[TimG]

awm, on Mar 5 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

I think the laws say to send the "wrong pair" away and seat the proper pair. Then if the auction is identical up to the point where the wrong pair was sent off, allow them to play the board. Otherwise cancel it and assign scores.

If you're the "right pair" don't you automatically psyche in this situation and take the average or average-plus?

[JanM]

My Stayman example was 2♦ or 3♦ as FORCING Stayman. I believe that 2♦ forcing Stayman over a 1NT opening includes fewer hands than does 3♦ forcing Stayman over a 2NT opening. So the insufficient bid provides additional information.

Similarly, if a 2♣ response to 1NT did in fact promise more values than a 3♣ response to 2NT (sorry, for me "garbage" Stayman is standard so I assumed not), then I think the 3♣ response would not be an allowed correction.

[JanM]

TimG, on Mar 5 2008, 03:27 PM, said:

awm, on Mar 5 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

I think the laws say to send the "wrong pair" away and seat the proper pair. Then if the auction is identical up to the point where the wrong pair was sent off, allow them to play the board. Otherwise cancel it and assign scores.

If you're the "right pair" don't you automatically psyche in this situation and take the average or average-plus?

I'm not sure whether this rule is still the same as when I won the Grand National Pairs as a result of it, but at that time both pairs had to choose the "average plus" option, at least if neither pair was at fault in the fact that the wrong pair had already bid the hand against one of them. I remember it because it was the last round of the finals, both we and our opponents thought we were doing well, so we both agreed to average plus. We won the event, they were second. It happened to be a hand that would have been bad for our bidding methods, so I've always given the unknown pair who bid the wrong board some of the credit for what is still my favorite of all wins.

And it's an interesting question whether the rule that has just been applied to the insufficient bid situation should also apply to this situation. I'm pretty sure that at the moment it does not.

[JanM]

Jlall, on Mar 5 2008, 03:01 PM, said:

cliff notes version?

You can correct an insufficient bid if the new bid means the same as the old bid OR if the meaning of the new bid is included in the meaning of the old bid. You can't correct if the fact that you originally made the insufficient bid gives your partner information about the hand that s/he would not have from the new bid.

[blackshoe]

Apollo81, on Mar 5 2008, 03:01 PM, said:

For that matter, the player may have seen 2NT, correctly valued his hand, but just pulled the wrong card and didn't notice it immediately.

If that's the case, we're in 25A territory, and law 27 is irrelevant.

[david_c]

jdonn, on Mar 5 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

I mean what makes information "different"? What if you bid 1NT over a 2♠ opening then change it to 2NT.

That's not such a great example because it is allowed under section B1(a) - both the insufficient bid and the correction are natural.

[david_c]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 5 2008, 08:08 PM, said:

And anyway, how does anyone know that the 2C bid was made in a response to a 'putative' 1NT opening?

We don't: and this is why a correction to 3♣ should be allowed.

The most likely explanation for bidding 2♣ over 2NT is that responder wanted to bid Stayman over 2NT but forgot that this involved bidding 3♣.

You don't even have to agree that this is the most likely explanation. As long as it is a possibility, you don't know anything more from the insufficient bid than "I have a hand which wants to bid Stayman over 2NT". Since this is the same meaning as the correction to 3♣, this correction should be allowed.

Funnily enough, my partner actually did bid 2♣ over my 2NT opening this evening! (Playing under the old Laws unfortunately.) And he had a hand which wouldn't have bid Stayman over 1NT.

[awm]

JanM, on Mar 5 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

I'm not sure whether this rule is still the same as when I won the Grand National Pairs as a result of it, but at that time both pairs had to choose the "average plus" option, at least if neither pair was at fault in the fact that the wrong pair had already bid the hand against one of them. I remember it because it was the last round of the finals, both we and our opponents thought we were doing well, so we both agreed to average plus.

It was always my impression that the conditions of contest in such events forbade two competing pairs from deciding that a particular result is mutually beneficial and simply agreeing to that result.

[jtfanclub]

david_c, on Mar 5 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

We don't: and this is why a correction to 3♣ should be allowed.

The most likely explanation for bidding 2♣ over 2NT is that responder wanted to bid Stayman over 2NT but forgot that this involved bidding 3♣.

