[Gerben42]

---

Three cases:

1. South bids 1♣ insufficient and West accepts by bidding 1♥. Now South notices the insufficient bid and without a pause for thought wants to change it to 2♣ Stayman.

This one is easy. Both 1♣ and 1♥ get cancelled, South gets to bid 2♣ and 1♥ is UI for NS.

2. South bids 1♣ insufficient and North / East notices the insufficiency. The director is called but before he arrives, West says he will accept 1♣ and bids 1♥. Now what?

3. South bids 1♣ insufficient and West points this out. South corrects it to 2♣ again and West calls the director, saying that we wanted to accept 1♣, as allowed by Law 27A, which says:
Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO.

The Laws seem to suggest that the solution for (3) is to allow West to bid 1♥ and then afterwards allow South to correct his bid, giving East a free shot to take advantage of the 1♥ bid. Is that correct?

[pran]

Gerben42, on 2012-May-25, 11:30, said:

---

Three cases:

1. South bids 1♣ insufficient and West accepts by bidding 1♥. Now South notices the insufficient bid and without a pause for thought wants to change it to 2♣ Stayman.

This one is easy. Both 1♣ and 1♥ get cancelled, South gets to bid 2♣ and 1♥ is UI for NS.

2. South bids 1♣ insufficient and North / East notices the insufficiency. The director is called but before he arrives, West says he will accept 1♣ and bids 1♥. Now what?

3. South bids 1♣ insufficient and West points this out. South corrects it to 2♣ again and West calls the director, saying that we wanted to accept 1♣, as allowed by Law 27A, which says:
Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO.

The Laws seem to suggest that the solution for (3) is to allow West to bid 1♥ and then afterwards allow South to correct his bid, giving East a free shot to take advantage of the 1♥ bid. Is that correct?

Case 1 is clear and your ruling is correct.

Cases 2 and 3 depends on South's immediate reaction at the moment he became aware of his insufficient bid.
How he became aware of his irregularity is irrelevant; what matters is whether his reaction is that of a player who apparently has made an unintended call (as in case 1) or who (quickly) has changed his mind.

If South convinces the Director that he never intended the 1♣ bid and that this bid was inadvertent then he shall be allowed a Law 25A rectification and West is denied the right to accept the 1♣ bid. This is for case 2 then the same situation as in case 1

We cannot tell for sure if this will be the situation in case 2 but in case 3 it seems obviouos that the 1♣ bid will not be accepted as inadvertent.

Then South shall be denied a Law 25A rectification and West should first be given the option to accept the 2♣ bid under Law 25B. If West does not accept the 2♣ bid then Law 27 applies on the 1♣ bid by South and West shall be given the option to accept or reject the 1♣ (insufficient) bid.

[gordontd]

Gerben42, on 2012-May-25, 11:30, said:

1. South bids 1♣ insufficient and West accepts by bidding 1♥. Now South notices the insufficient bid and without a pause for thought wants to change it to 2♣ Stayman.

Was it a slip of the hand or a confusion of the brain?

[blackshoe]

Are none of laws 9B2, 9C, 10 or 11 pertinent in cases 2 and 3?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-26, 12:24, said:

Are none of laws 9B2, 9C, 10 or 11 pertinent in cases 2 and 3?

The descriptions indicate that none of the cases could be expected subject to a Law 25A ruling.

On that assumption West is within his rights under Law 27A and there is little reason for the Director to bring in Laws 9 through 11 except possibly for a general reminder.

If however West should have understood from South's reaction that the Director quite possibly might eventually apply Law 25A rather than Law 27 then West's activity deserves at least a warning.

[aguahombre]

In all cases, it was a mechanical thing subject to 25A, unless a 1C opening on zero clubs and 4 points is systemic. North has not acted, so West doesn't get to accept 1C and South gets to bid 2C. I assume South doesn't do this frequently when he has a drop dead Stayman hand.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2012-May-26, 17:40, said:

In all cases, it was a mechanical thing subject to 25A, unless a 1C opening on zero clubs and 4 points is systemic. North has not acted, so West doesn't get to accept 1C and South gets to bid 2C. I assume South doesn't do this frequently when he has a drop dead Stayman hand.

Law 25A shall never be ruled based on the actual hand held by the offender, only based on his behaviour (genuine surprise etc.) at the very moment he became aware of his "mistake". The descriptions of cases 2 and 3 did not indicate a behaviour that justifies Law 25A.

