[pran]

gnasher, on 2014-March-22, 14:12, said:

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.

He can, but seldom will be. Especially not when it is involuntary.
It is the use of UI that is questionable.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2014-March-22, 14:46, said:

He can, but seldom will be. Especially not when it is involuntary.

But in this situation he probably should be. He has broken the rules in a situation where he can expect his infraction to improve his side's expected score. To me that seems an offence worthy of a procedural penalty (as well as a rectification under Law 23C).

Quote

It is the use of UI that is questionable.

You may regard it as questionable if you wish, but it's permitted. That's what the footnote to Law 25A1 says.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2014-March-22, 15:58, said:

pran, on 2014-March-22, 14:46, said:

He can, but seldom will be. Especially not when it is involuntary.

But in this situation he probably should be. He has broken the rules in a situation where he can expect his infraction to improve his side's expected score. To me that seems an offence worthy of a procedural penalty (as well as a rectification under Law 23C).

pran, on 2014-March-22, 14:46, said:

It is the use of UI that is questionable.

You may regard it as questionable if you wish, but it's permitted. That's what the footnote to Law 25A1 says.

So what is the problem?

North is certainly skating on thin ice here, but as I have indicated: Depending on circumstances I might allow it.

Now consider a slightly different situation: Instead of asking whether South's bid was unintended North simply ALERTS.

And when asked North states that South's bid makes no sense - it is impossible according to their agreements.

Essentially this is an equivalent situation, but is there any irregularity at all now?
According to most (if not all) regulations the alert is in order. The explanation is correct and South will demand his Law 25A privilege.

[gnasher]

Quote

So what is the problem?

North is certainly skating on thin ice here, but as I have indicated: Depending on circumstances I might allow it.

Now consider a slightly different situation: Instead of asking whether South's bid was unintended North simply ALERTS.

And when asked North states that South's bid makes no sense - it is impossible according to their agreements.

Essentially this is an equivalent situation, but is there any irregularity at all now?
According to most (if not all) regulations the alert is in order. The explanation is correct and South will demand his Law 25A privilege.

They're not equivalent situations. In the first case, North has broken the rules in a way that will improve his score; in the second he has followed the rules.

In both cases South is allowed to correct his bid, but in the first case we then penalise North for his infraction and adjust under Law 23.

[lamford]

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

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.

Or Law 73. That would be the approach I would adopt without the WBFLC minute, but both the minute and accepted practice indicate that, whatever the Laws say, there is no rectification whatsoever for the gain from correcting a mechanical error discovered as a result of an alert or announcement. I fear you are flogging a dead horse with this issue!

[pran]

gnasher, on 2014-March-23, 02:56, said:

They're not equivalent situations. In the first case, North has broken the rules in a way that will improve his score; in the second he has followed the rules.

In both cases South is allowed to correct his bid, but in the first case we then penalise North for his infraction and adjust under Law 23.

His alert is as illegal as his question. It was not used to alert his opponents but to alert his partner. In either case you can claim that North communicated illegally with his partner and in either case the result is the same: South becomes aware of his unintended call and may legally correct it.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2014-March-23, 07:13, said:

His alert is as illegal as his question. It was not used to alert his opponents but to alert his partner. In either case you can claim that North communicated illegally with his partner and in either case the result is the same: South becomes aware of his unintended call and may legally correct it.

I was replying to a post where you implied that the alert was in accordance with the alerting regulations. Such an alert is, by definition, legal.

Consider these scenarios:
(1) North alerts, and the regulations say he should alert.
(2) North alerts, even though the regulations say he should not alert.
(3) North says something to indicate that he thinks South has misbid.

(1) is legal and is not subject to penalty or rectification. (2) and (3) are illegal, and are subject to penalty and rectification.

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2014-March-23, 07:13, said:

His alert is as illegal as his question. It was not used to alert his opponents but to alert his partner. In either case you can claim that North communicated illegally with his partner and in either case the result is the same: South becomes aware of his unintended call and may legally correct it.

If N alerts in the wrong jurisdiction (where bids above 3N should not be alerted) does it make any difference as regards penalising him ?

[blackshoe]

Different jurisdictions will have different alerting regulations. In the ACBL, for example, in no case does the regulation say "do not alert". It does say that some calls "do not require" an alert, but it also says "when in doubt, alert". So I don't think #2 above is an infraction in the ACBL. It may be elsewhere, of course.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-23, 09:39, said:

Different jurisdictions will have different alerting regulations. In the ACBL, for example, in no case does the regulation say "do not alert". It does say that some calls "do not require" an alert, but it also says "when in doubt, alert". So I don't think #2 above is an infraction in the ACBL. It may be elsewhere, of course.

The same in Norway.

A popular interpretation of ALERT is that "you might be interested in some more information on that call".

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2014-March-23, 10:55, said:

The same in Norway.

A popular interpretation of ALERT is that "you might be interested in some more information on that call".

Here it would be improper to alert bids (after the first round of the auction) and most doubles above 3NT. I don't think that this infraction would normally be subject to more than a warning, unless the alert was used to wake partner up to the fact that he might have made an inadvertent call.

This whole thing reminds me of something that happened recently. I put down a pass card, and was clearly going back to my bidding box to take out another bid. In the meantime, LHO took out a pass card at the speed of sound (in fact he didn't take the time to even put it on the table, but held it out in his hand). After a moment of confusion, I realised that I hadn't actually put down the stop card. Anyway I thought that it was sharp and arguably illegal for a player to do this -- take an exceptionally short time to call over a call that was probably unintended, in an attempt to reduce the time between my call and partner's, after which I could not change the call (and would likely not get redress since the original irregularity was mine).

