Help
mycroft, on 2026-July-08, 10:03, said:
Heh, I was going to try to explain your argument to blackshoe, but realized I might not have it right enough.
But again, the difference between "communication" and "information" rears its ugly head. Communication that passes no relevant bridge information does not, and should not, matter.
And the commentary agrees.
But say it does trigger L16/73? I mean, to the letter of the law, it is "extraneous information from partner". How do you "carefully avoid" using "my fingernails caught the wrong card", or "the bidding cards are sticky", or any of the other reasons for a player to have made an unintended call? What is "demonstrably suggested" by that information? Assuming the director believes and rules that it was unintended, of course.
Like, give a *concrete example*, please, of how "I pulled out a card [EBU et al, for ACBL, read 'put a card on the table'] that I never intended to bid" could possibly lead to a L12 *adjustment* based on that information. Note, however, that "he could have changed his mind" can not be even part of the example, because by L25 definition, it is not; if it turns out that L25 should not have been ruled, we are no longer in L16/73 territory, we are in L82C land.
But again, the difference between "communication" and "information" rears its ugly head. Communication that passes no relevant bridge information does not, and should not, matter.
And the commentary agrees.
But say it does trigger L16/73? I mean, to the letter of the law, it is "extraneous information from partner". How do you "carefully avoid" using "my fingernails caught the wrong card", or "the bidding cards are sticky", or any of the other reasons for a player to have made an unintended call? What is "demonstrably suggested" by that information? Assuming the director believes and rules that it was unintended, of course.
Like, give a *concrete example*, please, of how "I pulled out a card [EBU et al, for ACBL, read 'put a card on the table'] that I never intended to bid" could possibly lead to a L12 *adjustment* based on that information. Note, however, that "he could have changed his mind" can not be even part of the example, because by L25 definition, it is not; if it turns out that L25 should not have been ruled, we are no longer in L16/73 territory, we are in L82C land.
Here is a situation that spawned perhaps the first L25 ACBL tournament ruling under ACBL1997 (I was there):
N
1S-2H-P-P
2S-3H-3S-4H
5S*
* N reached for the BB, stalled and withdrew
N again reached for the BB, stalled and withdrew slooowly
N spent 1.5 minutes** which I characterize as a man really worried; then slowly grabbed a bidding card, but slooowly withdrew
N slowly removed the 5S call, studied it at length, and, what I characterize as tentatively and carefully placed it on the table eyes glued to it all the way
(** In his shoes I would be rather careful (as well) at the 5 level knowing that pard didn’t directly support spades the 1st round. In fact I would be very careful- except I wouldn’t take 3sec being careful.)
+++ what followed I’ll characterize as E portraying Bambi at the end of a very very long tunnel with a high speed train on its way:
After 2 minutes the train had not yet arrived but the pause must have caused N to wonder why it wasn’t his turn yet and he looked up and stared at E. Then he looked around and asked, ‘Is it too late to change my <sic> call?’
At this point it was my duty to summon the TD (to deal with 25B4 hehehehehehee) and supply the particulars. What transpired was curious. The TD ruled that 5S was inadvertent and without pause for thought, and, according to L25A N may change the call without penalty and the auction proceeds as if the festivities hadn’t happened.
Granted, the motivation for this anecdote is to demonstrate that it is wrong headed for law to turn on standards that need mind reading when useful standards are needed for fair play when correcting calls without penalty. As in standards that players use to know when to seek a ruling.
This post has been edited by axman: Today, 16:11