LAW 25: Changes of Call
LAW 25: LEGAL AND ILLEGAL CHANGES OF CALL
A1. If a player discovers that he has not made the call he intended to make, he may, until his partner makes a call, substitute the call he intended for the unintended call. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law, but the lead restrictions in Law 26 do not apply.
This is what happened:
North (Dealer) Studying his hand pulls out the 2NT bidding card and places it on the table. East (his LHO) pulls out a green ‘Pass’ card and places it on the table. South verbally announced "twenty to twenty two" - on hearing this North says "oh sorry I've pulled out the wrong card I thought I had pulled out the 2H card" and he wants to change his bid.
Has this gone too far for the unintended call to be corrected by the intended call?
Comments
Does the answer come down to - is an 'Alert' a 'Call' . . . where is Call defined
If South hasn't called there's still time to change it. There is, somewhere, a clarification that Law 25 applies however opener found out they made the wrong call. So it seems we'd allow the change here. We might warn South for announcing a bid they shouldn't, in this particular case we'd probably just mention the relevant section of the blue book.
Blue Book
4G Announcements – 2NT openings and responses
4 G 1 Natural 2NT openings are announced by stating the range, e.g. by saying ‘20 to 22’. It is not necessary to add ‘may contain a singleton’.
Pont - the rules about announcing 2NT openings changed in the Blue Book revision last August.
Rule 4 E 1 now says: A natural 1NT opening is announced by stating the range, e.g. by saying “12 to 14”. Where a
1NT opening which is in principle natural may by agreement contain a low (non-honour)
singleton, it is announced by stating the range followed by “may contain a singleton”.
A natural 2NT opening and natural NT overcalls are not announced"
The white book has the answers you seek.
The example in WB 8.25.5 addresses the exact point that it doesn't matter that partner's "alert" that woke the player up to their unintended call, their unintended call can be changed.
8.25.5 Law 25A3: ‘no matter how he may have become aware of his error’
...
**Example **
A player makes a call and partner alerts (or announces), and so the player looks to
see what they have bid. If the player now recognises their unintended call, they
may change it, regardless that it was partner’s alert that woke them up.
Try not to look at the example in WB 8.25.4 though...
8.25.4 Law 25A1: Correction of an unintended call
The time limit for the application of Law 25A1 is ‘until his partner makes a call’. The requirement
that there is an attempt to change ‘without pause for thought’ is no longer in Law 25.
**Example **
A player places a bidding card on the table then gazes off into space. Eventually, the
player looks down and sees it is not the card they intended. So long as their partner
has not subsequently called, they are in time, even if it is quite some time after the
call was originally placed.
...
If ever there was an inappropriate example given to justify a law change, that is it. Law 25A.2 specifically says that a change of call cannot be made, "...because of a loss of concentration regarding the intent of the action." Yet the example used to justify the law change illustrates a player that is not concentrating on the game.
The absurdity appeals to my sense of humour.
HTH.
Oh!! - thanks for the update on that rule change -
Thanks Jaded that seems to be the answer
Whilst I am on here . . a similar question on something that often occurs . . . can a player change a card played which was played through 'mechanical errot' . . . example . . . . Player A's RHO plays a small H to QH dummy on table, Player A at lightning speed pulls out and plays a small H and says 'bugger - i didn't mean to play that' (she had the KH in hand. Can this be rectified - what is the Rule (Rule No,)
Law 47F 2
Law 45C. Card Deemed to be Played
1. A defender’s card held so that it is possible for his
partner to see its face is deemed played to the
current trick (if the defender has already made a
legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E).
2. Declarer is deemed to have played a card from his
hand if it is:
(a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the
table; or
(b) maintained in such a position as to indicate that
it has been played.
3. A card in the dummy is played if it has been
deliberately touched by declarer except for the
purpose either of arranging dummy’s cards, or of
reaching a card above or below the card or cards
touched.
4. (a) A card is played if a player names or otherwise
designates it as the card he proposes to play (but
see Law 47).
(b) Declarer may correct an unintended designation
of a card from dummy until he next plays a card
from either his own hand or from dummy. A
change of designation may be allowed after a slip
of the tongue, but not after a loss of
concentration or a reconsideration of action. If
an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was
legal before the change in designation, that
opponent may withdraw the card so played,
return it to his hand, and substitute another (see
Laws 47D and 16C1).
