[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-08, 14:14, said:

He said he bid it deliberately, so either he psyched, or he's lying. I called it a psych, but the consensus here seems to be he's a liar, which would make him a cheat. In such a case an ethics hearing seems appropriate. <shrug>

My comment about misbid versus psyche was in response to Fluffy's scenario, not the OP:

Quote

if a pair has switched recently from precision to natural, and someone opens 2♣, and then makes a weak bid that suggest he forgot, and your strong hand suggest he forgot, and the table action suggests he forgot.... you cannot ask about what their 2♣ opening agreements were before?.

I don't see any indication that the bid was deliberate, it looks like a misbid.

[Sjoerds]

pran, on 2013-March-09, 04:32, said:

Law 26A with ♠ as the related suit.

So you tell NS why East made an IB?

[pran]

Sjoerds, on 2013-March-10, 10:01, said:

So you tell NS why East made an IB?

No, I don't know why he made the IB and I don't tell anybody why he made the IB, but I give the ruling I am required to give which is Law 26, and that my understanding is Law 26A with reference to ♠.

[Sjoerds]

pran, on 2013-March-10, 10:25, said:

No, I don't know why he made the IB and I don't tell anybody why he made the IB, but I give the ruling I am required to give which is Law 26, and that my understanding is Law 26A with reference to ♠.

I agree if E has given the UI but else; you give extra information to W and you have to handle with that.

Until now the only two that know that 1♥ is for the spades are you and East.
Did you consider LAW 26B?

[pran]

Sjoerds, on 2013-March-10, 14:22, said:

I agree if E has given the UI but else; you give extra information to W and you have to handle with that.

Until now the only two that know that 1♥ is for the spades are you and East.
Did you consider LAW 26B?

No, that would be a serious TD error eventually (possibly) leading to a law 82C rectification.

The UI given to W definitely does not matter during the auction because W must pass anyway whenever it is his turn to call. And he should be instructed by the Director that this knowledge in case is UI until after he has "paid" the rectification specified in Law 26A.

[Sjoerds]

pran, on 2013-March-10, 16:34, said:

No, that would be a serious TD error eventually (possibly) leading to a law 82C rectification.

The UI given to W definitely does not matter during the auction because W must pass anyway whenever it is his turn to call. And he should be instructed by the Director that this knowledge in case is UI until after he has "paid" the rectification specified in Law 26A.

Okay,okay...so you don't tell the reason for the IB. And if you have to use 26A you give lead restrictions for ♠. Isn't that about the same?

[Sjoerds]

I have asked this question now many times to several very qualified TD's and the answers I get differ a lot. So it might look easy, but there is a lot of room to act differently.

When such an IB occurs you take the bidder away from the table and you ask what happened. There can be lot of reasons:
- an unintended call for instance. Then you use Law 25
- bidder might not have been paying notice to the bidding at the table and didn't see one of the bids made.
It is important that you find out what he saw and what his intentions have been. Is the bid artificial? etc... the normal facts you need to know to use LAW 27.

You have to decide if EW have a bid that has the same of more precise meaning. And there the minds differ again. In this case:
a. some do not accept 2♠ because it is a bid that normally wouldn't be made after 1NT.
b. other accept 2♠ and are prepared to use 27D
b1. some judge 2♠ as 27B1b
b2. most judge 2♠ as 27B2

I must say I have sympathy for not accepting 2♠. The meaning of the call 2♠ does not represent this hand. But why not give the offender the opportunity to do something wrong (stupid). There is still 27D to adjust.

By the way do you want to know what East is going to call? This knowledge makes things easier but perhaps east has to make up his mind again at the table. So I think you cannot demand to know what he is going to call.

Then you return to the table and you give LHO the opportunity to accept the IB. Of course you explain LHO the consequences. And again several views on how to act:
a. some TD's explain to LHO the reason for the IB. "East didn't see 1NT and thought he gave 4+ in ♠ (T-Walsh)" and than "if you don't accept west must pass whenever it is his turn to call"
b. others only tell "if you don't accept west must pass whenever it is his turn to call" In this situation you leave it to NS to find out what happened during the bidding.
(By the way: when the offender has several options to call and one of those is subject to 27B1 you can tell so too. "if you don't accept east has the opportunity to 1. make his bid sufficient without further rectification or 2. to make make a call without further rectification or 3. an other call but then West has to pass whenever it is his turn to call". And after his choice you explain to offenders partner what he is allowed or obliged to do.)

My choice is b. Firstly because it is still possible that East becomes the leader and secondly because you try to avoid giving UI or extra information that normally is not available to the other players at the table.

But of course when N or S becomes the leader you give the leader the opportunity for lead restrictions for west in ♠ when it is west first turn to lead. At that time NS can work out what happened.

