Legal Double

[bluejak]

Originally Posted by Nick Whitten

Durrh I hadn’t been considering that. I had always regarded someone who bid the wrong number (but the right suit) had done so intentionally at the time. But that aint necessarily so.
So I guess that whenever a player says he was intending to bid 2C (or whatever) and actually bids 1C AND the hand is consistent with the 2C bid according to their methods, then 25A should apply (and the next opponent does not have the option of condoning the IB).
Does that seem reasonable?

Not in my view, as explained above. You are considering whether it is unintended and ignoring whether there is an attempt to change in time.

[Ed Reppert]

David, do you include calling the director in "attempt to change in time"? Does it matter who calls?

I daresay I might be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail if I ruled that 25A cannot apply when either someone called the director before an attempt to change, or the person who made the call in question called the TD instead of immediately attempting to change it.

[bluejak]

Originally Posted by Nick Whitten

I’m confused about the “should not be looking at the player's hand until after the play”. I don’t see how it can be avoided in many situations.
For example if someone wants to change an unintended call, a glance at the hand will often establish whether it should be allowed or not. Isn’t that better than allowing the change anyway and later having to decide whether the player lied or not?
And in many other situations a ruling can be made more quickly/simply knowing what the offenders hand is.

One of the strongest rules for competent TDs is "Never look into a player's hand until afterwards". Suppose a player says he wants to change a call under Law 25A from 1C to 1S. You look at this hand, and he has five clubs and five spades. What do you do now? Look puzzled, and say "But you have got five clubs as well?" You might just as well put his hand face up on the table!

In Law 25A cases you only want to know whether the call was unintended: ask the player what he intended at the moment he reached for the bidding box or bidding sheet. Don't get side-tracked by the contents of his hand, which might puzzle you. Any ruling you make then is tainted.

What are these other situations where a ruling can be made more quickly and simply? I do not like the sound of them. Anytime you look into a player's hand and make a decision you are telling the other three players something about the hand, and that is a no-no.

[bluejak]

Originally Posted by Ed Reppert

David, do you include calling the director in "attempt to change in time"? Does it matter who calls?

I daresay I might be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail if I ruled that 25A cannot apply when either someone called the director before an attempt to change, or the person who made the call in question called the TD instead of immediately attempting to change it.

If he attempted to change it by calling the TD, fine. He calls the TD, says "I bid 1D but I meant to bid 2D", of course it is in time. All you need to do is decide whether it was unintended.

But years of posts on RGB and previously on BLML have indicated that the following sequence of events is normal in the ACBL:

Player A bids 1D which is insufficient, and lapses into a trance. Player Z, an opponent, screams "DIRECTOR", waking people up at the nearest eight tables. He tells the TD that player A made an insufficient bid. The TD takes player A away from the table, and asks him what he intended to bid. Player A, not being a total fool, says "Two diamonds". The TD allows a Law 25A change - and that's illegal.

[Ed Reppert]

Well, at least I've never done that.