[VixTD]

One of the directors at our club e-mailed me to say that in a recent game his partner made a jump bid, but failed to preface it with use of the stop card. He wanted to know whether his partner had intended to make that call, or had possibly pulled out the wrong card. He thought that since law 9 allows any player (apart from dummy) to draw attention to an irregularity, he should be free to ask.

I've sent him my answer, but what do you think?

[PrecisionL]

No, you may NOT ask about partner's bids. This s a club director? More training needed.

Larry, An ACBL Club Director

[pran]

 PrecisionL, on 2017-February-10, 08:03, said:

No, you may NOT ask about partner's bids. This s a club director? More training needed.

Larry, An ACBL Club Director

I agree.
Also note that (pending regulations) the STOP and ALERT cards (or spoken) are never as such part of any call, and no call ever changes it meaning whether or not STOP (or ALERT) is used with it.

[weejonnie]

Well, first of all we should look at some wordings and definitions.

Irregularity
— a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player.

Infraction
— a player’s breach of Law or of Lawful regulation.

LAW 9 - PROCEDURE FOLLOWING AN IRREGULARITY
A. Drawing Attention to an Irregularity
1. Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

The player IS in breach of a lawful regulation (the RA instruction on stop-card procedure) so the director (as a player) can draw attention to the fact that his partner has made an error in the stop card "You're only supposed to use the stop card if making a skip bid" - however asking "Did you intend to make that call?" is not drawing attention to the irregularity and, furthermore, is asking a question solely for the benefit of his partner. (Law 20G1) - the actual bid made is not, usually, an irregularity.

If his partner, as a result of the question, realises he has made an inadvertent call then he can correct it, off course, but he should call the director before doing so (who presumably could still impose a penalty for use of UI).

So, ultimately, if the director (as player) draws attention to the irregularity then as director, he should impose the sanction the RA requires for the irregularity. (This is probably a warning TBH)

[barmar]

"Did you intend to make that call?" is obviously a bad question, but how about drawing attention to the irregularity with a simple statement like "You forgot to use the STOP card"? Then if the bidder realizes that he inadvertently jumped, it seems like he would be allowed to correct his bid -- the law says says he can correct an unintended call no matter how he becomes aware of it (in the upcoming version, this has been elevated from a footnote to the main text).

BTW, the new version has also added explicit language that explains what's meant by unintended -- it has to be a mechanical error or slip of the tongue, not due to a loss of concentration. I'm not crazy about leaving "slip of the tongue" in there (it's really hard to distinguish that from a slip of the mind), but since almost all bidding these days is mechanical (bidding boxes, written, online) it's probably not very important.

[helene_t]

Yes, Barmar is right.

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2017-February-10, 10:27, said:

I'm not crazy about leaving "slip of the tongue" in there

Actually they've introduced it - it wasn't there before (at least certainly not for a long time).

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2017-February-10, 10:36, said:

Actually they've introduced it - it wasn't there before (at least certainly not for a long time).

I know, that was a slip of the tongue, I meant "having", not "leaving". Or perhaps I was referring to the fact that someone introduced it, and the rest of the committee left it.

[VixTD]

Thanks for your replies. I've had to amend my explanation slightly in light of them. I should have asked you first.