[paulg]

Love All; Dealer East; IMPs

East
♠ -
♥ AQxx
♦ Txx
♣ AQJTxx

West  North East  South
-         -         1♣       1♠
Pass    3♦      Pass ...

Your screenmate, North, alerts the 1♠ overcall as spades with a longer red suit, and alerts his 3♦ bid as pass or correct.

However, before pushing the tray through, North calls the Director and says he has misinformed you and that 1♠ is actually just a natural overcall (they played a different defence to a 2+ 1♣ and a 3+ 1♣). In this context the 3♦ bid is a jump fit showing spade support and diamonds.

North asks if he can change his bid and the Director says only if you, East, agree.

What would you do?

This is from the Camrose at the weekend and the player concerned has already received two conflicting answers from esteemed players so, with his permission, I've said I'd find a consensus, or at least some more options, here!

[MFA]

cardsharp, on Mar 10 2009, 07:50 AM, said:

What would you do?

No sir, your bid stands.

[655321]

I would most likely let him change his bid here.

If I had made a bid that I would not have made otherwise, giving North extra information about my hand, it would be a different story. Likewise if North was known to me as someone who regularly tries it on.

[TimG]

I'm surprised the players can voluntarily back up the auction. And, don't think the director should have presented it as an option and thus put east in a more difficult situation. I think that the director and this post somewhat unfairly put the onus on east to do the "right thing" when really there is nothing wrong with not allowing a change.

[paulg]

TimG, on Mar 10 2009, 01:36 PM, said:

I'm surprised the players can voluntarily back up the auction.  And, don't think the director should have presented it as an option and thus put east in a more difficult situation.  I think that the director and this post somewhat unfairly put the onus on east to do the "right thing" when really there is nothing wrong with not allowing a change.

I think you mean that the Laws put the player unfairly in this position. Nevertheless, you do have to deal with it.

But, just to be clear, there is absolutely no pressure to do anything and everyone will be happy if you let the bid stand.

Paul

[FrancesHinden]

I know the hand, so my view is necessarily biased by what happened.

I would not usually allow them to change their bid, just on general principles. Here it looks as if they are about to get too high in spades (assuming that 3D would usually be a fit bid) and partner may be sitting there with a huge penalty double of spades.

Against that, you may prefer to let them take it back because it lets you bid your shape out - 1C (1S) P (P) 2H is a pretty good description of your hand.

But I think either option might be right.

[blackshoe]

A proper ruling would be, to North, "you may attempt to change your call if you wish. East will then have the option to accept it or refuse it". After North makes his choice, to East "you may accept this change of call, in which case your previous pass is cancelled and you may make any call you wish. If you refuse the change of call, it is cancelled, information from it is AI to you, the original 3♦ call stands, and you may change your pass if it was made on the basis of MI".

[hanp]

I think there is a decent chance that partner can double 3S for penalties, let the bid stand.

My understanding of sportsmanship is that you should try to get the most out of the infraction. When the infraction is caused by the opponents not knowing their conventions I have absolutely no problem with this.

[FrancesHinden]

TimG, on Mar 10 2009, 01:36 PM, said:

I'm surprised the players can voluntarily back up the auction. And, don't think the director should have presented it as an option and thus put east in a more difficult situation. I think that the director and this post somewhat unfairly put the onus on east to do the "right thing" when really there is nothing wrong with not allowing a change.

What blackshoe said.

There is no onus on east at all to do the 'right thing' or the 'wrong thing' - it is a genuinely interesting question, as it may be in your interests to allow the change.

At it's very simplest, suppose the auction goes 1S P 2S P 3S P P and then responder says "oh sorry I don't want to pass, can I change this to 4S?" If you are sitting there with KQJ109 of spades you will absolutely let him change it.

In this case we have a slight guess: do you take advantage of being able to describe our hand at a lower level, or do you hope that they now play in spades and partner will jump on them - partner clearly has a penalty double of spades as you have none and RHO doesn't have a spade fit.

[hotShot]

You are (by law) allowed to make the choice your side benefits the most.

You gained knowledge over the North hand, that you're allowed to use.
If you decide to leave the auction as it is, your partner will get an explanation about North 3♦ bid, that does not fit his hand. This could make him guess wrong about whats going on.
Your opps are on a highway to hell, you might get a good score.
Both player on the other side of the screen know of cause that the TD was called.

I think I would allow the change.

[blackshoe]

This raises an interesting question. Suppose you allow the change. Now, the information gleaned from the withdrawn 3♦ bid is AI to your side (see Law 16D), but partner is not privy to it because you're playing behind screens. Is this fair? Is it legal?

[TimG]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 10 2009, 08:45 AM, said:

There is no onus on east at all to do the 'right thing' or the 'wrong thing' - it is a genuinely interesting question, as it may be in your interests to allow the change.

I see. When I initially read the post (and responded) it seemed to me that the question was along the lines of "should we be a nice guy and let the opponent correct his mistake?" Not "might it be beneficial to our side to let him correct his mistake?"

I do think it is important to present the options such that there is no pressure on east to be a "nice guy". Blackshoe's proper ruling seems to do a good job of that.

[Codo]

I would allow the change.

There was no harm done and I do not know how to beneift more- from the possibility to describe my hand or from the possibility that they may come too high.

I would prefer to win the board as a nice guy to losing it as a bad guy.

