[axman]

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.

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: Yesterday, 16:11

[mycroft]

As I said, L82C rather than 16.

I don't dispute that there are Laws in bridge that involve mind-reading (or, as I prefer to phrase it, "ruling on disputed facts", even if I'm the one disputing them). But directors' errors should be handled the way the Law requires, not by inventing information coming from "you bid 1♠ with a 2=4=4=3 16 count, you partner has to take that into account when the director allows the change to 1NT".

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2026-July-08, 13:26, said:

The unintended call law is supposed to be for mechanical errors -- you meant to bid 1♥ but your finger slipped and pulled the 1♠ card by accident. When you correct this to 1♥, there's no UI because nothing about this suggests anything different from if you had bid 1♥ as intended.

This is why it makes perfect sense to pretend the original call never happened.

But also why it would make perfect sense to actually say this in the Laws, rather than just as an apology in the Commentary.

[mycroft]

I have to admit I have always found this extremely clear. Whether it was just explained to me by [Director] as a player before I passed my test, or whether "if the player's original intent" (25A2) was the flag - "a finger [originally "mouth", I remember the pre-bidding box times, and wow am I celebrating the *memory*] issue or a brain issue" has been obvious to me for at least 3 Laws revisions.

I applaud the Commentary. Would the Laws be better if they were less terse, less scaffolded on cross-references, and perhaps reordered? Arguably, yes. But as Laws and by-laws everywhere have proven, no matter how prolix the writers, explanations, examples, and (in the British-influenced world at least (*)) case law will be required.

But we had to put a footnote in for 64A1 because too many people read that one the wrong way; maybe it is time for Yet Another State the Obvious Footnote that brings the "loss of concentration" terminology in from the cold Commentary.

(*) Who owned the copyright in the Laws? And who, of those three, was the last to be on board?