Comment on irregularity
I know this has been discussed on another forum, but it came up at a club TD meeting and I said I'd check what the consensus was:
One of our TDs said that it's quite common for players in his games to use the stop card inappropriately, either using it for a non-jump bid or not using it for a jump bid. He has taken to asking e.g. "You didn't use the stop card - is that what you meant to bid?"
I said this is OK if the offender is an opponent, but not if they are his partner. It's permissible to draw attention to an irregularity (law 9A1), but not to communicate with partner by illegal means (law 73A1).
I think the consensus was that if an illegal question, comment or mannerism makes parter aware that they've made an unintended call, that call may be changed (law 25A1 and 3), but that the score would be adjusted to take away the advantage accrued by the illegal communication (law 12A1).
Does anyone disagree, or have a different recollection?
Comments
I disagree! I know it has in the past been the case that PPs have been used in this way, but I do not think they should. An adjustment and a PP serve different purposes, and if you are going to award a PP it should be on the basis of the seriousness of the offence, not the degree of damage it does. If you are trying to restore damage, that should be by adjusting the score.
I think any player should take the opportunity to ask "is that your intended call" if there is any suggestion that it is not intended (bidding card fumbles, not consistent with stop card). I think it is OK for partner to ask when the call looks unintended in the context of the auction.
If the TD thinks there has been abuse, he should let the score stand but record the hand. If there are examples of abuse then policy/practice can change.
The law book and the White Book have been moving away from split adjusted scores being implemented using procedural penalties for decades - let us not return.
Partner may change an unintended call no matter how they come to realise that they've made an unintended call up to the time that you make your call.
Another way to look at this situation is simply that the question about the intended bid is contrary to Law 73A1 and a warning/PP is appropriate for that. That partner has made unexpected use (or non-use) of the stop card is unauthorised information.
I would agree with the concensus - partner may change his call without penalty (usual caveats apply): whether a PP is issued depends on how he found out that he had made the wrong call and the amount should normally be a standard one, not related to the change in score.
Regarding Robin's sugegstion - note the qualifications: unfortunately the director is not present at the time of the fumble and it is quite possible that the UI might enable the player to 'wake up' when he has made a non-systemic response due to a 'brain-freeze'. (Yes we know he can't change the call under those circumstances, but he might be able to persude the TD that the circumstances were different).
[Gordon] "I disagree! I know it has in the past been the case that PPs have been used in this way, but I do not think they should."
I wasn't suggesting use of procedural penalties, I was thinking of a score adjustment under law 12A1.
[Robin] "The law book and the White Book have been moving away from split adjusted scores being implemented using procedural penalties for decades - let us not return."
I really wasn't suggesting using procedural penalties or split adjusted scores, just adjusted scores.
[Weejonnie] "I would agree with the concensus - partner may change his call without penalty (usual caveats apply): whether a PP is issued depends on how he found out that he had made the wrong call and the amount should normally be a standard one, not related to the change in score."
Who's talking about using a procedural penalty to change the score, for heaven's sake? (I really didn't, did I?)
I did say in the meeting that there could be times when you suspect partner may have made an unintended bid, e.g. if the top card slips off the pile and lands on the floor, but I wasn't sure how far this should be extended. I can see the potential for abuse, e.g. asking if partner really intended to splinter because you have a shortage in the suit yourself, or jumping to slam in a suit when you've agreed another.
I'll report back and say the comments are legal and OK. And I won't mention procedural penalties!
Sorry, whenever this has been discussed before, that's what was being suggested. But you can't use 12A1 to adjust because 25A allows the call to be changed.
I would never draw attention to the inappropriate use (or failure to use) of the Stop card.
If the player has made the wrong bid it is almost always intentionally after wrongly calculating the appropriate level.
I don't want to give them the opportunity to plead "Mechanical Error" when it wasn't. And I don't want to entice them to supply additional UI when they realise their error.
Alan
No, you didn't. But applying penalties has been suggested as a way of giving the "offending" side their score if Law 25A had not been applied. Your wording suggested to me (and Gordon) that that was what you proposed.
We don't think you can give a split score (if that was what you proposed) because deficient split scores are only permitted by: Law 11A, Law 12C1 (e), Law 12C2, Law 43B3, Law 79B3.
[Gordon] "Sorry, whenever this has been discussed before, that's what was being suggested. But you can't use 12A1 to adjust because 25A allows the call to be changed."
What I think I'd remembered was that it was agreed to allow offender to change their call, because the law says they can, but then adjust the score anyway (using law 12A1, not procedural penalties) because offender's partner's comment was itself a breach of law. Obviously I'd misremembered, or opinions have changed since.
I would be happier if the comment was more neutral, on the lines of "you didn't use the stop card" rather than leading "was that what you intended to bid?".
Thanks for clearing the matter up.
I asked a member of the WBFLC whether he thought we could give a penalty for asking such a question and he said he thought we could, but that he would only do so if it turned out that the call was not unintended.