Chris3875

I was just reading the above sentence again - surely a player cannot change a bid (even if it was an unintended bid) before the Director arrives ?

Yes, the 3C bid was intended - the player was looking for NT.

OK - as I explained I am fairly new to this Directing business. However, my reading of Law 27C is that if there is a premature replacement the Director shall take the bid back to the IB (in this case 3C, which I did, and which was not accepted by ops) and then if that IB is not accepted, the substitution (in this case the 4C bid) stands. The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution.

Except he had replaced the bid BEFORE the Director arrived - so my reading of Law 27C is that "unless the insufficient bid is accepted... the substitution stands". In this case 4C.

;) Hahahaha - YES !

I come from Gerberland and recently have had 3 fairly similar situations - 1. The opposition were not bidding at all and the bidding went - 1S - 3S - 4C (Gerber) - all pass. Opener commented "oh, so I am playing this in CLUBS?" Director called and responder said he thought partner had bid 4S. Although I felt sorry for the pair I ruled under Law25A3 and they had to play it in 4C - disaster of course ! 2. The opposition were not bidding at all and the bidding went 1S - 3S - 4C (Gerber) - followed by 2 passes and a gasp from opener - whereupon responder called Director and said that he thought partner had bid 4S. LHO had not bid and responder wanted to change his bid. I ruled under Law 25B1 that the pass was intended at the time it was made (albeit sloppy bidding from someone not paying enough attention) and again did not allow the change. Was this correct or too tough? I must say that in both scenarios above the writing was quite clear. 3. The opposition were not bidding at all and the bidding went 1S - 2H - 3S - 3C (immediately changed BEFORE the Director arrived to 4C). 3C was not accepted by opponents and my ruling under Law 27C was that 4C was different to the original bid (it now became Gerber as that is what this pair play), that partner was barred from the remainder of the auction, and the final contract became 4C. Help! I am a fairly new Director and all three situations above caused players to become disgruntled and say that the rulings were not fair! My reply was that they should pay more attention