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2012-May-27, 00:38, said:

Law 25A shall never be ruled based on the actual hand held by the offender, only based on his behaviour (genuine surprise etc.) at the very moment he became aware of his "mistake". The descriptions of cases 2 and 3 did not indicate a behaviour that justifies Law 25A.

Fair enough. So, eventually when you (and the opponents) notice what South held in this case, you will be able to judge how well you were able to decide based on his behavior whether it was an intentional call....a reality check on your people-reading skills.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2012-May-27, 09:52

[jhenrikj]

pran, on 2012-May-27, 00:38, said:

Law 25A shall never be ruled based on the actual hand held by the offender, only based on his behaviour (genuine surprise etc.) at the very moment he became aware of his "mistake". The descriptions of cases 2 and 3 did not indicate a behaviour that justifies Law 25A.

In what law do you find that?

Quote

A. Unintended Call

• Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.

There is nothing about acting surprised or anything like that, the only thing the law says is that the player must attempt to change the call without pause for thought. In case 1 and 3 the player tried to change or expressed the will to change the call as soon he found out about it so 25A could be applied in any of those cases. In the 2nd case it's more difficult but the player might just wait for the director to arrive as the player is supposed to do according to 9B.

The problem in the OP I think is that the unintended bid also is insufficient, and because it is insufficient 27 prevails over 25A, but that is not the case. A call is not insufficient unless intended.

In my opinion, many directors rule way to hard in the 25A cases. We have a mechanical error, the error contains no extra information of any kind, if it's possible to make the change and we are convinced that it really is unintended, let them change even if it took them a split second to understand what had happened. We want to play bridge, not punish players for making mechanical errors out of their control. Forcing players to make bids they never intended does only destroy the game for everyone. The key point here is that an unintended call carries no information so there is no problem with UI at all.

[pran]

jhenrikj, on 2012-May-27, 12:39, said:

pran, on 2012-May-27, 00:38, said:

Law 25A shall never be ruled based on the actual hand held by the offender, only based on his behaviour (genuine surprise etc.) at the very moment he became aware of his "mistake". The descriptions of cases 2 and 3 did not indicate a behaviour that justifies Law 25A.

In what law do you find that?
[...]

You won't find it (explicitly) in any law.

However, using your little grey cells you will soon realize that if the Director makes a ruling based on the cards he finds held by a player he at the same time reveals information about that hand to the extent that normal play of the board in most cases is no longer possible.

This should be known by qualified directors as it (to my knowledge) is stressed in every training course as a fundamental rule.

[barmar]

If he allows the change based on what's in the player's hand, how is he revealing information different from what's expressed by the new call?

Or if he takes the player away from the table to find out why he made the IB, the other players shouldn't be able to tell what criteria the TD used.

[jhenrikj]

As a qualified director you should also know that you never ever decide upon a 25A/27 ruling at the table. You take the player away from the table and asks him a few questions. If you feel it necessary you also can look at the cards. When you return to the table nobody knows what facts made you come to your decision so there is no way the board becomes unplayable...

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-May-27, 23:16, said:

If he allows the change based on what's in the player's hand, how is he revealing information different from what's expressed by the new call?

Or if he takes the player away from the table to find out why he made the IB, the other players shouldn't be able to tell what criteria the TD used.

Because what is expressed by a call is according to partnership understanding, not player's hand.

When the Director makes a ruling based (more or less) on knowledge of a player's hand then the ruling itself reveals information about the hand, not only about the partnership understanding.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2012-May-27, 15:49, said:

You won't find it (explicitly) in any law.

Not in any individual numbered law, but in the definitions section at the start of the laws, which does form part of the laws. It says

"Unintended – involuntary; not under control of the will; not the intention of the player at the moment of his action."

This should make it clear that the correct interpretation is as follows.

Suppose a player intends to bid Stayman in response to 1NT. If he reaches for the 2C card and moments later finds the 1C card on the table instead, that is clearly unintended within the meaning of the law above.

But if he knowingly reaches for the 1C card because he momentarily thought that 1C is the Stayman response to 1NT, that is not unintended within the meaning of the laws of bridge, and cannot be corrected under Law 25A. It is an insufficient bid.

This is why the director should ask the player what bid he thought he placed on the table/spoke/wrote at the moment he placed/spoke/wrote it.

[jhenrikj]

If south should have 12 hcp and 2245 distribution, the TD should never allow a 25A correction, how to know without looking at the cards? In general, looking at the cards should be avoided but when applying 25A we have to do it because we have to be convinced that the player did not change his mind and with my example above no one can convince me that he did want to use stayman and not that he was opening 1C.

