argued this was the correct interpretation even before the footnote.)

jallerton, on 2014-March-15, 04:26, said:

although alerts form part of the legal procedures of the game, this is solely for the opponents' benefit and to use any information from partner's alerts, annoucements and explanations constitutes illegal communication.

I think that, whether one likes it or not, there is no redress whatsoever for the use of the alert to realise that one has made a mechanical error. The footnote makes it clear that the call can be replaced, and the alert is not an "illegal act" and therefore there is nothing to penalise. I share your view that Law 73C should be applied but the WBFLC have decided otherwise.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2014-March-18, 19:24, said:

I think that, whether one likes it or not, there is no redress whatsoever for the use of the alert to realise that one has made a mechanical error. The footnote makes it clear that the call can be replaced, and the alert is not an "illegal act" and therefore there is nothing to penalise. I share your view that Law 73C should be applied but the WBFLC have decided otherwise.

I disagree. The WBFLC approach is sensible and in the spirit of the Laws. It would be good to adapt Law 73C and make it consistent with that approach.

Rik

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2014-March-18, 19:24, said:

I think that, whether one likes it or not, there is no redress whatsoever for the use of the alert to realise that one has made a mechanical error. The footnote makes it clear that the call can be replaced, and the alert is not an "illegal act" and therefore there is nothing to penalise. I share your view that Law 73C should be applied but the WBFLC have decided otherwise.

I agree that the alert itself is not an illegal act, so it would be quite wrong to issue a procedural penalty under Law 90 for it (the alerter was presumably alerting in good faith).

However, if the partner of the alerter uses the alert as a method of communication, this is an obvious breach of the Laws I quoted (Law 73A1, Law 73B1) and also the Law you mention (73C).

So following the issue of the footnote, the situation appears to be that the player is permitted to change his "unintended" call at the table under Law 25A, but if at the end of the hand it transpires that the alerter's side profited from being able to change from the "unintended" call to the "intended" one, then the TD should apply Law 23 (or 12A1) as rectification against the use of illegal communication.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2014-March-21, 17:09, said:

I agree that the alert itself is not an illegal act, so it would be quite wrong to issue a procedural penalty under Law 90 for it (the alerter was presumably alerting in good faith).

However, if the partner of the alerter uses the alert as a method of communication, this is an obvious breach of the Laws I quoted (Law 73A1, Law 73B1) and also the Law you mention (73C).

So following the issue of the footnote, the situation appears to be that the player is permitted to change his "unintended" call at the table under Law 25A, but if at the end of the hand it transpires that the alerter's side profited from being able to change from the "unintended" call to the "intended" one, then the TD should apply Law 23 (or 12A1) as rectification against the use of illegal communication.

What does "uses the alert as a method of communication" mean?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-21, 20:50, said:

What does "uses the alert as a method of communication" mean?

Maybe the partner of the bidder suspected that the call was inadvertent, and alerted the bid even though it would be systemically natural or anyway non-alertable? I think that this is what Jeffrey means.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2014-March-21, 17:09, said:

I agree that the alert itself is not an illegal act, so it would be quite wrong to issue a procedural penalty under Law 90 for it (the alerter was presumably alerting in good faith).

However, if the partner of the alerter uses the alert as a method of communication, this is an obvious breach of the Laws I quoted (Law 73A1, Law 73B1) and also the Law you mention (73C).

So following the issue of the footnote, the situation appears to be that the player is permitted to change his "unintended" call at the table under Law 25A, but if at the end of the hand it transpires that the alerter's side profited from being able to change from the "unintended" call to the "intended" one, then the TD should apply Law 23 (or 12A1) as rectification against the use of illegal communication.

The recipient of information is not himself communicating, so the misbidder is not committing an offence by seeing partner's alert.

[RMB1]

I would like to return to the OP. South bids, North says (in an even tone) "is that the call you intended to make?".

Is North allowed to say that? Is there a penalty?

