[kgr]

(1S)-1D
1D bidder holds:
A
Kx
AKJxx
Axxxx
...Can he replace 1D with 2NT?
This depends of the meaning of 1D bid. He explains: "I was planning to open 1D but then saw the opening bid of 1S and thought to bid 2NT. I have no idea why I did place the 1D card on the table at that moment"...or he explains: "I wanted to bid 2NT. I have no idea how the 1D card came on the table".
...His 1D bid now means the same as 2NT because he actually wanted to bid 2NT, but accidentally placed 1D on the table. So he can always replace 1D with 2NT?
=> A player who knows the new law can always get away by saying he wanted to bid the repalcement bid?

[david_c]

jtfanclub, on Mar 6 2008, 11:49 PM, said:

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

Oh, fair enough. It's just that you wrote "I agree" when I last said that.

[skjaeran]

kgr, on Mar 7 2008, 12:18 AM, said:

(1S)-1D
1D bidder holds:
A
Kx
AKJxx
Axxxx
...Can he replace 1D with 2NT?
This depends of the meaning of 1D bid. He explains: "I was planning to open 1D but then saw the opening bid of 1S and thought to bid 2NT. I have no idea why I did place the 1D card on the table at that moment"...or he explains: "I wanted to bid 2NT. I have no idea how the 1D card came on the table".
...His 1D bid now means the same as 2NT because he actually wanted to bid 2NT, but accidentally placed 1D on the table. So he can always replace 1D with 2NT?
=> A player who knows the new law can always get away by saying he wanted to bid the repalcement bid?

A player knowing the old law could just as easily get away with the same though.

Btw, as an opponent and TD it's normally very easy to be quite sure what really happened.

[Zelandakh]

jtfanclub, on Mar 6 2008, 05:49 PM, said:

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 Stayman over 2NT (mechanical error)

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

I think you missed a few...

4. With my usual partner I play 2NT showing both minors and wanted to play in 3♣ - systematic error
5. 1any - 2♣ is an artificial GF and I have 13+ any - autopilot error
6. precision 2♣ opening - similar to 2
7. weak 2 in diamonds - also similar to 2
8. preemptive with both majors - and again
9. both majors (landy), or 1-suiter (pottage), etc - thought opps opened NT!

The list could go on and on, particularly at the end of a long day/weekend for someone that dabbles in lots of systems. In fact we could probably work out a way of accidentally bidding 2♣ on almost any hand it's possible to be dealt!

Incidentally, do the Laws allow for the TD to impose an extra penalty for the player in kgr's example for 'unethically' trying it on?


(-: Zel :-)

[geller]

The text of the New Law 27 is here.

-Bob

[barmar]

geller, on Mar 7 2008, 08:17 PM, said:

The text of the New Law 27 is here.

-Bob

Is there any difference from the text quoted at the beginning of the thread? If so, what is it?

[skjaeran]

barmar, on Mar 8 2008, 03:14 AM, said:

geller, on Mar 7 2008, 08:17 PM, said:

The text of the New Law 27 is here.

-Bob

Is there any difference from the text quoted at the beginning of the thread? If so, what is it?

I haven't checked it word for word, but there shouldn't be.

[geller]

skaeran, on Mar 8 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

barmar, on Mar 8 2008, 03:14 AM, said:

geller, on Mar 7 2008, 08:17 PM, said:

The text of the New Law 27 is here.

-Bob

Is there any difference from the text quoted at the beginning of the thread? If so, what is it?

I haven't checked it word for word, but there shouldn't be.

I also haven't checked but the web site shows a comparison of the old law to the new law so readers can see what's changed. This may be of interest. -Bob

[dburn]

At least the new proposed Law 27 should settle once and for all the question of whether it is better to play a four-card-major system or a five-card-major system. The former is vastly superior, because if you open 1♥ on such as ♠43 ♥KJ1052 ♦K32 ♣AJ5 without noticing that your partner has already opened it, you are allowed to correct to 2NT (Jacoby) playing four-card majors, but not playing five-card majors.