Law 45 C.1. covers when a card is deemed played, specifically by a defender. C.2. covers declarer and C.3. dummy. C.4. covers the case of cards named as played before otherwise being played and C.5. refers to penalty cards (where, in the case of a minor penalty card, it may be possible actually to play a different card).
The basic answer is that it is not possible to change the play of a card from declarer's or a defender's hand even where it was a mechanical error. Law 45 C. 4.(b) covers an unintended designation of a card from dummy.
I believe opponents may choose not to enforce this law and I have seen this happen in 2 situations:
1. Card accidentally dropped into the table. Opponents say 'pick it up'.
2. Online, play of adjacent card, e.g. small from Ax where it's obvious to play Ace, or discarding AH when able to discard 2S (that was me in an online practice game, opponents allowed a change).
My personal view is that in very limited circumstances playing online declarer should be allowed an undo where misclicked play of the card is immediately replaced by a claim.
Thanks Gordon / Roger
A card accidentally dropped on the table by declarer is not played and can be picked up.
And a non-honour card dropped accidentally by a defender only becomes a minor penalty card, which does not need to be played at once.
The change was August/September 2022
From Blue Book 2022
I'll treat the use by Player A of the "B" word as being outside the scope of this thread! The best that Player A can do in the way of claiming a "mechanical error" is to assert that he had accidentally dropped his card, but as he played the card at lightening speed, he probably wouldn't convince any TD who was born before yesterday that he had accidentally dropped it. If (in a different scenario) he actually had dropped that single card, and we are happy that it was accidentally dropped, , it would become a Penalty Card and, unless a Minor Penalty Card (See Law 50), then it would still have to be played anyway (as long as not revoking).
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
On the subject of 2NT announcements: a situation came up recently where I did actually need to know the 2NT range (I was considering a penalty double, and needed to work out the odds that the opponents would raise to 3NT if I didn't double, which is more likely the stronger the 2NT opening is).
I am now wondering whether this means that I have to ask for the 2NT range every time the bid is made, because otherwise, if I ask and pass, partner will know that I'm very likely to be considering a double. (This seems a bit awkward, because it would be so rare for me to care about the response – I'd just be doing it to avoid UI.)
Another possibility is to check the opponents' system card, but playing online, they typically don't have one. (Maybe a compromise is to look at their 2-level structure, and assume that an unalerted 2NT is 20-22 unless they have a way to show a balanced range starting with 2 of a suit, in which case ask.)
I may not be up to date with latest EBU guidance on this. Playing online with self alerting/announcing I thought that 1NT and 2NT opening bids and rebids were meant to be explained with a HCP range + ancillary details, e.g. may contain singleton, or alerted if not natural.
I've always assumed the change to not announcing a 2NT opening range is to prevent too many announcements being overheard with players overhearing, say 19-20, 20-22 at nearby tables. Responder now knows partner has 20 HCP.
As next in hand, unless I already know what the range is from experience of playing against the pair, I will ask. I will almost always ask the meaning of any 'stop' bids that are alerted as I have nothing better to do for the next 10 seconds. I won't where it appears there may be a misunderstanding.
In general relatively inexperienced players, along with many others, announce the strength of bids where they shouldn't, e.g. jump overcalls, and don't where they should, e.g. jump change of suit responses.
I've also found that playing online, particularly in private matches, only about half of highly experienced players provide a range for 1NT openings, even where they're playing different ranges in different positions and/or at different vulnerabilities. Too often they don't provide this information even when asked and if this delays play of the board there's no realistic possibility of obtaining a score adjustment.
Hmm! Perhaps I'm beginning to rant so I'll stop.
However, perhaps the EBU could remind clubs of their responsibilities in keeping players up to date with current alerting and announcing rules. Some have emailed all members and others haven't even properly informed club volunteer TDs (there might be a sheet pinned to a noticeboard behind a computer screen or behind notes on the scoring and reporting process).
Do they have such a responsibility?
I mean it's a good thing and any good club would, but is it actually a duty/responsibility?
This is one of the pitfalls of the current regulations - damned if you do and damned if you don't.
We have changed the alerting and announcing rules for our friendly sessions, at which inexperienced players are present.
There are no alerts. All ranges, unexpected strengths and conventional calls must be announced by partner.
We did this to help the inexperienced players, but actually it does away with any issues about defence not knowing what's going on or being at a disadvantage by either asking or not asking. It works very well.
