Undos: how to explain the regulation

00103024

Please note from 2023 Blue Book. I refer to the bold text, but I am including the whole para before for context.
9 C Online laws
9 C 1 Unintended calls and plays (Law 25A, Law 45C4(b))
BBO and RealBridge allow for calls and plays to be withdrawn on the request of the player, and
with the agreement of the opponents: called an ‘UNDO’. This facility can be restricted by the
tournament organiser.
(a) In all EBU events, there are no UNDOs in the play, except in cases of misinformation

The Tournament Directors might like to consider saying:
"there are no UNDOs in the play, except in cases of misinformation". (or something other than a blanket "no undos".)
I have heard it said: there are no Undos during the play.

As we all know, under some circumstances there is misinformation. In some cases, a card can be retracted.
Of course, it is up to the TD to determine what actually takes place.

As an aside: on RealBridge
Those people who want to know what actually happened at the table without the knowledge of the TD can generate a board report.
The actions of the players are logged. If you can see an example of a board report, please look here:
https://realbridge.online/board-reports.html
If you want more information about this, please contact support@relbridge.online

Robin_BarkerTD

Explanation for players:

• Request an UNDO when you have clicked on the bid/call you did not intend and partner has not called.
• If the opponent has requested an UNDO during the auction and you are happy that it is a genuine mis-click, then accept, otherwise call the TD.
• No UNDOs for mis-clicks in the play of the cards.
• If an explanation is found to be incorrect (misinformation), call the TD .

Explanation for TDs

• If called following a request for UNDO, rule on whether Law 25A applies: if it does, instruct opponents to accept the UNDO (or instruct the player to repeat the request, and instruct the opponents to accept); if Law 25A does not apply, instruct the opponents to reject the UNDO request.
• If called following a case of misinformation in the auction, apply Law 21: this may involve instructing the last-to-call non-offender to request an UNDO, and instructing the opponents to accept.
• If called for misinformation in the play, it may be required to UNDO one played card (Law 47E2(a)). This is very rare and the only time a TD should allow an UNDO to happen in the play.

UsuallyDummy

Robin - the original post appears to focus purely on allowing UNDOs during the play.

Your second bullet "accept a genuine mis-click" presumably only applies during the bidding - it would be useful to clarify.

I play in a local teams league where some matches are played online for convenience - the local regulations include "no UNDOs during play". One very experienced declarer misclicked on dummy (accidentally throwing a King rather than a little card), probably costing two tricks because it was the last entry to dummy. Declarer requested an UNDO which we refused. They accepted the regulation but contested that it is too simplistic - they said that in face-to-face bridge, if declarer calls for a card that is plainly incorrect, then the Oppos will almost always give them the benefit of the doubt.

There are occasions in face-to-face bridge where declarer gets halfway through calling for dummy's card "Kin... sorry, no, four" and (I expect) every player will accept the corrected request. Online there are no half-clicks and you cannot press the UNDO button quickly enough to look like the same "breath". I am satisfied that the EBU regulation is appropriate - online players need to be extra-careful with their clicks. But not everyone agrees.

Robin_BarkerTD

@UsuallyDummy said:
Robin - the original post appears to focus purely on allowing UNDOs during the play.

Your second bullet "accept a genuine mis-click" presumably only applies during the bidding - it would be useful to clarify.

Thanks - edited above

gordonrainsford

@UsuallyDummy said:
Online there are no half-clicks and you cannot press the UNDO button quickly enough to look like the same "breath".

There are double-click options.

JamesC

The regulations don't actually use the term in the same breath, it just has to be clear you intended to call for a different card. Playing online removes the distinction between playing from hand and playing from dummy, either way you're clicking on a card. So it seems strange to treat a play from dummy differently. The right to retract an unintended designation is part of law 45 on played cards, almost none of which can be applied to online play.
This wouldn't be the only situation where the laws aren't completely compatible with online play.

Robin_BarkerTD

Law 25A does not use the phrase "in the same breath". The laws do not use the phrase "without pause for thought".
EBU regulations only use "without pause for thought" in noting that the phrase does not appear in the laws!

JeremyChild

@gordonrainsford said:

@UsuallyDummy said:
Online there are no half-clicks and you cannot press the UNDO button quickly enough to look like the same "breath".

There are double-click options.

So you always say when this topic comes up.
1. Many players find it annoying (and we’re here to enjoy ourselves)
2. Players quickly get into the happen of automatically clicking twice, defeating the object

I appreciate that as chief TD you will always back the laws to the hilt, but not everyone sees it that way.

CMOT_Dibbler

Hi Jeremy
you say "we're here to enjoy ourselves"
"enjoyment" is in the Law book three times but only once incorporated in a Law (Law 74 A2).
"A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or
embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." Note the word "action".
So what about those players "annoyed" because someone regularly requests "Undos" because of their "habit" of just clicking without checking?
Law 74 B1 says that
"a player should refrain from:
1. paying insufficient attention to the game".

As you say "Players quickly get into the happen ( i think you mean habit) of automatically clicking twice defeating the object" So in a way, even if they do or don't have the double click option, they are not paying sufficient attention to the game.

You say "I appreciate that as chief TD you will always back the laws to the hilt, but not everyone sees it that way." So isn't everyone playing duplicate bridge and keeping to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge?

JeremyChild

You say "I appreciate that as chief TD you will always back the laws to the hilt, but not everyone sees it that way." So isn't everyone playing duplicate bridge and keeping to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge?

I suspect very few are playing strictly according to the laws.

Leaving aside such things as the Blue Book 2023 9c1(d), which allows calls to be withdrawn even after partner has called (forbidden by Law 25A1)...

I point to law 10A:
The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive – see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative.

Sure the most ignored law in the book.

Also, how may players clear passes from the table before the opening lead is made?

I could go on.

Senior_Kibitzer

Also, how may players clear passes from the table before the opening lead is made?

Surely that's a matter of regulation, not law. I agree about Law 10A though.

JeremyChild

@Senior_Kibitzer said:

Also, how may players clear passes from the table before the opening lead is made?

Surely that's a matter of regulation, not law. I agree about Law 10A though.

Good point - but they're still rules you are expected to abide by. It's just they can be set by the regulating authority.

CMOT_Dibbler

Jeremy said "I could go on." and there in lies the problem. We (that's the royal "we" by the way) seem more interested in getting players to bid "correctly" than understanding their responsibilties under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. By that I mean not many people know what an irregulaity is or what to do when it hits.
When my partner and I started out we were told we would "pick up the laws as we went along". It took doing the TD job before I started to realise the implications of some actions. Even now there are some circumstances that I don't feel confident about, even as a player never mind a TD.