[VixTD]

 Vampyr, on 2016-April-18, 01:47, said:

I think that the "equity-producing" PP is fairest if it is legal. This way the opponents do not gain from the mispull, and the OS don't gain from the remark. Of course the director needs to be very sure that it is indeed a mispull.

I don't know what you mean by "equity-producing PP". From your previous comments you seem to understand that issuing a PP to the offenders would change the offenders' score only - that of the non-offenders would remain at -1430, even if you fined the offenders 1530 points (or rather, however many VPs such a fine would have achieved). That's hardly an equitable outcome.

I also agree with Lamford.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2016-April-18, 03:35, said:

I and others disagree with you. The WBFLC minute states that you can lead (or play) low from KQJx in such a situation. You can, but if it damages the non-offending side then the TD adjusts under Law 50E3.

The minute continues:
The player must convince the Director that he has not gained from the information that the player possesses the card.

So there is a catch-all that if you gain from leading low, the TD adjusts.

And what if the situation is different (and hypothetical): I suspect a possible endplay and play the King in order to keep the low for a later exit in order to avoid the endplay? Can the non-offending side now claim damage because I "knew" that partner would win the trick anyway, and from my play understood how to continue with a killing defense?

[Vampyr]

 VixTD, on 2016-April-18, 06:52, said:

I don't know what you mean by "equity-producing PP".

I meant a PP that would give the offenders the score they should have had.

[Vampyr]

 pran, on 2016-April-18, 08:22, said:

And what if the situation is different (and hypothetical): I suspect a possible endplay and play the King in order to keep the low for a later exit in order to avoid the endplay? Can the non-offending side now claim damage because I "knew" that partner would win the trick anyway, and from my play understood how to continue with a killing defense?

You are still gaining from the sight of partner's card. Of course the NOS are damaged.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2016-April-18, 01:47, said:

Anyway, we are led to the solution that South is allowed to change his call, but then it gets changed back under L23. This is a fair solution, but it doesn't, somehow, make sense. It would have been easier not to allow the change in the first place, but I am sure that Gordon is correct about the lawmakers' intentions. The reason is not clear, apart from the desire to achieve some sort of "normal bridge result" after that ship has long since sailed.

I think that the "equity-producing" PP is fairest if it is legal. This way the opponents do not gain from the mispull, and the OS don't gain from the remark. Of course the director needs to be very sure that it is indeed a mispull.

It doesn't make sense to me either.

I think I said upthread that the TD's power to award a PP is not limited as to size, but that the penalty is for violations of correct procedure. Law 90 is not a tool for restoring equity.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2016-April-18, 08:33, said:

It doesn't make sense to me either.

I think I said upthread that the TD's power to award a PP is not limited as to size, but that the penalty is for violations of correct procedure. Law 90 is not a tool for restoring equity.

Yes, obviously. But allowing the change of call and them removing it with L23 seems perverse. Maybe there is something better, but I don't know what.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2016-April-18, 10:57, said:

Yes, obviously. But allowing the change of call and them removing it with L23 seems perverse. Maybe there is something better, but I don't know what.

I don't either, and I agree with you on using Law 23 here.

[Lanor Fow]

To my mind the footnote would be pointless if we were expected to adjust if the replacement was better than not replacing. The argument that they might not have noticed would be applicable every time.

I might give a PP, I wouldn't give an adjusted score.

[lamford]

 Lanor Fow, on 2016-April-18, 18:44, said:

To my mind the footnote would be pointless if we were expected to adjust if the replacement was better than not replacing.

Not so. The footnote clarifies that you are allowed to make a replacement call if partner's alert or announcement tells you that you have mispulled, and this is not treated as UI. However, nothing in the footnote suggests that partner can make a remark to wake you up. That is still treated just like any other remark which damages the non-offenders. Failing to adjust is an error. I would adjust and just give a warning for the remark.

[Lanor Fow]

What is the point of the footnote then, if we are always going to adjust anyway if it works out? Surely if that was the meaning, the footnote would specifically exclude infractions when allowing the change.

[weejonnie]

It's not clear - but I feel there is (or should be) a distinction between what may be regarded as 'normal bridge' (alerts / announcements) and unusual UI.

Whether that is the intention of the footnote, I don't know - it is very wide ranging.

Anyway I'll wait to see what the concensus is.

[RSliwinski]

 lamford, on 2016-April-19, 02:32, said:

Not so. The footnote clarifies that you are allowed to make a replacement call if partner's alert or announcement tells you that you have mispulled, and this is not treated as UI. However, nothing in the footnote suggests that partner can make a remark to wake you up. That is still treated just like any other remark which damages the non-offenders. Failing to adjust is an error. I would just and just give a warning for the remark.

Strange reading of the law.
What the footnote to 25A says is “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.”  There is no condition that the way he become aware is not by UI. Quite contrary. Law 25A is more specific than law 16 so it takes precedence over it. Of course partner's remark is illegal and should result in issuing a PP.

