[BLML] Do you believe a claim of mispull?
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
More information about the Blml