[BLML] Do you believe a claim of mispull?

Gordon Rainsford gordonrainsford at btinternet.com
Mon Aug 3 10:48:09 CEST 2009

On 3 Aug 2009, at 03:19, David Grabiner wrote:

> 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.

Directors need to take care to explain the distinction properly.

> 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.)

In practice some Souths would have already called over the 2C bid,  
before its "mechanical error" status had been claimed.

> 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
> reasonable).

More information about the Blml mailing list