jhenrikj

You do know who Ton Kooijman is I hope....

Read this text by Ton Kooijman

No it does not give the director that power. It gives the director the power to adjust the score if the result would have been different without the IB. Let's say south does not bid 1NT but passes instead (he would not bid 2NT if that shows a stronger hand), now it's very possible for the bidding to continue 2♦ pass pass X pass 2NT all pass. This means that we could end up in the same contract even without the IB and because of that we do not adjust. There is no UI and there can be no ruling concerning UI.

But please....why can't you understand the words 16D does not apply, when using 27B1 16D does not exist at all.

No it's AI to everyone. Read 16D Now 27B1 says that 16D does not apply so the information from the withdraw bid is AI to everyone. We have to use 27D to adjust the score if the non-offending side is damaged by the insufficient bid. In this cas I would probably not use it.

West makes an insufficient bid. The irregularity is pointed out by north and west quickly replaces it with a sufficient bid before the director is called. Now law 27C says that we shall give north the opportunity to accept the insufficient bid, if he does not, we apply the relevant part of 27B on the substituted bid. Now we look at 25B1, "A substituted call may be accepted by the offenders LHO". Does this mean that we also should give the offenders LHO the option to accept the premature replacement without any rectification for offenders partner? (very unlikely he will do that, but do we give him the option?)

What UI? Law 16D does not apply after a change according to 27B1(a). We still have the possibility to use 27D to adjust the score if we think that the outcome would have been different without the insufficient bid, but the information from the withdrawn 1NT is AI.

You seem to miss that Phil also established that 1♣ was a mechanical error. But he still wants to apply law 27 because its an insufficient bid. I don't know Phil so I can say nothing about his director skills, but I know it's a common mistake by directors whenever you have an insufficient bid to directly apply law 27, not finding out whether the bid was intended or not.

I agree, the OP does not contain enough information, but as I said earlier, if you make an insufficient unintended call it is most unlikely you will not express in some way that you wish to change your bid as soon as you realize your mistake. Remember that it is pause for thought after you realize your mistake, not after a bid was made. The term "without pause for thought" is no time measurement but an unfortunate way to express that you are not allowed to change your mind. If it was a time measurement we should allow change of minds that happens instantly, but as we all know we do not.

Of course I can establish if it's an unintended call or not. Please show me the paragraph that says that an unintended call becomes an intended call if director is not called at once.... The only thing that decides if we can apply 25A or not is if partner has bid or not. Actions from the offending side is irrelevant. Your approach means that every time a player finds out his mistake at once and corrects it, and the director is not called at all (I think we all agree that that happens very often when playing with bidding boxes) we should correct that score since 25A does not apply if director is not called? It's is incorrect not to call the director, but the law is still the same.

That's where we have different opinions. We do not know anything about how north realized his mistake. The only thing we are told about it is that east did not accept 1♣. I can not imagine any player who makes an unintended insufficient bid that do not make an attempt to change as soon as he realizes his mistake. But the players probably did not know the difference between a unintended insufficient bid (law 25A) and an intended insufficient bid (law 27). They thought law 27 applied always after an insufficient bid and they tried to apply 27 themselves. This is of course incorrect procedure, but by pure luck they ended up in the same situation they would have if they had called the TD at the correct moment (after the 1♣), that North was allowed to change to 2♣ without any other rectification. So I still see no reason to change any score so table result stands. After that I give a serious lecture to the players about calling the director.

The reason for bidding 2♣ was that he forgot their agreements, the reason for bidding 1♣ was a mechanical error. That is still an unintended call. What he thought 2♣ meant has nothing to do with the fact he picked the wrong bidding card out of the box. Look at your quote above and apply that to the following hand. xx AKxx Axx Jxx On my CC it says that I play a 15-17NT. I forget that and intends to open 1NT 12-14, but I accidently open 1♠. Following your quote above, that is not an unintended call?

The OP said this... When do we apply 25A if not after mechanical errors?

Law 10B. The director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a rectification made by the players without his instructions. Since the players have made a correct rectification from 25A themselves I see no reason to change this. So score stands.

What am I missing here?. If NS plays 1♣ as strong north can surely never have attended to bid 1♣. If he did believe he was playing landy the 1♣ surely must be a unintended call and we apply 25 not 27. If we apply 25 there is no UI so south can bid whatever he wants.

