[BLML] Do you believe a claim of mispull?

Grattan grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk
Mon Aug 3 08:31:03 CEST 2009

Grattan Endicott<grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk
(also <gesta at tiscali.co.uk - temporarily or
              perhaps permanently suspended)
" A vacuum can only exist, I imagine,
  by the things which enclose it."
                  ~ Zelda Fitzgerald  (1932)
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Grabiner" <grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu>
To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:19 AM
Subject: [BLML] Do you believe a claim of mispull?

 It seems to have become common that players who commit 
an infraction with a bidding box claim to have mispulled, 
rather than to have made a mental error.
 Should we treat this claim skeptically, as we do when a 
player who had unauthorized information claims that he had 
no logical alternative in his bidding system, or claims that he 
has an unmarked agreement and there was a misbid rather 
than misinformation?
 For example:
 W   N   E
 1S  2D  2C

 When the director was called about the insufficient bid, East 
claimed to have mispulled, and thus South was not given a 
chance to accept the insufficient bid.
 This is certainly a reasonable mispull, but East's hand was 
rather weak to have intended a 3C bid.  (I don't know whether 
N-S were damaged by denying South the opportunity to 
accept the 2C bid.)

 I have also seen players claim a mispull which was unlikely 
given the call; one player claimed to have mispulled a pass 
when he intended to make a bid (and not a skip bid; mispulling 
a pass when the intention was to pull the STOP card is
+=+ I would be interested to know what the bidding box regulations
were that applied in this situation. Did they say anything, for example,
about "without pause for thought"? The other question, of course,
is exactly what the ruling was.
                                               ~ Grattan ~   +=+

More information about the Blml mailing list