[lamford]

 RSliwinski, on 2016-April-19, 05:08, said:

Strange reading of the law.
What the footnote to 25A says is “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.”  There is no condition that the way he become aware is not by UI. Quite contrary. Law 25A is more specific than law 16 so it takes precedence over it. Of course partner's remark is illegal and should result in issuing a PP.

Not strange. It is accepted by all that the player is allowed to replace the unintended call. The adjustment is quite separate and is for the remark leading to damage to the non-offenders.

12B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

The current opinion of the EBU is that for a score adjustment, there is also a requirement that the offender could [they, in practice, insert "reasonably" here] have been aware that the irregularity could well damage the non-offending side. That is clearly the case here.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2016-April-19, 05:15, said:

Not strange. It is accepted by all that the player is allowed to replace the unintended call. The adjustment is quite separate and is for the remark leading to damage to the non-offenders.
[...]

There is one single very important question to consider here: "What is the damage from the remark?"

Once we accept a Law 25A change of a call we admit that the replaced call was never intended and shall be treated to never having been made. No information of any kind (relevant for the auction or play) exists.

Are the "non-offending side" damaged because they did not receive the favourable result had the "offending side" been stuck with the unintended call?

I shall not be happy with an understanding that an unintended call legally replaced by the intended call under Law 25 shall still be a basis for calculating damage when the offender became aware of his mistake under questionable circumstances.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2016-April-19, 05:51, said:

I shall not be happy with an understanding that an unintended call legally replaced by the intended call under Law 25 shall still be a basis for calculating damage when the offender became aware of his mistake under questionable circumstances.

I am even less happy with an understanding that an unintended call legally replaced by the intended call under Law 25 shall not be a basis for calculating damage when the offender became aware of his mistake under questionable circumstances.

[blackshoe]

 lamford, on 2016-April-19, 06:08, said:

I am even less happy with an understanding that an unintended call legally replaced by the intended call under Law 25 shall not be a basis for calculating damage when the offender became aware of his mistake under questionable circumstances.

Questionable? "by any means", says the footnote. That includes extraneous comments from partner. Yours is a very literal reading of the law. Your interpretation might be right, but it seems to me not in accord with what seems to have been the intent of the footnote.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2016-April-19, 07:16, said:

Questionable? "by any means", says the footnote. That includes extraneous comments from partner. Yours is a very literal reading of the law. Your interpretation might be right, but it seems to me not in accord with what seems to have been the intent of the footnote.

Well, if you can ask (or remark, as in the OP) and still get a better score even after the PP is applied, there needs to be a massive educational campaign. But after you apply a PP for breaking L23, a PP for breaking L74C4, and presumably a large one for 72B1, you will not be left with a huge gain, I think.

And since the NOS are not compensated, the director must be damn sure that it was really a mispull and not a momentary mental lapse. I know directors, prominent English ones even, who think that unintentional means the latter. And this must be an even bigger problem for those who have to deal with a translation of the laws.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2016-April-19, 07:16, said:

Questionable? "by any means", says the footnote. That includes extraneous comments from partner. Yours is a very literal reading of the law. Your interpretation might be right, but it seems to me not in accord with what seems to have been the intent of the footnote.

It is clear that the player is allowed to change his call. "By any means" is indeed all-embracing. However, Law 23 is equally "all-embracing", and if the player could have been aware that his question would benefit his side, then one adjusts. One does not prevent the change of call. One adjusts later if there is damage caused to the non-offenders by the remark. And I have repeated this point often enough now, and will not continue to comment on this thread. It does indeed appear to be the sticking point I predicted.

[helene_t]

 Vampyr, on 2016-April-15, 17:08, said:

I think that the point lamford is trying to highlight is that NS may do better due to North's remark, even after receiving a PP. A law-abiding North will not make such a comment, so no 25A correction will be possible.

The remark is illegal. I think it is correct that NS can get a better score by making the illegal remark. However, it is risky business since:
- If it transpires that North deliberately breaks the law for gain, he is in bigger trouble than just a PP
- If South didn't actually make a mechanic mistake, there is no gain from North's remark
- The TD may actually be less likely to believe that S made a mechanical error if it was induced by a remark by S. So it could backfire.
- If 6♠ isn't better than 6N (or 7♠ or whatever would have happened without the correction), they don't gain.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2016-April-19, 08:31, said:

It is clear that the player is allowed to change his call. "By any means" is indeed all-embracing. However, Law 23 is equally "all-embracing", and if the player could have been aware that his question would benefit his side, then one adjusts. One does not prevent the change of call. One adjusts later if there is damage caused to the non-offenders by the remark. And I have repeated this point often enough now, and will not continue to comment on this thread. It does indeed appear to be the sticking point I predicted.

One absolute condition for Law 23 to apply is that the remark was deliberate and not an involuntary reaction to a surprising event.

The obvious (?) purpose of Law 25 is to preserve natural bridge as much as possible and this goes all the way back to predecessors of bridge: Unintended actions may be reversed if this can be done without compromising the game as such.

Once a call may be changed under Law 25 I see no reason why the replaced unintended call shall be a factor in any question of redress to the other side.

I do however accept the relevance of a possible PP to a player illegally calling attention to an apparently unintended call in time for this call to be corrected.