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-23, 12:08, said:

Here it would be improper to alert bids (after the first round of the auction) and most doubles above 3NT. I don't think that this infraction would normally be subject to more than a warning, unless the alert was used happens to wake partner up to the fact that he might have made an inadvertent call.

This whole thing reminds me of something that happened recently. I put down a pass card, and was clearly going back to my bidding box to take out another bid. In the meantime, LHO took out a pass card at the speed of sound (in fact he didn't take the time to even put it on the table, but held it out in his hand). After a moment of confusion, I realised that I hadn't actually put down the stop card. Anyway I thought that it was sharp and arguably illegal for a player to do this -- take an exceptionally short time to call over a call that was probably unintended, in an attempt to reduce the time between my call and partner's, after which I could not change the call (and would likely not get redress since the original irregularity was mine).

FYP.

As to the case in your second paragraph, follow the instapass on your left with an instacall for the director. That should stop partner in his tracks.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-23, 12:56, said:

FYP.

Sorry, I meant what I said in my post. If the alert was made in good faith (which it wouldn't be around here, as everyone knows about alerting above 3NT) then I am not sure what I would do; probably no penalty

Quote

As to the case in your second paragraph, follow the instapass on your left with an instacall for the director. That should stop partner in his tracks.

Quite, but as I said there was a moment of confusion on my part, and I think that this is inevitable when LHO is suddenly holding out a pass card when it is still your turn to bid.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-23, 12:08, said:

This whole thing reminds me of something that happened recently. I put down a pass card, and was clearly going back to my bidding box to take out another bid. In the meantime, LHO took out a pass card at the speed of sound (in fact he didn't take the time to even put it on the table, but held it out in his hand). After a moment of confusion, I realised that I hadn't actually put down the stop card. Anyway I thought that it was sharp and arguably illegal for a player to do this -- take an exceptionally short time to call over a call that was probably unintended, in an attempt to reduce the time between my call and partner's, after which I could not change the call (and would likely not get redress since the original irregularity was mine).

I have always admired the English for their consideration that Bridge is a game for Gentlemen (and Ladies), and I simply cannot believe that a Gentleman would behave like your LHO did?

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2014-March-23, 13:53, said:

I have always admired the English for their consideration that Bridge is a game for Gentlemen (and Ladies), and I simply cannot believe that a Gentleman would behave like your LHO did?

This particular player is a nasty piece of work.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-23, 14:31, said:

This particular player is a nasty piece of work.

All the more reason to get the director involved at every opportunity, it seems to me.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-23, 18:23, said:

All the more reason to get the director involved at every opportunity, it seems to me.

Indeed.

And if I were the Director and got the event described as here I would rule that LHO had violated Law 74C7 and thereby upset the auction.

I would then (if technically possible) cancel both LHO's and partner's subsequent calls and let the player complete his intended bid.

Alternatively I would let the auction and play be completed and stand ready to awarding an assigned adjusted score based on the likely result had the player been allowed to rectify his pass under Law 25A.

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2014-March-22, 03:47, said:

The recipient of information is not himself communicating,

If I say to you: "Stop, there's a car coming" and you react by stopping, then we have communicated and you have participated in the communication (whether or not you thank me for my warning).

gnasher, on 2014-March-22, 03:47, said:

so the misbidder is not committing an offence by seeing partner's alert.

Similarly, if North alerts South's call and South reacts to that alert, then North and South have communicated. That is explicity classified as being illegal under Laws 73A1 and 73B1

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2014-March-23, 06:17, said:

Or Law 73. That would be the approach I would adopt without the WBFLC minute, but both the minute and accepted practice indicate that, whatever the Laws say, there is no rectification whatsoever for the gain from correcting a mechanical error discovered as a result of an alert or announcement. I fear you are flogging a dead horse with this issue!

I appreciate that you have great experience in flogging dead horses when it comes to bridge Laws! However...

Are you referring to the WBFLC minute in which the footnote to Law 25A was added? I understand that the context of this agenda item is that it had been pointed out to the WBFLC that the suggested practice of allowing a change of call under Law 25A when 'woken up' by partner's alert was a breach of Law 73C. However, the minute itself makes no reference to this anomaly (indeed it does not even mention Laws 73C/73A1/73B1). The fact that these Laws are not mentioned at all in the minute (and that the footnote was added to 25A with no reference to 73) implies that these Laws are not superseded or over-ridden and cannot be ignored.

The approach I suggested in post #8 above (allowing the player to change the call and then adjusting the score later if there has been damage) seems silly, but that is what the WBF Laws when combined with WBFLC minutes seem to require. However, I now see from the learned comments on this recent thread that type of situation is not even unique in the Alice in Wonderland world of WBFLC.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2014-March-24, 18:13, said:

<sni> The fact that these Laws are not mentioned at all in the minute (and that the footnote was added to 25A with no reference to 73) implies that these Laws are not superseded or over-ridden and cannot be ignored.

The approach I suggested in post #8 above (allowing the player to change the call and then adjusting the score later if there has been damage) seems silly, but that is what the WBF Laws when combined with WBFLC minutes seem to require.

Whether or not the Laws require the TD to act as you recommend, I am pretty sure they don't in practice and there is no rectification. Perhaps one or two of our senior TDs can confirm this.