[blackshoe]

pran, on 2013-October-15, 05:57, said:

What is clear is that there is a Law 25 case in progress, but so far no attention has yet been drawn to the previous Law 27 case.

Changing a call is an irregularity. It doesn't matter why the change is made (or attempted) or whether anyone has explicitly called attention to it. Anyone can call the director once the change is made or attempted. IMO a change of call is an obvious irregularity — so much so that it automatically draws attention to itself. In such a case, not only can anyone call the director, everyone should call the director (Law 9B1{a}).

The TD must investigate the reason for the change, and the first step in that is to find out what the original call was. So the TD will become aware there was an IB even if no one mentions it when he arrives at the table. Still, I do not think it wrong to mention the IB when the director arrives — during the auction, there are no restrictions on who may call attention to an irregularity, or on how he may do so.

[pran]

bixby, on 2013-October-15, 07:41, said:

On the question of whether changing an IB necessarily draws attention to the irregularity:

I would agree with Pran that in theory a player could change an IB to another call in a way that would not constitute drawing attention to the irregularity, but would, rather, constitute a second irregularity. However, in practice, at least in my experience, a player who notices his own IB and attempts to change it without calling the Director almost invariably begins by gasping or saying "oh!" or making some gesture of surprise, which calls attention to the irregularity. So I think this discussion is about a very unlikely occurrence.

If, somehow, a player, in perfect silence and with no change of expression, made an IB and then replaced it with a different call, I would say that that does not by itself call attention to the IB, because, as Pran pointed out earlier, a player might do the same thing if his first call had been legal.

But as I say, that almost never happens. Players who notice their own insufficient bids generally can't help but show surprise in a way that calls attention to the irregularity. There is no requirement that the "calling attention" be done using words.

OP said:

[...]
When he saw the bid was inssuficent he paused for a couple of seconds to correct it with a pass.
[...]

Nothing in OP said that anybody drew attention to the IB, the offender simply changed his Call after a brief hesitation.

This discussion has from the beginning been whether the change itself "drew attention" to the IB.

My opion has all the time been that the change was the irregularity of changing a call (to be ruled under Law 25), but that of course if somebody then drew attention to the preceding IB (or TD after being called himself noticed this) then it would be a Law 27 case instead of a Law 25 case.

But again of course, when as in your description the offender shows surprise over his IB then that will usually suffice as "drawing attention" to the irregularity.

This discussion is not really important during the auction, but it is very important during the play period when dummy is prohibited from drawing attention to any irregularity and thus may only call the director after some other player at the table has drawn such attention. {Law 43A1a}

[bixby]

I think we are in agreement. You are correct that the OP doesn't mention that the player expressed surprise at his own IB, but neither does it expressly state that he didn't. You have chosen to give your opinion based on the assumption that he didn't, which is fine. I would still guess, though, that he probably did.

It's a Bayesian thing. In my experience, the a priori probability that a player noticing his own IB would express surprise is high. Adding in the additional information that the OP doesn't say that he did reduces the probability, but not so much as to make it probable that he failed to express surprise.

But as I say, I think we agree.

[mycroft]

Yes, even if the player is exercising their L25A rights to correct their bid, it is still an irregularity and the TD "should" be summonned - obviously in the EBU, where a bid is "made" with boxes a lot earlier than in the ACBL, this happens a lot and the "everybody knows" after knocking off the extra 2♠ card that was attached to the meant 2♥ card what happened, so they just go on, happens a lot as well.

Note that in the ACBL, there are a lot of "Law 25A" corrections that "may not be", and it's important to have the TD there on those to determine if it really was inadvertent or whether thinking was involved.

But I have a question about draws attention. I played last night, and the player with Jx opposite AQ with the K offside got two tricks in the suit. I was very surprised that partner didn't play the A when declarer showed out on the J...so much so that when the A got played later, it screamingly drew attention. I, however, waited until the end of the hand (as there wasn't anything to do before the end of the hand) to call the TD.

Is that wrong, if correcting a bid is "drawing attention to an irregularity"?

[barmar]

Do we have to have this argument about what "draw attention to" means every time something like this comes up? Obviously the wording is not as clear as it should be, which leads to confusion and disagreement. But we're obviously not going to come to an agreement, for the same reason we haven't in the past. It can only be resolved by the Law Commission, not here.

This forum needs a list of frequent areas of contention. When a thread gets into one of those topics, we might as well just give up. And perhaps we could forward the list to the WBFLC as a suggestion that they clear up the wording in the next revision.

[pran]

barmar, on 2013-October-15, 09:33, said:

Do we have to have this argument about what "draw attention to" means every time something like this comes up? Obviously the wording is not as clear as it should be, which leads to confusion and disagreement. But we're obviously not going to come to an agreement, for the same reason we haven't in the past. It can only be resolved by the Law Commission, not here.

This forum needs a list of frequent areas of contention. When a thread gets into one of those topics, we might as well just give up. And perhaps we could forward the list to the WBFLC as a suggestion that they clear up the wording in the next revision.

They will probably state that

Law 9A Drawing Attention to an Irregularity said:

1 Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

2. Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may draw attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period. For incorrectly pointed card see Law 65B3.

3. When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

4. There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partner’s apparently mistaken explanation).

is unambiguous and clear to the effect that attention to an irregularity can (legally) only be drawn by a player at the table.


During the play a defender plays two cards to a trick and then takes back one of them. Nobody says anything. May dummy call the director or say anything? No - attention has not been drawn to the irregularity.

This post has been edited by pran: 2013-October-16, 09:10

[barmar]

pran, on 2013-October-15, 15:14, said:

During the play a defender plays two cards to a trick and then takes back one of them. Nobody says anything. May dummy call the director or say anything? No - attention has not been drawn to the irregularity.

Yet if he did the same thing, but said "Oops" as he was taking back one of the cards, we would presumably judge that the interjection constitutes "drawing attention to the irregularity". Seems like a very fine line there.

[blackshoe]

There are several "fine lines" in the rules of this game or, I suspect, any game.

[aguahombre]

Sorry, I don't see a fine line when an irregularity is followed by an "oops".

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-16, 13:45, said:

Sorry, I don't see a fine line when an irregularity is followed by an "oops".

No "oops" in my post

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2013-October-16, 16:16, said:

No "oops" in my post

And no fine line, either. I guess I must have been responding to Barry and Ed.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-16, 13:45, said:

Sorry, I don't see a fine line when an irregularity is followed by an "oops".

OK, replace the verbal "oops" with a facial expression, or fidgeting, or some other expression. Does it have to be verbal to count as "drawing attention"?

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2013-October-14, 07:02, said:

It is legal to have an agreement that South calls the director if he wants his partner to accept the IB, and does not do so if he wants North not to accept the IB.

Since you should call the Director in this situation, is it not an infraction not to do so because of an agreement? It seems to me that it is not legal to have an agreement to gain an advantage through committing an infraction in any jurisdiction.