Incorrect ruling?
Just playing when my LHO pulled 4S from the bidding box, clearly seen by everyone. He then put it back and played 4NT - ace asking. My partner called the TD who ruled it allowable because the card had not touch the table. My partner was quite upset but accepted the TD decision. He said "I was watching your table at the time".
As a TD I felt it wrong, Should I question the TD as a player at the table? The TD has been directing for a very long time and one assumes he knows best.
Elizabeth
sheba 777
Comments
Elizabeth,
Within EBU jurisdiction the Blue Book contains bidding box regulations and BB 3Z A 2 has "A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent (but the TD may apply Law 25)."
So, the TD was wrong about "touching the table" but should ask the player what his intent was ... L25 allows "simple mechanical errors" (most often the next card stuck to the front of the one you want but other things happen too) to be corrected.
Peter
I agree. The 4S call was made but was likely a mechanical error and could be corrected under Law 25A.
Alan
Not necessarily, if it was a borderline hand between signing off or bidding on.
In most cases, with a Director I know and respect, I would point out the mistake privately later.
Alan
I think it's ok to question a TD as long as it's done politely, usually by asking for the law/regulation that covers it.
How relevant is the suitability of the hand for the claimed intended bid? It's perfectly possible to get confused and/or forget the system and intend to bid the wrong bid, only to realise and try to correct it. That's not mechanical error.
I have heard it said that "we tend to believe people when they say it's a mechanical error". Is this so? What about a 2H over 1NT "corrected" to 2D, or after 1NT - x when they play system on?
I ask because I wish for guidance. This is one of the few parts of the law where the player's intention is relevant, and I find it difficult to know where the burden of proof lies.
On a side note, how often do you get players claiming mechanical error during play, when they've pulled out the wrong card? :)
I usually find that when the wrong card comes out there is an immediate 'oops' and the offending cards are then put back in - often the offending card comes out higglety pigglety because it was stuck to the card that the caller intended to make and the caller then immediately puts it back. If insufficient cards are pulled out by mistake then the perpetrator will normally just pull out the extra one(s), rather than replace the call made and then pull out a new call. I think it is psychological - put the cards back and you are then seeing yourself as making a new call, put the outstanding cards out and then you are correcting an inadvertent one.
Thanks everyone. I've read all your responses. - the 4S was definitely the call & then a change of mind. Mechanical error was not mentioned. It was my partner who promptly called the TD, who always believes he is always correct however, I do respect him (most of the time). For Jeremy I can say not too many players claim mechanical error at my club, or know the terminology, I think Gordon's answer is probably the best way for me.
Now for another incident - different partner. I was declarer when dummy interrupted and claimed one of the opposition was giving signals. Is dummy allowed to speak in this instance or wait until I finish the game? It ended up rather messy with one of the opponent saying "you're accusing me of cheating" which was followed by a call to the TD.
New at directing, she did not know what to do or say but suggested she called another director - I was the only qualified TD available and saw nothing. I suggested we get on with the game and she could check the results later.
I knew the two chaps and felt they were not the type to deliberately cheat. What would you have done?
elizabeth
Players do not need to claim a mechanical error or know the term to be allowed to correct. When there is a change of call the TD must investigate and see whether Law 25A or Law 25B applies: see which words in Law 25A2 best describe the reason for the change of call.
I have started a new thread.