Is South allowed to change his unintended bid? Is there a penalty is he does?

[pran]

RMB1, on 2014-March-22, 05:54, said:

I would like to return to the OP. South bids, North says (in an even tone) "is that the call you intended to make?".

Is North allowed to say that? Is there a penalty?

Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on what reasons North may have for his irregular remark, and on judgement by the Director.

One "legal" reason can be if the bid by South is "impossible" according to the partnership agreements. Another reason is if the bid itself is illegal.

RMB1, on 2014-March-22, 05:54, said:

Is South allowed to change his unintended bid? Is there a penalty is he does?

Sure South is of course allowed to change an unintended bid without any kind of penalty if his situation satisfies the conditions specified in Law 25A.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2014-March-22, 07:15, said:

One "legal" reason can be if the bid by South is "impossible" according to the partnership agreements. Another reason is if the bid itself is illegal.

neither of these reasons make the irregular communication legal. The first reason you give here is hilarious.

[aguahombre]

RMB1, on 2014-March-22, 05:54, said:

I would like to return to the OP. South bids, North says (in an even tone) "is that the call you intended to make?".

Is North allowed to say that? Is there a penalty?

Is South allowed to change his unintended bid? Is there a penalty is he does?

pran, on 2014-March-22, 07:15, said:

Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on what reasons North may have for his irregular remark, and on judgement by the Director.

One "legal" reason can be if the bid by South is "impossible" according to the partnership agreements. Another reason is if the bid itself is illegal.

Vampyr, on 2014-March-22, 07:25, said:

neither of these reasons make the irregular communication legal. The first reason you give here is hilarious.

I don't see the humor in the first reason. I do see it as debatable on these fora.

The form of the question in the second case is a "communication" problem; it is calling attention to an irregularity by partner, but at the same time suggesting an excuse to use which might not be the actual reason.

IMHO, a legal reason to ask partner whether the bid was intended would be if he sees another bid card drop off the pile while the bid is being placed on the table.

[gnasher]

RMB1, on 2014-March-22, 05:54, said:

I would like to return to the OP. South bids, North says (in an even tone) "is that the call you intended to make?".

Is North allowed to say that? Is there a penalty?

No, North's not allowed to say that (73A1). Yes, there is a penalty.

Quote

Is South allowed to change his unintended bid? Is there a penalty is he does?

Yes, South may change his unintended call. No, there is no further penalty, because South has not broken any rules.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-22, 07:25, said:

neither of these reasons make the irregular communication legal. The first reason you give here is hilarious.

Consider it as if North reacts with genuine surprise over South's call.

The precise form of North's spontaneous reaction is rather unimportant, the fact is that his reaction wakes up South to legally claim inadvertent call (if it is) and be allowed to change it. Don't forget that South is entitled to change his inadvertent call no matter how he became aware of his mistake so long as the provisions in Law 25A are satisfied.

I wouldn't bother whether North exclaimed "WHAT!", appeared shocked or whatever, but I would probably be sceptic if North calmly asked South whether he meant his call when that call (although highly unexpected) was perfectly possible according to their agreements.

(I notice that I overlooked the OP phrase "in an even tone")

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-March-22, 07:15, said:

Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on what reasons North may have for his irregular remark, and on judgement by the Director.

One "legal" reason can be if the bid by South is "impossible" according to the partnership agreements. Another reason is if the bid itself is illegal.

What Law(s) are you applying here?

[gnasher]

If North shows or expresses surprise at South's call that's a breach of Law 74C, even if it was involuntary. He can be penalised for that.

[pran]

pran, on 2014-March-22, 07:15, said:

Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on what reasons North may have for his irregular remark, and on judgement by the Director.

One "legal" reason can be if the bid by South is "impossible" according to the partnership agreements. Another reason is if the bid itself is illegal.

blackshoe, on 2014-March-22, 13:17, said:

What Law(s) are you applying here?

Creating UI is not itself a violation of law(s) that result in penalty.