You don't even have to agree that this is the most likely explanation. As long as it is a possibility, you don't know anything more from the insufficient bid than "I have a hand which wants to bid Stayman over 2NT".

I agree, unfortunately, the rules still don't allow it.

[JanM]

awm, on Mar 5 2008, 09:51 PM, said:

JanM, on Mar 5 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

I'm not sure whether this rule is still the same as when I won the Grand National Pairs as a result of it, but at that time both pairs had to choose the "average plus" option, at least if neither pair was at fault in the fact that the wrong pair had already bid the hand against one of them. I remember it because it was the last round of the finals, both we and our opponents thought we were doing well, so we both agreed to average plus.

It was always my impression that the conditions of contest in such events forbade two competing pairs from deciding that a particular result is mutually beneficial and simply agreeing to that result.

I don't know about that. All I know is that the director gave us all the option of getting average plus on the board because of the procedural irregularity. I'm not sure what they would have done if any of us had objected, presumably had us bid and play the hand and try not to take advantage of the information from the different bid with the other pair at the table (AFAIR, the other person had opened 1♣ with a hand on which we opened 1NT).

[JanM]

jtfanclub, on Mar 6 2008, 12:13 AM, said:

david_c, on Mar 5 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

We don't: and this is why a correction to 3♣ should be allowed.

The most likely explanation for bidding 2♣ over 2NT is that responder wanted to bid Stayman over 2NT but forgot that this involved bidding 3♣.

You don't even have to agree that this is the most likely explanation. As long as it is a possibility, you don't know anything more from the insufficient bid than "I have a hand which wants to bid Stayman over 2NT".

I agree, unfortunately, the rules still don't allow it.

Actually, I believe that this is one of the situation where the new law does allow the correction. Most people would bid Stayman over 2NT with about the same hands that they'd bid Stayman over 1NT, so there isn't any information given to the Stayman bidder's partner by the fact that s/he would have bid Stayman over 1NT.

[david_c]

jtfanclub, on Mar 6 2008, 06:13 AM, said:

david_c, on Mar 5 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

We don't: and this is why a correction to 3♣ should be allowed.

The most likely explanation for bidding 2♣ over 2NT is that responder wanted to bid Stayman over 2NT but forgot that this involved bidding 3♣.

You don't even have to agree that this is the most likely explanation. As long as it is a possibility, you don't know anything more from the insufficient bid than "I have a hand which wants to bid Stayman over 2NT".

I agree, unfortunately, the rules still don't allow it.

Yes they do. Once you agree that the "meaning" of the insufficient bid is "I have a hand which wants to bid Stayman over 2NT", then this is the same meaning as the proposed correction, so the correction to 3♣ is allowed without penalty under the new section B1(b ).

[blackshoe]

JanM, on Mar 6 2008, 01:27 AM, said:

I don't know about that. All I know is that the director gave us all the option of getting average plus on the board because of the procedural irregularity. I'm not sure what they would have done if any of us had objected, presumably had us bid and play the hand and try not to take advantage of the information from the different bid with the other pair at the table (AFAIR, the other person had opened 1♣ with a hand on which we opened 1NT).

I think what you're referring to here is Law 15C:

Quote

If, during the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round, he shall cancel the auction, ensure that the correct contestants are seated and that they are informed of their rights both now and at future rounds. A second auction begins. Players must repeat calls they made previously. If any call differs in any way from the corresponding call in the first auction, the Director shall cancel the board. Otherwise, play continues normally.

That's the 1997 Law; I don't know if earlier versions differed, and I'm sorry Jan, but I don't know when you won that contest. IAC, under the current law, allowing the players to choose to accept A+ is extra-legal. If the board is cancelled, Law 12A1 applies, and contestants only get A+ if the TD deems they are "in no way at fault".

[TimG]

david_c, on Mar 6 2008, 05:34 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Mar 6 2008, 06:13 AM, said:

david_c, on Mar 5 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

We don't: and this is why a correction to 3♣ should be allowed.

The most likely explanation for bidding 2♣ over 2NT is that responder wanted to bid Stayman over 2NT but forgot that this involved bidding 3♣.

