Mispull or 36B?

[Robert Geller]

North DLR
W N E S
- 1H X X

The director is called. South claims a mispull of XX.

Should the director approve this claim, or should L36 be applied?

[Gordon Rainsford]

It seems to me to be a matter of judgement, but I don't think you have
to apply L36 if you think it was an unintended call.

Gordon Rainsford

Post by Robert Geller
North DLR
W N E S
- 1H X X
The director is called. South claims a mispull of XX.
Should the director approve this claim, or should L36 be applied?
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Sven Pran]

It is of course a matter of judgement, but this looks to me as a situation
for Law 25A (Unintended call) unless some convincing argument for the
contrary is presented.

Post by Gordon Rainsford
Gordon Rainsford
It seems to me to be a matter of judgement, but I don't think you have to

apply

Post by Gordon Rainsford
L36 if you think it was an unintended call.
Gordon Rainsford

Post by Robert Geller
North DLR
W N E S
- 1H X X
The director is called. South claims a mispull of XX.
Should the director approve this claim, or should L36 be applied?
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Richard Hills]

Some years ago blml discussed a similar case where the notionally illegal
call was actually intended as an Alert card. Technically Law 25A does not
permi the replacement of an unintended call with an Alert (merely
permitting the replacement with an originally intended ++call++). I suggest
that therefore the 2017 Drafting Committee broaden the scope of Law 25A.

Rick Riordan, The Blood of Olympus page 98:

He considered shooting a column of fire at the nearest tour bus and blowing
up the gas tank, but he decided that might be a tad dramatic.

Post by Sven Pran
It is of course a matter of judgement, but this looks to me as a situation
for Law 25A (Unintended call) unless some convincing argument for the
contrary is presented.

Post by Gordon Rainsford
Gordon Rainsford
It seems to me to be a matter of judgement, but I don't think you have to

apply

Post by Gordon Rainsford
L36 if you think it was an unintended call.
Gordon Rainsford

Post by Robert Geller
North DLR
W N E S
- 1H X X
The director is called. South claims a mispull of XX.
Should the director approve this claim, or should L36 be applied?
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Steve Willner]

Post by Sven Pran
It is of course a matter of judgement, but this looks to me as a situation
for Law 25A (Unintended call)

This is a good case to ask about practical directing. How should the TD
approach this sort of case, and what questions should he ask?

Another example came up recently. The auction was something like
W N E S
1D - 1H - 1S - P
3C -...starts pulling card from bidding box after 5-10 s pause
West: Hey wait! Director please!

You can presumably establish the above facts with everyone at the table.
What questions do you ask West? At the table or privately? West will
tell you he meant to bid 2C and only noticed the 3C card when he looked
towards the table as North was about to bid.

I realize no one can give an actual ruling here; I'm interested in the
proper procedure and factors to be considered. Does West's hand matter?
Stop card use/non-use? Other?

By the way, in the ACBL, North has not yet called. In other
jurisdictions, North has called, though I don't think anyone but North
knew what the call was. I don't think this makes any difference, but
maybe I'm missing something.

[Gordon Rainsford]

I think if they have used the stop card you can discount it as a
mis-pull for 2C. However if they haven't used the stop card I think you
need to establish whether they usually do, or else it doesn't help you
very much either way.

I usually take care to explain to the player exactly which changes are
allowed by the law and which are not, and then ask something like "at
the moment you were taking out the bidding card which card where you
trying to take out". I wouldn't look at the hand at this point, for the
usual reason that I'm likely to give UI and make the board unplayable.
However, having properly established the legal position with the player,
I would be prepared to adjust aftewards if I had reason to believe it
was a change of mind.