This is how Ton Koiijman recommends us to apply 25A and even though the document may not be an official WBFLC release, Ton still knows a thing or two about the laws.

[Fluffy]

so what if south was 4324 with 12 HCP? would west have the option to accept 1♣?

In the spannish version of the rules it says in 27C that a premature substitution becomes the bid made.

This creates kind of a race between 27A and 27C because if west wants to accept 1♣ he must bid before south can realice and bid 2♣. This makes no sense to me.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2012-May-28, 06:08, said:

Not in any individual numbered law, but in the definitions section at the start of the laws, which does form part of the laws. It says

"Unintended – involuntary; not under control of the will; not the intention of the player at the moment of his action."

This should make it clear that the correct interpretation is as follows.

Suppose a player intends to bid Stayman in response to 1NT. If he reaches for the 2C card and moments later finds the 1C card on the table instead, that is clearly unintended within the meaning of the law above.

But if he knowingly reaches for the 1C card because he momentarily thought that 1C is the Stayman response to 1NT, that is not unintended within the meaning of the laws of bridge, and cannot be corrected under Law 25A. It is an insufficient bid.

This is why the director should ask the player what bid he thought he placed on the table/spoke/wrote at the moment he placed/spoke/wrote it.

If the player is honest (which we always believe him to be unless we are otherwise convinced) then it makes absolutely no difference whether we ask his intention or just judge from his attitude.

But if his attitude tells you that he (probably) had a slip of the mind you can always just tell him that his attitude seemed to indicate he at the time really reached for the 1♣ bid card and that you therefore cannot rule inadvertent call.

However, if you instead now ask him what he intended and he says "Stayman, 2♣ of course" (he may even believe himself that this is true) then you are stuck. Not ruling Law 25A now is an insult and calling him a liar.

[pran]

jhenrikj, on 2012-May-28, 06:09, said:

If south should have 12 hcp and 2245 distribution, the TD should never allow a 25A correction, how to know without looking at the cards? In general, looking at the cards should be avoided but when applying 25A we have to do it because we have to be convinced that the player did not change his mind and with my example above no one can convince me that he did want to use stayman and not that he was opening 1C.

This is how Ton Koiijman recommends us to apply 25A and even though the document may not be an official WBFLC release, Ton still knows a thing or two about the laws.

The Director always has a follow-up possibility after play is completed in a case like this. And this follow-up would not have been pleasant for the player involved. But I would have been really astonished if the player's attitude in this situation had been that of a player who made an inadvertent call.

[pran]

Fluffy, on 2012-May-28, 06:20, said:

so what if south was 4324 with 12 HCP? would west have the option to accept 1♣?

In the spannish version of the rules it says in 27C that a premature substitution becomes the bid made.

This creates kind of a race between 27A and 27C because if west wants to accept 1♣ he must bid before south can realice and bid 2♣. This makes no sense to me.

If the Director rules Law 25A the inadvertent call is considered never made and thus cannot be accepted by offender's LHO.
If the Director rules Law 27 then LHO can always accept the IB even if offender attempts a premature correction of his IB.

Law 27C said:

If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A allows the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution.

[VixTD]

Gerben42, on 2012-May-25, 11:30, said:

2. South bids 1♣ insufficient and North / East notices the insufficiency. The director is called but before he arrives, West says he will accept 1♣ and bids 1♥. Now what?

If South can convince the TD that 1♣ was inadvertent he can correct it to whatever he intended (2♣) and the auction continues. West has a withdrawn call which is unauthorized for East and there may be lead penalties if EW end up defending and West does not subequently show hearts in the auction. Law 9B2 says that no one should take any action before the director has given all the options. West could be penalized for this if he is very experienced.

Gerben42, on 2012-May-25, 11:30, said:

3. South bids 1♣ insufficient and West points this out. South corrects it to 2♣ again and West calls the director, saying that we wanted to accept 1♣, as allowed by Law 27A, which says:
Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO.

The Laws seem to suggest that the solution for (3) is to allow West to bid 1♥ and then afterwards allow South to correct his bid, giving East a free shot to take advantage of the 1♥ bid. Is that correct?

Isn't this much the same as 2 above? West shouldn't do anything until the director has given a ruling. If 1♣ was inadvertent, it can be corrected and the auction proceeds as if there never had been an insufficient bid, so there is nothing to accept (despite what law 27A actually says). If the TD rules that 1♣ was not inadvertent, West has the option of accepting it, but if he doesn't South's 2♣ bid stands, and North is forced to pass for the remainder of the auction (law 27C). NS may be subject to lead penalty if they end up defending.