You don't even have to agree that this is the most likely explanation. As long as it is a possibility, you don't know anything more from the insufficient bid than "I have a hand which wants to bid Stayman over 2NT".

I agree, unfortunately, the rules still don't allow it.

Yes they do. Once you agree that the "meaning" of the insufficient bid is "I have a hand which wants to bid Stayman over 2NT", then this is the same meaning as the proposed correction, so the correction to 3♣ is allowed without penalty under the new section B1(.

So, if the auction starts 2N-P-2C, the person who made the insufficient bid ought to say "I'm sorry, I meant 3C" rather than "I'm sorry, I thought the opening bid was 1N".

Bottom line, I'm not sure how you can reliably determine the meaning of an insufficient bid.

It seems to me that the new Law is attempting to allow correction of an "oops", but not an "oops" of the inadvertent-corrected-without-pause-for-thought-mechanical variety, but rather an "oops" of the brain fart variety.

I remember once taking some time over partner's limit raise, I was trying to decide whether to make a slam try or simply sign-off in game. I eventually decided that game was enough and passed. It was a few moments before I realized that I was now going to be playing in a partial. Nowadays when something like this happens, one is supposed to say "oh *****!" and then be allowed to change the call, but this was long before that seminal ruling.

[mycroft]

Tim, in the current laws, you don't say "Oh Vancouver", but you do call the TD and get him to apply Law 25B2b, and play for your A-/-3 IMPs. Kaplan did it too, so it's in there.

In the new Laws, that option is (blessedly) gone. After all, nobody knows it's there (so the few that do have a distinct advantage), nobody - including the person who made the wrong call - believes it's legal (even after seeing it in the FLB), and everyone leaves the table feeling a little slimy or slimed on. Better to suck it up and bid 5Trump next time.

Michael.

[skjaeran]

Apollo81, on Mar 5 2008, 09:01 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 5 2008, 02:08 PM, said:

And anyway, how does anyone know that the 2C bid was made in a response to a 'putative' 1NT opening?  How do we know that responder didn't see a 1S opening?

For that matter, the player may have seen 2NT, correctly valued his hand, but just pulled the wrong card and didn't notice it immediately.

But then he can alway correct before partner makes a bid. Both in the 1997 and in the 2007 law.

[skjaeran]

TimG, on Mar 5 2008, 09:27 PM, said:

awm, on Mar 5 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

I think the laws say to send the "wrong pair" away and seat the proper pair. Then if the auction is identical up to the point where the wrong pair was sent off, allow them to play the board. Otherwise cancel it and assign scores.

If you're the "right pair" don't you automatically psyche in this situation and take the average or average-plus?

No, you don't. At least where I play that's the case.

[barmar]

Another problem with the wording of the new law is the footnote for "meaning". It talks about what a bid shows, which ignores asking bids. But perhaps an asking bid "shows" any hand that would be interested in the answer to the question; or maybe it doesn't show anything (or is so vague that this is close enough to truth), so all asking bids have the "same meaning".

And what about pairs that play regular Stayman over 1NT, but Puppet Stayman over 2NT? If the auction goes 2NT-2C, should he be allowed to correct it to 3C with no penalty?

[jtfanclub]

david_c, on Mar 6 2008, 05:34 AM, said:

Yes they do. Once you agree that the "meaning" of the insufficient bid is "I have a hand which wants to bid Stayman over 2NT", then this is the same meaning as the proposed correction, so the correction to 3♣ is allowed without penalty under the new section B1(b ).

That doesn't make any sense.

Quote

1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director’s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply but see D following.

Why bother with all that text if the "meaning" of an insufficient bid is always the same as the "meaning" of the minimum bid in the same strain? By your logic, the part I italicized is pointless.

The possible meanings of 2NT P 2♣ are, IMHO....

1. I have a hand which wants to bid Stayman over 1NT (thought partner bid 1NT).
2. I have 22+ hcp and/or 8 quick tricks. (thought partner didn't bid).
3. I have a hand which wants to bid Sayman over 2NT (mechanical error)

I don't think it's at all clear that we should "agree" on meaning #3.

Let me give another example.

2NT P 2NT, where 1NT P 2NT would show a diamond suit.

1. I have a hand with diamonds, or
2. I have a hand which would bid 3NT over 2NT.

Which should apply here?