[MFA]

TimG, on Mar 10 2009, 09:31 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 10 2009, 08:45 AM, said:

There is no onus on east at all to do the 'right thing' or the 'wrong thing' - it is a genuinely interesting question, as it may be in your interests to allow the change.

I see. When I initially read the post (and responded) it seemed to me that the question was along the lines of "should we be a nice guy and let the opponent correct his mistake?" Not "might it be beneficial to our side to let him correct his mistake?"

Me too.

I don't think those change-the-bid regulations are sensible. It becomes a strange poker game where one doesn't know if the opponent is being friendly or actually prefers to have the bid changed himself too.

Much better to do as we do in our national tournaments. When a bid is released on the tray it can't be changed.

[paulg]

For reference:

2007 Laws said:

LAW 25 - LEGAL AND ILLEGAL CHANGES OF CALL

A. Unintended Call

1. Until his partner makes a call, 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. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.

2. No substitution of call may be made when his partner has made a subsequent call.

3. If the auction ends before it reaches the player’s partner no substitution may occur after the end of the auction period (see Law 22).

4. If a substitution is allowed the LHO may withdraw any call he made over the first call. Information from the withdrawn call is authorized only to his side. There is no further rectification.

B. Call Intended

1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender’s LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues.

2. Except as in 1 a substitution not permitted by A is cancelled. The original call stands and the auction continues.

3. Law 16D applies to a call withdrawn or cancelled.

[MFA]

cardsharp, on Mar 10 2009, 10:06 AM, said:

For reference:

2007 Laws said:

LAW 25 - LEGAL AND ILLEGAL CHANGES OF CALL

A. Unintended Call

1. Until his partner makes a call, 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. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.

2. No substitution of call may be made when his partner has made a subsequent call.

3. If the auction ends before it reaches the player’s partner no substitution may occur after the end of the auction period (see Law 22).

4. If a substitution is allowed the LHO may withdraw any call he made over the first call. Information from the withdrawn call is authorized only to his side. There is no further rectification.

B. Call Intended

1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender’s LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues.

2. Except as in 1 a substitution not permitted by A is cancelled. The original call stands and the auction continues.

3. Law 16D applies to a call withdrawn or cancelled.

Ah ok. It's a general rule, not specific for screens. Didn't know about it. As I said, it just doesn't seem sensible to me in any way. Could anybody give me a good reason for having this rule?

[FrancesHinden]

MFA, on Mar 10 2009, 03:20 PM, said:

2007 Laws said:

LAW 25 - LEGAL AND ILLEGAL CHANGES OF CALL

B. Call Intended
....
1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender’s LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues.
...

Ah ok. It's a general rule, not specific for screens. Didn't know about it. As I said, it just doesn't seem sensible to me in any way. Could anybody give me a good reason for having this rule?

Now you are asking one of the difficult questions.

There used to be a general 25B that allowed you to change an intended call whether or not your LHO agreed, but subject to a maximum of 40% or -3 imps on the board. That was a really stupid Law, that was finally removed in the most recent update.

It's possible that this was left in to pacify those people who say they "want to play bridge" rather than be "strict rules lawyers" and when the auction goes 1S P 4C (splinter) P Poops they want to let the oopser change back to 4S.

It's a bit like the insufficient bid rule. If you make an insufficient bid, your LHO can choose to accept it. More generally, if you make any call you didn't mean to, you can change it if your LHO agrees.

Quote

This raises an interesting question. Suppose you allow the change. Now, the information gleaned from the withdrawn 3♦ bid is AI to your side (see Law 16D), but partner is not privy to it because you're playing behind screens. Is this fair? Is it legal?

I believe this is legal.
That means I don't really care if it's fair or not.

Compare and contrast: even if RHO doesn't ask to change his call, you still have AI he first alerted the overcall and described it as canape, then bid 3D, then changed his mind about the alert. You know that he forgot/was confused by the methods, but your partner doesn't. Is that fair? Is it legal?

[jdonn]

If I was east I wouldn't want it to be up to me. If that's what the laws say then I don't like the laws. Anyway if his partner hasn't seen it yet then I would let him do what he wants as long as I don't think he has gotten much relevant information from my pass. I don't want to keep him from changing his bid if he has gotten no advantage from making it simply because I can legally do so. I don't want to win that way. However I should mention that I don't think someone who wants to win that way is being unsportsmanlike. I am only worried about how I feel about it.

Of course if there were no screens everything would be different.

[gnasher]

I certainly wouldn't allow him to change it as an act of kindness or in an attempt to be sporting.

Either he had temporarily forgotten his methods or he hadn't hadn't bothered to check what system his opponents were playing. Either of these is a bridge mistake, and should lead to the bridge penalty of getting a poor score.

Regarding whether I want to let him change it, I don't. Partner has either a bad hand or a penalty double of 1♠. In either case I'd prefer to defend 3♠ (or 4♠ ) than to show my hearts cheaply.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-March-10, 11:48

[paulg]

jdonn, on Mar 10 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

If I was east I wouldn't want it to be up to me. If that's what the laws say then I don't like the laws. Anyway if his partner hasn't seen it yet then I would let him do what he wants as long as I don't think he has gotten much relevant information from my pass. I don't want to keep him from changing his bid if he has gotten no advantage from making it simply because I can legally do so. I don't want to win that way. However I should mention that I don't think someone who wants to win that way is being unsportsmanlike. I am only worried about how I feel about it.

Of course if there were no screens everything would be different.

Why is it different without screens?