45C4b only applies from the dummy. It's only from the dummy you designate a card to be played. All the other just play a card.

If East accepts the bidding just continues without any rectification. If he does not accept, the bidding goes back to west who can accept the Boot from south. If west accepts we are free to apply law 31 on north since we've already applied 29. If west does not accept south Boot the bidding goes back to north who is forced to pass. There will be no problems at all.

The problem when taking them in the order is that first you give west the possibility to accept south BOOT. If he does, he is still not allowed to bid, because now we have top apply 29 on north BOOT. Now east knows that west wanted to accept the first BOOT. Is that information AI? Normally East has to make his decision without consulting west, but now he has information from west.... If west actually bids after accepting 1♥ he makes another BOOT since he was not allowed to bid. Say he bids 2♦, what about law 29 now? We still have to give east the opportunity to accept 1♠. But can he do that? And if he does, he will be forced to pass what about the 2♦ bid what is the status of that? Taking the BOOT's in the order they happened will lead to absurd situations every time west wants to accept 1♥. Taking them in reverse order ends up with only perfectly normal situations so that must be preferred.

Small spade

Lets look at 28B again. 28B applies only when we have a BOOT followed by a bid from the player who should have been in turn but now in fact bids out of rotation. Then law 28 says that in some cases the latter bid even though it is out of rotation can be treated as in rotation if some criteria are met. In this case those criteria is not met so we can't treat north 1♠ as in rotation. If it's not in rotation, it must be out of rotation, there is no third state in between being in or out of rotation. So regardless of what south has bid legal or not north 1♠ is BOOT and we apply law 29. I'll give you another example: North opens 1♠, east overcalls 1♣(intended call), west passes out of turn. Now iviehoff says that we should deal with the irregularities in the order they appear, that is we have to deal with the unsufficient bid before we deal with the pass out of rotation. This must surely be wrong. The two irregularities combined has given north the possibility to accept the pass out of rotation and bid over the sufficient bid 1♣ and be able to bid 1♥ or perhaps showing strong cards with 2♥. We can't deprive north of that possibility. North has the option to accept the pass out of rotation thereby forfeiting his right to any other rectification of irregularities happened before the call out of rotation. That's exactly the same option we give east in the OP. If he accepts 1♠ he forfeits his right to any rectification and therefore 1♥ becomes part of the legal auction.

If you use that approach, both north and south is forced to pass the entire auction if west decides not to accept 1♥ (37B1, 37B2). And we do not offer east the possibility to accept both bids, we only give him the opportunity to accept the 1♠. That is supported by the law.

North is dealer. South opens 1♥. West pauses a few seconds thinking of an overcall, not realizing that south bid out of rotation. Now north opens 1♠ not noticing south already opened. West calls the declarer. Now what? The bids are not simultaneous so law 33 does not apply. 28B does also not apply since it only applies when opponents made a call out of rotation, not if partner did. Is north's 1♠ a call out of rotation? Yes I think so, because after south has made a call west has to be considered as the player next in turn. Therefore, we give east the opportunity to accept the 1♠, if he doesn't west gets the possibility to accept the 1♥ from south. If he does, we apply 31A on the 1♠. If west does not accept 1♥ the bidding reverts to north who is forced to pass. East passes. South should be free to bid but he is under heavy restrictions from 16D2 from the withdrawn 1♠ so there are few other LA accepted other then opening 1♥. Law 26 applies for any withdrawn bid. Any other idéas?

I have recived answers from Marc, Jeanne and Ton from Holland. (their last names is to difficult to spell this late at night but I think you all know who I me They agree that the change to 2♦ should be allowed, but they don't know if we can change the score according to 12A1. Marc and Ton will discuss this during the weeakend.

I read the Swedish regulations on bidding boxes and from there you could argue that an unintended call in fact is an irregularity. I don't know if the regulations is the same all over the world, but in Sweden it says that you have to decide what to bid before touching the box. This would mean that picking a call at random is not allowed. An unintended call is in fact picked by random since it's not what you decided to call. And since anyone during the bidding period may point out an irregularity north has not made an infraction.

I agree there should be...so the PP might still be in order?