Jump bid without a STOP card
I made 2 mistakes in an auction today!
My right hand opponent bid 1D and I intended a simple overcall but, for some reason I cannot fathom, bid 2H. Also, because it was not intended as a jump, I did not precede it with the STOP card!
The person who bid 1D asked "Did you intend to jump?", before it was his turn to bid
Everyone passed and that was the final contract.
Should anything have happened or does the 2H contract stand?
Hope that makes sense!
Comments
This comes mainly under law 25. I'll summarise it.
If you intended to bid 1 Heart and accidentally pulled out the 2 Heart bid (known as a mechanical error) then you can change it no matter how you find out that you pulled out the wrong card (e.g. if the player on your right says "Did you intend to jump") PROVIDED your partner has not yet made a call. Once your partner has made a call then you can't change yours (nor should you give any indication you have made the wrong call). If this happens in the future then you should call the director to forestall your partner calling. (NB the player on the right should NOT have said that until it was his turn to make a call).
If, however, you had a mental aberration or lost concentration and at the moment you pulled out the 2H call you intended to make the call then you can't change it. As you can appreciate it can be hard for the Director to work out the circumstances.
You are under no obligation to tell anyone that you intended to bid 1 Heart. Obviously in this case it is a simple matter as everyone else passed, but in a competitive auction you might have the urge to confess. Whilst this might help the opponents it will almost certainly help your partner - and hence is verboten.
If you fail to pull out the stop card then you may get a warning for not observing the stop card regulation - although this guide(2.8.3.4 in the white book) is undoubtadly more often applied by players failing to obey the mandatory pause.
In summary: the result stands. If your opponents missed out on a contract because of your mistake - well that is just the rub of the green.
Great, thanks for reply and all information.
Just to clarify a couple of points.....
My thought process was not "I want to make a simple overcall and should bid 1H" and then inadvertently pulled out the 2H card by mistake.
It was more along the lines of "I want to make a simple overcall and that will be 2H" and then pulled out the 2H card.
So, if I understand correctly, this falls into the "mental aberration" category and cannot be changed - is that right?
Also, once the auction finished and I ended up in the 2H contract.....should I confess my mistake to the opponents? At this point, obviously, I am not passing info to my partner as they are dummy.
You are correct that your call was not unintended within the meaning of the law. You don't have an obligation to tell the opponents that you have misbid.
Thanks.....it's great having this forum to get questions answered!
There has been an apparent irregularity: a jump overcall but no STOP card. Any player can draw attention to the irregularity, they do not have to wait for their turn to call/play. So RHO can say something, and if he wants you to benefit from Law 25A, then he has to say something before dummy calls.
For my interest - does the right to draw attention to an irregularity apply to any irreguiarity or only those actually in the laws themselves. Suppose RHO says "Did you mean to jump" and the player responds (after it is too late to change the call) "No". Then do we have a UI situation?
Chasing through various definitions and laws, I think that an infraction includes failure to follow procedures defined by regulation, and then Law 9A1 applies.
To drawing attention to this irregularity, RHO should start by stating that there appears to have been a failure to follow the stop procedure, rather than asking leading questions of the opponents. Then the TD should be called.
When RHO asks the question, the player should call the TD rather than answer, and the TD will not get the player to answer the question.
When RHO asks the question and the player says "No", then there is unauthorised information; but the TD may find something in Law 9/10/11 to avoid adjusting the score.
There are surely irregularities which are not infractions (but not vice versa)?
If something seems to have gone wrong, even if a player can't put a finger on an infraction (or potential infraction), he is entitled to draw attention to the irregularity, and then all the players have a responsibility to call the director.
The Laws seem to use the words 'irregularity' and infraction' interchangeably without any apparent difference in their meanings. For instance, law 12 C 1 (a) refers to an irregularity and then immediately after that, law 12 C 1 (b) refers to it as an infraction. To say that this particular irregularity is also an infraction and therefore can be described as one or the other, but there are other irregularities which are not infractions and are therefore only referred to as irregularities is simply confusing. And that's not all; at least in one place the word used is 'offence'.
Well, I cant vouch for the laws, but for me an irregularity would be something wrong where the people involved are not to blame (such has having 14 cards or 5 aces in one hand), where as an infraction would involve a breach of some regulation or other (such as a revoke, lead out of turn, underbid etc).
Agree completely.
One wishes the laws would have followed the same principle.
Likewise. Another example would be a long hesitation as an irregularity that is not an infraction (unless intended to communicate with partner or deceive the opponents).
Yes, although there has been quite a lot of progress, there is still work to be done in making the language more consistent.
The Laws do not use the words 'Infraction' and 'Irregularity' interchangeably. If you look in the definitions near the beginning of the Laws you will find:
Infraction: a player’s breach of Law or of Lawful regulation.
Irregularity: a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player.
In order to understand this distinction better can we have a few examples of irregularities which are not infractions and irregularities which are infractions?
Presumably all infractions are irregularities.
The reason why I made my comment is the example given by me earlier, of laws 12-C-1-a and 12-C-1-b, where in two successive sub-sections the same action is referred to as an irregularity and an infraction. It would make life easier if the laws used the words consistently in a manner whereby one could readily identify what is an irregularity and what is an infraction.
Law 60 calls a lead or play out of turn, probably the most common and unintentional of deviations from procedure, an 'offence'!
A good example of an irregularity that's not an infraction would be the situation described in law 16D, in cases where none of the players were responsible for the creation of the UI (for example, if a board breaks while being transferred and the cards fall out face up, assuming that the cause was not due to rough handling by the players). Nobody's broken the rules (apart from possibly tournament staff), but we still need to rectify the situation.
Another irregularity which isn't an infraction is when the dealing machine gives you a joker (which has happened to me in an EBL event!). In general, this category includes everything that isn't the player's fault. It also in theory includes things that are the player's fault, but are not a breach of Law or regulation. I can't think of an obvious example right now, but I am sure there are some.
All infractions are also irregularities. Examples include revoking, not alerting when required, bids and leads out of turn, talking about a hand so loudly another table overhears, being rude to the director, insufficient bids, not counting your cards....