[blackshoe]

Law 27B (whichever part) does not come into play until we have dealt with Law 27A. This does not mean that offender's LHO is not entitled to know the provisions of 27B. It does mean he is not entitled to know which part of 27B will be applicable if he does not accept the IB. So you tell him what 27A and 27B say, and then you ask him whether he accepts the IB. If he doesn't, you tell the offender to choose a legal call. Then you deal with that call under whichever part of 27B applies.

[VixTD]

Sjoerds, on 2013-March-18, 14:09, said:

I have asked this question now many times to several very qualified TD's and the answers I get differ a lot. So it might look easy, but there is a lot of room to act differently.
[...]
Then you return to the table and you give LHO the opportunity to accept the IB. Of course you explain LHO the consequences. And again several views on how to act:
a. some TD's explain to LHO the reason for the IB. "East didn't see 1NT and thought he gave 4+ in ♠ (T-Walsh)" and than "if you don't accept west must pass whenever it is his turn to call"
b. others only tell "if you don't accept west must pass whenever it is his turn to call" In this situation you leave it to NS to find out what happened during the bidding.

I and a number of other directors follow a third course. We tell the non-offenders even less. The auction was:
1♣ - 1NT - 1♥

I take offender away from the table and ask what they intended when they bid 1♥, and whether any legal calls would now have much the same meaning as was intended by 1♥. I make it clear to the offender which calls they have available which will not bar partner from bidding, and we return to the table. I explain that offender's LHO may accept the bid and there's no further penalty, if not it must be replaced by a legal call. If 1♥ was intended to show hearts, and 2♥ would now also show hearts, offender can bid that with no further penalty, or if offender has a legal call that would mean much the same as what was intended by 1♥ they can bid that with no further penalty. Other than that, double is not allowed, and lead penalties may apply.

Now LHO must make their decision, without knowing what offender intends to do, nor what 1♥ was supposed to mean, nor what replacement bids will bar partner. They may, however, ask questions about the opponents' system and guess.

You're right that this all comes undone if offender's partner comes on lead and I say to declarer: "You can insist on or ban a spade lead", but that's no reason to spill the beans before it happens.

[aguahombre]

VixTD, on 2013-March-19, 07:50, said:

or if offender has a legal call that would mean much the same as what was intended by 1♥ they can bid that with no further penalty.

We have been over this turf many times on the fora, and here we are again. "much the same as" doesn't cut it as a summary of acceptable replacement calls.

[Sjoerds]

VixTD, on 2013-March-19, 07:50, said:

I explain that offender's LHO may accept the bid and there's no further penalty, if not it must be replaced by a legal call. If 1♥ was intended to show hearts, and 2♥ would now also show hearts, offender can bid that with no further penalty, or if offender has a legal call that would mean much the same as what was intended by 1♥ they can bid that with no further penalty. Other than that, double is not allowed, and lead penalties may apply.

Now LHO must make their decision, without knowing what offender intends to do, nor what 1♥ was supposed to mean, nor what replacement bids will bar partner. They may, however, ask questions about the opponents' system and guess.

I agree, that is even better

[VixTD]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-19, 08:46, said:

We have been over this turf many times on the fora, and here we are again. "much the same as" doesn't cut it as a summary of acceptable replacement calls.

It's a pretty good approximation of what the law allows. It used to have to have the same or a more restricted meaning as the intended meaning of the insufficient bid, but now that's been relaxed it only has to be the same, more restricted or slightly wider, but not too far off. I think "much the same" are the words I use at the table, but I'll have decided away from the table which calls fall into this category and told offender.

[aguahombre]

VixTD, on 2013-March-20, 07:43, said:

It's a pretty good approximation of what the law allows. It used to have to have the same or a more restricted meaning as the intended meaning of the insufficient bid, but now that's been relaxed it only has to be the same, more restricted or slightly wider, but not too far off. I think "much the same" are the words I use at the table, but I'll have decided away from the table which calls fall into this category and told offender.

That is interesting. I didn't know someone rewrote 27B1(b) without telling us. "Same, or more precise meaning" does not include "slightly wider". If the replacement bid includes possible hands which would have chosen a bid other than the IB (if the IB were available), and partner now knows those hands are not possible ---then the combination of the IB and the correction is UI and the replacement bid is not to be allowed.

Relaxing the Laws must mean "words and definitions are just a figure of speech" to some people.

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-20, 11:52, said:

That is interesting. I didn't know someone rewrote 27B1(b) without telling us. "Same, or more precise meaning" does not include "slightly wider". If the replacement bid includes possible hands which would have chosen a bid other than the IB (if the IB were available), and partner now knows those hands are not possible ---then the combination of the IB and the correction is UI and the replacement bid is not to be allowed.

