[Phil]

Had to merge the 299er game with the Open today, so I expect some fun. I've only seen this situation once and I couldn't figure out the rule:

1♦ - (2♣) - 2♣

The 2nd 2♣ bidder held ♠xxxxx ♥x♦ATx ♣AQ8x

I took him away from the table and asked what he meant by 2♣. He stated he didn't see the 2♣ on his right. Forgot about the logic or sensibility of bidding 2♣ with this hand.

Whats the ruling here and what specific rule do you apply?

[peachy]

I think the player was telling tales when he said "I did not see the 2C overcall), but who know, maybe they routinely hide a five-card major in the auction... What reason is there to hide a 5-card spade suit, wouldn't he bid 1S if he "didn't see the 2C-call by opponent". For ruling, allow the person to substitute a sufficient bid that has the same or more precise meaning as what 2C over 1D opening, without opp overcall, would show. What that bid would be in their methods is anybody's guess, 3C now would not show clubs and 10 points, but the curiosity of the player not wanting to bid 1S without competition is significant. If he didn't want to bid 1D (P) 1S, he can't possibly want to bid 1D (2C) 2S now, and even if he did, that would not be allowed without consequent restrictions to his partner.

My head hurts. Someone else apply the Law...

[Phil]

peachy, on Dec 24 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

I think the player was telling tales when he said "I did not see the 2C overcall), but who know, maybe they routinely hide a five-card major in the auction... What reason is there to hide a 5-card spade suit, wouldn't he bid 1S if he "didn't see the 2C-call by opponent". For ruling, allow the person to substitute a sufficient bid that has the same or more precise meaning as what 2C over 1D opening, without opp overcall, would show. What that bid would be in their methods is anybody's guess, 3C now would not show clubs and 10 points, but the curiosity of the player not wanting to bid 1S without competition is significant. If he didn't want to bid 1D (P) 1S, he can't possibly want to bid 1D (2C) 2S now, and even if he did, that would not be allowed without consequent restrictions to his partner.

My head hurts. Someone else apply the Law...

I have no reason to believe otherwise. Its not like he had a diamond raise and wanted to make a forcing raise.

This player was a novice who appears he wanted to set up a force and show 10 points with 2♣.

[barmar]

Since there doesn't seem to be a bid that has the same or a more precise meaning as 2♣, I think responder can make any legal call except double, and then opener is barred.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on Dec 24 2009, 08:50 PM, said:

Since there doesn't seem to be a bid that has the same or a more precise meaning as 2♣, I think responder can make any legal call except double, and then opener is barred.

yup. The novice from Alcatraz thought he could substitute a double and bar pard

[bluejak]

peachy, on Dec 25 2009, 03:14 AM, said:

I think the player was telling tales when he said "I did not see the 2C overcall), but who know, maybe they routinely hide a five-card major in the auction...  What reason is there to hide a 5-card spade suit, wouldn't he bid 1S if he "didn't see the 2C-call by opponent".

One thing that worries me slightly in this and many similar posts elsewhere is the suspicion. Players make completely stupid and pretty unbelievable mistakes about 10,000 times as often as players try to deliberately take advantage of the Laws. So if something completely stupid is offered, I believe the first reaction should be "Oh, no, not again!" rather than "I wonder what he was trying to do?".

[peachy]

bluejak, on Dec 25 2009, 07:45 AM, said:

peachy, on Dec 25 2009, 03:14 AM, said:

I think the player was telling tales when he said "I did not see the 2C overcall), but who know, maybe they routinely hide a five-card major in the auction...  What reason is there to hide a 5-card spade suit, wouldn't he bid 1S if he "didn't see the 2C-call by opponent".

One thing that worries me slightly in this and many similar posts elsewhere is the suspicion. Players make completely stupid and pretty unbelievable mistakes about 10,000 times as often as players try to deliberately take advantage of the Laws. So if something completely stupid is offered, I believe the first reaction should be "Oh, no, not again!" rather than "I wonder what he was trying to do?".

Suspicions aside, and I do agree I am often more suspicious than others.

Given the facts and knowing the answer by the IB'er was an honest one, how would you rule, David? Does it affect your ruling that the OS are beginners?

[bluejak]

As barmar said: if 2♣ is not accepted then opener will be barred, and responder may not double at that turn..

I understand the players to be novices not beginners. Beginners do not generally mix with other players, but once they get to novice standard and start playing in other duplicates they can play to the rules. My experience is they expect rules and so long as they are explained gently to them, are neither offended nor upset.

It is mediocre to medium players, often of long experience, who believe they should be exempt from the rules.

[Phil]

bluejak, on Dec 25 2009, 08:23 PM, said:

As barmar said: if 2♣ is not accepted then opener will be barred, and responder may not double at that turn..

I understand the players to be novices not beginners. Beginners do not generally mix with other players, but once they get to novice standard and start playing in other duplicates they can play to the rules. My experience is they expect rules and so long as they are explained gently to them, are neither offended nor upset.

It is mediocre to medium players, often of long experience, who believe they should be exempt from the rules.

This is what I thought the ruling was (a tired Phil once bid 1N - (2♥) - 2♥ in an important pairs event), but I cannot find any specific reference.

[aguahombre]

Phil, on Dec 26 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

bluejak, on Dec 25 2009, 08:23 PM, said:

As barmar said: if 2♣ is not accepted then opener will be barred, and responder may not double at that turn..

I understand the players to be novices not beginners.  Beginners do not generally mix with other players, but once they get to novice standard and start playing in other duplicates they can play to the rules.  My experience is they expect rules and so long as they are explained gently to them, are neither offended nor upset.

It is mediocre to medium players, often of long experience, who believe they should be exempt from the rules.

This is what I thought the ruling was (a tired Phil once bid 1N - (2♥) - 2♥ in an important pairs event), but I cannot find any specific reference.

hehe. A good reason to not be using "stolen bids", so when your brain farts u might be able to replace with a call which has the same or more precise meaning --assuming partner doesn't use the UI that you have spades until a leben sequence is completed.

If you are playing stolen bids, can you replace with a double? Which rule over-rides which?

[bluejak]

The priority for insufficient bids is:

First, the next player may accept it.

Second, if the bid is natural, and correcting it to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination is natural, the bidding, it may be corrected with no penalty.

Third, if there is a call that shows the same thing, or, more usually, a more precise thing, it may be corrected to that call with no penalty.

Fourth, if the player calls anything else [including choosing to do so when the second or third options are available] partner is silenced, there may be lead penalties, and [very rarely] Law 23 may apply.

Note that the fact I put them in that order does not mean they are presented that way: everyone has a right to know all the legal options before any decision is made.