Discussions with some members of the WBF Laws Commission indicate that the idea behind the new Law 27 is that you may without penalty (or "rectification" in the new Laws) replace an insufficient bid with any call you like, provided that your partner does not thereby receive any unauthorized information. Whether or not the actual wording of the Law embodies this idea is not clear to me, but if players and Directors follow the principle that "replacement calls should not convey UI", they may not go far wrong.

However, players should be aware that it is not at all in their interests to reveal why they made the insufficient bid in the first place, either before the Director is called or afterwards. To do so will in most cases convey UI to partner, and jeopardize their position with regard to possible rectification.

[jtfanclub]

dburn, on Mar 19 2008, 10:26 PM, said:

Discussions with some members of the WBF Laws Commission indicate that the idea behind the new Law 27 is that you may without penalty (or "rectification" in the new Laws) replace an insufficient bid with any call you like, provided that your partner does not thereby receive any unauthorized information.

I dunno. In a competitive auction, it seems difficult to impossible to determine if UI has been passed (depending upon how confident the partner is about what kind of error it was). The previous Law, you assumed mechanical failure (the person reached for NX, and pulled out (N-1)X). This one, the director has to make a guess.

How is this going to work, anyways?

Bidding goes 1NT P 1♥. Director rules no additional information for a change to 2♦. Auction continues P 2♥ P 4♥, makes an overtrick on bad defense.

The defenders appeal, and win. 1♥ revealed considerably more information than 2♦ did.

So now what? 1♥ making 5? 4♥ played the other way, and assume that the defenders get all the defensive plays right this time? A+/-? Split score? How can this be taken care of?

[dburn]

As I understand the matter, the thinking behind the progressive watering down of many Laws is that as far as is practicable, "normal bridge results" should be obtainable even by those incapable of realising whose turn it is to bid, or that spades outrank hearts, or that there is a requirement to follow suit when able to do so.

Suppose that you have:

♠3 ♥AK10943 ♦6 ♣AKQ85

After mature consideration, you choose to open 1♥. An awkward silence supervenes, during which you observe two things fractionally before everyone else at the table points them out to you: (1) you are not the dealer; (2) your partner, who is, has opened 1♥ and your RHO has passed.

Of course, had you been paying sufficient attention to the game, you would now bid Blackwood. But not under the new new Law 27 nor the old new Law 27 nor the old old Law 27 nor the Institutes of Justinian can you bid Blackwood, because partner will be barred and you will play there. What do you do?

That was an easy question - naturally, you call the Director. Now for the more difficult question: what should he do? In particular, how should he respond to your plaintive query "Can I bid 2NT, game-forcing with heart support in our methods, and not have partner barred?"

I should state in advance that the hand I have quoted above is not one that occurred in real life. Had it done, my RHO would doubtless have bid Blackwood anyway, thus barring his partner who would have put down this dummy:

♠KQ2 ♥QJ876 ♦KQ2 ♣73

Clubs would have broken 3-3 and I would have scored yet another bottom. My only consolation is that when you're as bitter and twisted as I am, you get twisted through 360 degrees often enough that for a short while, you turn out sweet and straight again.

[skjaeran]

jtfanclub, on Mar 20 2008, 05:18 AM, said:

dburn, on Mar 19 2008, 10:26 PM, said:

Discussions with some members of the WBF Laws Commission indicate that the idea behind the new Law 27 is that you may without penalty (or "rectification" in the new Laws) replace an insufficient bid with any call you like, provided that your partner does not thereby receive any unauthorized information.

I dunno. In a competitive auction, it seems difficult to impossible to determine if UI has been passed (depending upon how confident the partner is about what kind of error it was). The previous Law, you assumed mechanical failure (the person reached for NX, and pulled out (N-1)X). This one, the director has to make a guess.

How is this going to work, anyways?

Bidding goes 1NT P 1♥. Director rules no additional information for a change to 2♦. Auction continues P 2♥ P 4♥, makes an overtrick on bad defense.

The defenders appeal, and win. 1♥ revealed considerably more information than 2♦ did.

So now what? 1♥ making 5? 4♥ played the other way, and assume that the defenders get all the defensive plays right this time? A+/-? Split score? How can this be taken care of?