Gordon Rainsford

Post by Steve Willner

Post by Sven Pran
It is of course a matter of judgement, but this looks to me as a situation
for Law 25A (Unintended call)

This is a good case to ask about practical directing. How should the TD
approach this sort of case, and what questions should he ask?
Another example came up recently. The auction was something like
W N E S
1D - 1H - 1S - P
3C -...starts pulling card from bidding box after 5-10 s pause
West: Hey wait! Director please!
You can presumably establish the above facts with everyone at the table.
What questions do you ask West? At the table or privately? West will
tell you he meant to bid 2C and only noticed the 3C card when he looked
towards the table as North was about to bid.
I realize no one can give an actual ruling here; I'm interested in the
proper procedure and factors to be considered. Does West's hand matter?
Stop card use/non-use? Other?
By the way, in the ACBL, North has not yet called. In other
jurisdictions, North has called, though I don't think anyone but North
knew what the call was. I don't think this makes any difference, but
maybe I'm missing something.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Steve Willner]

Thanks, Gordon. Very useful. Do you do all of this at the table, or do
you establish the initial facts away from it?

Post by Gordon Rainsford
I think if they have used the stop card you can discount it as a
mis-pull for 2C. However if they haven't used the stop card I think you
need to establish whether they usually do, or else it doesn't help you
very much either way.
I usually take care to explain to the player exactly which changes are
allowed by the law and which are not, and then ask something like "at
the moment you were taking out the bidding card which card where you
trying to take out". I wouldn't look at the hand at this point, for the
usual reason that I'm likely to give UI and make the board unplayable.
However, having properly established the legal position with the player,
I would be prepared to adjust aftewards if I had reason to believe it
was a change of mind.

[Robert Geller]

My thanks to all of you who've discussed this issue.

The actual South hand for the player-claimed mispull was
A9753 Q8 64 J973

Just to refresh your memory the auuction was
W N E S
- 1H X X*

Knowing the actual hand, how should the the director have ruled?

Post by Steve Willner
Thanks, Gordon. Very useful. Do you do all of this at the table, or do
you establish the initial facts away from it?

Post by Gordon Rainsford
I think if they have used the stop card you can discount it as a
mis-pull for 2C. However if they haven't used the stop card I think you
need to establish whether they usually do, or else it doesn't help you
very much either way.
I usually take care to explain to the player exactly which changes are
allowed by the law and which are not, and then ask something like "at
the moment you were taking out the bidding card which card where you
trying to take out". I wouldn't look at the hand at this point, for the
usual reason that I'm likely to give UI and make the board unplayable.
However, having properly established the legal position with the player,
I would be prepared to adjust aftewards if I had reason to believe it
was a change of mind.

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Steve Willner]

Post by Robert Geller
The actual South hand for the player-claimed mispull was
A9753 Q8 64 J973
Just to refresh your memory the auction was
W N E S
- 1H X X*

What did the player say the redouble was intended to show? And what
would double of 1S have shown? It's possible the player mentally
transposed East's double into "I have spades" and wanted to make a
penalty double, but I wouldn't assume that without knowing more. On the
other hand, the hand looks awfully light and off-shape for a redouble,
so I agree with being suspicious. The trouble is neither possibility
really makes sense, at least to me.

[Robert Geller]

I was West. When the dummy came down I asked North if they had any
special agreement about the redouble and he said no (so it notinally
showed 10+ points or so, as is standard here, and probably most other
places).

The director never followed up (even though she had access to the hand
records) and neither did we.

It seems obvious though that South had some kind of brain cramp.

Post by Steve Willner

Post by Robert Geller
The actual South hand for the player-claimed mispull was
A9753 Q8 64 J973
Just to refresh your memory the auction was
W N E S
- 1H X X*

What did the player say the redouble was intended to show? And what
would double of 1S have shown? It's possible the player mentally
transposed East's double into "I have spades" and wanted to make a
penalty double, but I wouldn't assume that without knowing more. On the
other hand, the hand looks awfully light and off-shape for a redouble,
so I agree with being suspicious. The trouble is neither possibility
really makes sense, at least to me.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Nigel Guthrie]

[Robert Geller]
The actual South hand for the player-claimed mispull was
A9753 Q8 64 J973
Just to refresh your memory the auuction was
W N E S
- 1H X X*

[Nige1]
Friends at the club estimate that the vast majority of such mistakes are
slips of the mind (especially when bidding cards come from different
sections of the box). If they're right, it does not necessarily imply that
offending players are deliberate liars. They probably just rationalise, in
the same way they would in the outside world. It's sad that current rules
are designed to handicap players, who have the misfortune to be honest and
self-aware.