Relaxing the Laws must mean "words and definitions are just a figure of speech" to some people.

The WBF Laws Committee issued this minute:

Quote

“The WBF Laws Committee has noted an increasing inclination among a number
of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids
even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of
hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee favours this approach
and recommends to Regulating Authorities that, insofar as they wish, mildly
liberal interpretations of Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to
continue. At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the Director
judges that the outcome could well have been different without assistance gained
through the insufficient bid (and in consequence the non-offending side has been
damaged).”

[aguahombre]

Good plan. First, allow it, then rule against it.

IMO, that should be reserved for the occasion when the TD did not know the replacement bid wasn't entirely within the IB set when he allowed it.

It might also be unfair to the offender, who could have chosen differently a final succesful guess which would not be overturned.

[Sjoerds]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-20, 14:02, said:

IMO, that should be reserved for the occasion when the TD did not know the replacement bid wasn't entirely within the IB set when he allowed it.
It might also be unfair to the offender, who could have chosen differently a final succesful guess which would not be overturned.

I agree that in your little conversation with the offender you try to give the offender clearness if you accept his intended call under law 27B1.

But that brings me to the question when to use 27D?

[aguahombre]

Sjoerds, on 2013-March-23, 07:27, said:

I agree that in your little conversation with the offender you try to give the offender clearness if you accept his intended call under law 27B1.

But that brings me to the question when to use 27D?

27D would apply to replacement calls if the allowed call turns out not to be allowable under 27b1(b) due to lack of complete information at the time it was allowed; or when 27b1(a)---same strain natural bid--- was used and the replacement bid allowed a result which could not have been obtained without the I.B. occuring first.

Example:
1C (1S) 1H. Replaced by 2H (also natural), but responder did not have a hand which would warrant a 2H freebid and the result was affected by that fact.

[bluejak]

Fluffy, on 2013-March-04, 11:52, said:

If East had real hearts he would be allowed to change to 2♥ without penalty? it is hard to tell if 1♥ is artificial given that it is forbidden to have agreements about insufficent bids.

True, but the Laws presume a meaning, which is generally understood to be the idea in the player's mind.

Vampyr, on 2013-March-04, 12:02, said:

There is nothing in the law that indicates that he should. Nor does the law indicate that South should be told whether or not a penalty-free correction exists, and I feel very strongly that he should be.

There is nothing in the Law that says South should not be told, either. It is a matter for the authorities to decide. I think he should.

gordontd, on 2013-March-05, 04:55, said:

It's not hard to tell in this instance because East has told the whole table he didn't see the 1NT bid. So NS simply have to ask what 1♣ - P - 1♥ would mean.

We were asked two questions, one with the blurting out, one without.

FrancesHinden, on 2013-March-06, 04:19, said:

They can ask, but why is East obliged to answer?

EW have to answer questions about what their bids mean, and what possible alternative bids would have meant. They don't have to answer questions about what bids in a totally different auction which could not have happened at the table would have meant.

There was a WBF minute on this, when the WBF said that after an auction including.... 4NT P 5D..., where 4NT was systemically natural but 5D was some form of blackwood response, that they didn't have to explain what 5D meant, because 4NT wasn't blackwood.

[I understand why the WBF came to this conclusion, but I don't agree with it, so don't moan at me... however I think it's the official interpretation of the Law so we are stuck with it]

I don't think this is relevant. I believe players are required to tell oppoents what bids mean in htis scenario, even if not in the WBFLC one.

barmar, on 2013-March-08, 10:24, said:

EBU has made things confusing by establishing the same procedures for classifying and ruling on misbids and psyches.

Silly EBU to decide that breaches of Law 40C should be treated as breaches of Law 40C.

blackshoe, on 2013-March-08, 14:14, said:

He said he bid it deliberately, so either he psyched, or he's lying. I called it a psych, but the consensus here seems to be he's a liar, which would make him a cheat. In such a case an ethics hearing seems appropriate. <shrug>

Far too strong an approach. You will be getting ethics hearings and lawsuits over hesitations.

The general approach, following American legal practices [well, something has to ] is to accept that self-serving arguments have less weight than other evidence. So you can rule something that is at variance with a self-serving argument without calling anyone a cheat or a liar.

Sjoerds, on 2013-March-18, 14:09, said:

I have asked this question now many times to several very qualified TD's and the answers I get differ a lot. So it might look easy, but there is a lot of room to act differently.

At the EBL TD course in San Remo, I asked four senior lawmen, all members of the WBFLC, what you should tell the opponent.

I got four different answers.