[axman]

pran, on 2019-December-01, 09:29, said:

I remember a very disputed law(?) but am unable to find it in my archives.
It must have been more recent than 1980 and it might quite possibly have been only a minute or a suggestion within the law committee, never making it's way to the laws.

The story was that Kaplan had been so confused over an unexpected answer to his Blackwood 4NT that he passed instead of correcting to the agreed trump denomination.

The rule I remember was that the offending player was (or should be) allowed to change his call to the obviously intended call, but his side could then not score better than 40% on that board. (The non-offending side would receive the table result.)

you are recollecting 1997WBF25B. I suppose that I was the very first in America to suffer at the hands of this abomination in a tournament- May 30, 1997

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-December-01, 10:29, said:

I think that was an interpretation, not something in the actual law.

Interpretation of what?

[blackshoe]

What Kaplan thought the law should be.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2019-December-01, 10:29, said:

I think that was an interpretation, not something in the actual law.

Quote

(2) Substitute Another Call
make any other legal call, in which case (penalty) the auction proceeds normally (but offender's partner may not base calls on information from withdrawn calls); the offending side **) may receive no score greater than average minus (see Law 12C1).

Not really subject to interpretation.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2019-December-01, 18:08, said:

Quote

(2) Substitute Another Call
make any other legal call, in which case (penalty) the auction proceeds normally (but offender's partner may not base calls on information from withdrawn calls); the offending side **) may receive no score greater than average minus (see Law 12C1).

Not really subject to interpretation.

Where did you find this, please?
I found it - thanks to axman

[pescetom]

1997 Law 25B said:

2) Substitute Another Call
make any other legal call, in which case (penalty) the auction proceeds normally (but offender's partner may not base calls on information from withdrawn calls); the offending side **) may receive no score greater than average minus (see Law 12C1).

I didn't know about this one, why was it withdrawn?

An 'idiocy cap' like this sounds like a good compromise to me - you play bridge rather than random nonsense, but you pay a clear price for your mistake. It could be applied equally to mechanical errors too, so long as the regulations are not too trigger happy about when a bidding card has been selected.

My only quibble is that maybe it should not be a flat 40% maximum, otherwise the offender might not be incentivated to bid and play like the rest of the room - half (or two-thirds) of the actual percentage obtained at table might be more appropriate.

[pran]

pescetom, on 2019-December-03, 11:04, said:

I didn't know about this one, why was it withdrawn?

An 'idiocy cap' like this sounds like a good compromise to me - you play bridge rather than random nonsense, but you pay a clear price for your mistake. It could be applied equally to mechanical errors too, so long as the regulations are not too trigger happy about when a bidding card has been selected.

My only quibble is that maybe it should not be a flat 40% maximum, otherwise the offender might not be incentivated to bid and play like the rest of the room - half (or two-thirds) of the actual percentage obtained at table might be more appropriate.

I assume it was withdrawn simply because WBFLC realized that it was a silly rule?

[pescetom]

pran, on 2019-December-03, 11:43, said:

I assume it was withdrawn simply because WBFLC realized that it was a silly rule?

It's reassuring to hear you concede that WBFLC sometimes make silly rules.

I find this one less silly than having to play out 5♣ in a 2-3 fit when you forget to return to trumps after a dismaying zero keycard reply. But if you think that enforcing a similar humiliation and offering an unearned top to opponents is good law, then I respect your opinion.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2019-December-04, 07:12, said:

I find this one less silly than having to play out 5♣ in a 2-3 fit when you forget to return to trumps after a dismaying zero keycard reply. But if you think that enforcing a similar humiliation and offering an unearned top to opponents is good law, then I respect your opinion.

All you have to do is say "oh *****" after you screw up, and the director will let you change your pass.

Edit: ***** censorship.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2019-December-04, 09:15, said:

All you have to do is say "oh *****" after you screw up, and the director will let you change your pass.

Edit: ***** censorship.

That ruling was really sexist as well. I thought it was the play of a card though. And also the declarer felt she made a mistake and should take her lumps; it was dummy who requested a ruling and somehow got the committee to agree with him.

Anyway the Kaplan thing was, as I mentioned above, a truly egregious sample of the ACBL imposing its will on the rest of the world. Even the ACBL members who knew about it were appalled. Luckily, I think that we were in the minority, thus the law was rarely applied, as players didn’t think they had the right to do this.

Gordon, probably the reason you didn’t know of this law is because the EBU wisely chose to ignore it — although I did erroneously say it was 30% when it was 40%, so it could be that. LOL or maybe you blocked it out.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2019-December-03, 11:43, said:

I assume it was withdrawn simply because WBFLC realized that it was a silly rule?

Silly? You are very polite.