TD error IMO, A+ for both sides.

You can't allow replacing 1♥ with 2♦, since 2♦ can contain hands not included in 1♥ (whether it was a 1♥ opening or a 1♥ response to a presumed 1m opening). 2♦ could be bid on 0 hcp - a hand well outside what 1♥ shows.

[jtfanclub]

dburn, on Mar 19 2008, 11:51 PM, said:

As I understand the matter, the thinking behind the progressive watering down of many Laws is that as far as is practicable, "normal bridge results" should be obtainable even by those incapable of realising whose turn it is to bid, or that spades outrank hearts, or that there is a requirement to follow suit when able to do so.

Then they should have made the rules the same as hesitations. On any insufficient bid, UI is passed. TD is called, person is allowed to correct to anything. If their partner uses that UI, or makes a bid that is demonstrably indicated by the UI, blah blah blah, you know the drill. IMO, this is a lot easier for the director, especially if the director is not familiar with the system being played.

I'm sure they thought of this, though.

[dburn]

Further discussion reveals that, in the opinion of at least one distinguished member of the WBFLC, what you are actually supposed to do is explain that you meant to open 1♥. Then, you are permitted to bid a natural and forcing 2♥ and the auction continues without further "rectification".

Either the world has gone mad, or I have. The question of which is not the subject of a poll on this forum.

[jtfanclub]

dburn, on Mar 20 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

Further discussion reveals that, in the opinion of at least one distinguished member of the WBFLC, what you are actually supposed to do is explain that you meant to open 1♥. Then, you are permitted to bid a natural and forcing 2♥ and the auction continues without further "rectification".

Where is the smiley for my jaw hitting the floor and bouncing twice?

[kgr]

dburn, on Mar 20 2008, 08:27 PM, said:

Further discussion reveals that, in the opinion of at least one distinguished member of the WBFLC, what you are actually supposed to do is explain that you meant to open 1♥. Then, you are permitted to bid a natural and forcing 2♥ and the auction continues without further "rectification".

Either the world has gone mad, or I have. The question of which is not the subject of a poll on this forum.

I will make agreement with my partner that if I would ever happen to make an insufficient call (accidently of course) then the first sufficient bid will always have exactly the same meaning as the insufficient bid.
eg:
1S-(P)-1H...replaced by 1NT that now means: 5+ card H and 12+ HCP.
=> no penalties then?

[PassedOut]

kgr, on Mar 20 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

I will make agreement with my partner that if I would ever happen to make an insufficient call (accidently of course) then the first sufficient bid will always have exactly the same meaning as the insufficient bid.

Sure seems like the right strategy.

[jdonn]

kgr, on Mar 20 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

dburn, on Mar 20 2008, 08:27 PM, said:

Further discussion reveals that, in the opinion of at least one distinguished member of the WBFLC, what you are actually supposed to do is explain that you meant to open 1♥. Then, you are permitted to bid a natural and forcing 2♥ and the auction continues without further "rectification".

Either the world has gone mad, or I have. The question of which is not the subject of a poll on this forum.

I will make agreement with my partner that if I would ever happen to make an insufficient call (accidently of course) then the first sufficient bid will always have exactly the same meaning as the insufficient bid.
eg:
1S-(P)-1H...replaced by 1NT that now means: 5+ card H and 12+ HCP.
=> no penalties then?

I certainly don't feel like looking, but I thought it was specifically outlawed to make any agreements that are in any way related to either your side's or the opponents' insufficient bids.

[paulg]

jdonn, on Mar 21 2008, 04:50 AM, said:

I certainly don't feel like looking, but I thought it was specifically outlawed to make any agreements that are in any way related to either your side's or the opponents' insufficient bids.

True for you, but probably not for most.

There is nothing in the Laws that prevents agreements after irregularities. However the ACBL says,

ACBL Laws Commission Minutes, on November 2006, said:

Rick Beye wanted confirmation that it was illegal to have conventional agreements to handle irregularities (such as insufficient bid) by an opponent. The Commission was in unanimous agreement that this was illegal as currently regulated in the ACBL.

I believe agreements are legal in the UK.

Paul