OK, you may be giving UI, but that's not illegal, If the person making the call has got the system wrong, it will be obvious once their hand is known, and we can check for unauthorised use of UI. It's no different to the opposition asking every time.
I have never understood why pairs should be put at a disadvantage because their opponents use weird conventions.
I've never seen a situation where someone needed to know this. Do you think that people are more likely to bid sub-strength games when the points are more unevenly divided? That seems to be what you are saying, unless I misunderstand.
I guess players are more likely to raise a slightly stronger 2NT to game in theory. It's probably quite marginal. The reasoning given for the change was that all 2NT ranges are broadly similar and that probably opponents didn't really need to know, say, 19-20 or 20-22. Even a lot of experienced players just don't seem to know this is a change except for those I've told directly at some point. I guess it's a bit counterintuitive and doesn't stick in the mind too well.
If you're worried about needing to know you do have a bit of a problem, asking would certainly seem unusual. You could get in the habit of sneaking a peak at the convention card and noting the range at the start of the round.
No - unless the club has in their constitution that they will always apply the current EBU Blue and White Books, they would have to ratify said changes. Remember that each club is their own regulatory authority - they can say for instance that only a non-weak NT need be announced or allow more options for 2-level bids than permitted in the Blue Book. As long as they don't break the actual laws of bridge e.g. outlawing psychic natural calls, they can do whatever is permitted in Law 40B.2
I suspect that for every player who is woken up by an announcement telling them the range which they had forgotten or that it is natural which tyhey had forgotten there are a lot of players who don't know/do know and/or find it hard to get out of the habit of some years. Not sure it was the wisest change.
I visited another club this afternoon. A 2NT opening was announced as was an alertable 2C. That's 2/2 in a field with NGS about 53-54. It's particularly difficult for Club TDs if they don't know which version of Blue and White books have been adopted by the Club or whether members and/or visitors have been informed.
Not sub-strength – the situation that matters is when the game might have enough HCP to be bid normally, but goes down due to, e.g., a lack of stopper. (The specific situation that prompted this is that RHO opened 2NT, and I had a good long suit and enough entries that I thought I could run it – but that still leaves plenty of space for the opponents to have 25 HCP between them.) Say I have an 11-count with a running suit, and RHO opens 2NT. If RHO has an 18-count (and the bid systemically shows an 18-count), then there are 11 points outstanding, of which LHO is likely to have 5-6 on average, and they probably won't raise to game. If RHO has a 22-count (and the bid systemically shows a 22-count), then there are 7 points outstanding, of which LHO is likely to have 3-4 on average, and they will almost certainly raise to game.
Another way to think about it: the stronger the 2NT opening, the weaker my partner is likely to be, thus the more HCP the opponents are likely to hold between them (because my hand is constant but my partner's got weaker). That makes them more likely to bid game. (And of course, I generally want to double 2NT if they aren't going to raise to 3NT, but delay and double 3NT if they are going to raise.)
So it's not that people are more likely to bid sub-strength games when the points are more unevenly divided, but rather that they're more likely to bid games when they're strong than when they're weak, even in situations where the game fails for a reason unrelated to the strengths of their hands.
According to the Blue Book 2023 (unless I've missed something), a natural (i.e. balanced) 2NT opening bid only has to have 16+ HCP. Quite a lot of scope for variation, and hence a need to know the 2NT range.
It's not that the strength of the bid can't vary, but that the desire to bid over it is usually not affected by that strength.
ais523's reasoning is too deep for me!
Let's not forget that we went for a long time without 2NT bid strengths being announced.
[Unnecessary remarks removed.]
I remember a time when 1NT was limited to a 3-point range between 12 and 18 points. Is remembering that something was once the case a strong enough argument to revert back to it? I highly doubt it.
However, following on from the point made by @JeremyChild, it would appear that:
1NT 16-18 is announced, but
2NT 16-18 isn't announced.
I can only wonder why.
Previous post edited to remove a comment which others objected to as unnecessarily rude.
Please, let's not have double-standards here.
If you want to remove a comment, then you just remove it.
If you want to accuse me of making a rude comment, then you need to make your case.
My comment was not rude in any way.
The accusation that my comment was 'rude' is unsubstantiated and demonstrably rude itself.
If you want to keep the peace, then don't editorialise your moderating decisions with gratuitous ad hominens.
As far as the editing went, I have no issues with it. I just have an issue with being summarily accused of being rude.
There's no need for it.