For your amusement

[Elianna]

I shall preface this by saying that we have several players at the club where I direct that are not at the top of their game (to put it mildly).

 

A lady holding something like Axx AKJx JTxx Jx opens 1D. Her partner bids 3NT, and her RHO overcalls 4♠. She then bids 4♠. And when told by an opponent (who called me at the same time) it's insufficient and needs to be corrected, bids 5♠.

 

The lady told me that she initially intended to double, and then when told her bid was insufficient, forgot what she was going to bid and so made her bid sufficient (not knowing her rights and thinking that's what she was required to do).

 

What do you do? (What more questions do you ask, which laws do you consider might apply here?)

 

PS, LOL's LHO is a regional director, and RHO is a club director, and they're husband and wife.

 

My ruling and reasoning coming up later.

[jtfanclub]

She cannot make her bid sufficient. 5♠ has an conventional meaning.

 

What she's required to do is make any bid she likes except double, and then her partner is barred from the bidding. Just because she tried to make it sufficient does not require her to bid 5♠ now.

 

Two additional issues...

1) If the barring had actually helped her side (such as, allowing her to make a penalty double, when then normal meaning of X is takeout) there would be additional penalties. Shouldn't apply here.

 

2) The attempt to bid 4♠ or 5♠ is UI, so extreme care needs to be applied- there may be lead penalties, for example.

 

http://web2.acbl.org/laws/auction.htm

Law 27 is the key here, with Laws 23 and 26 for if the pass damaged the non-offending side, and for lead issues, respectively.

 

I can't imagine why they called the director, however. Had I been them, I would have happily accepted the insufficient bid!

[kenrexford]

Smack the back of the head of the guy who called you over to the table.

[ralph23]

What she's required to do is make any bid she likes except double,

Well....... this seems like a pitiable case. :P . Should be a way to have mercy on her. If the opps agree.

 

But the opps can accept 5♠, can they not?

 

If not for some reason: They can still accept 4♠, can they not, unless they waived the right to do that, which they don't do simply by pointing out that it was "insufficient"?

 

Seems that making the 4♠ bid was certainly a "slip of the brain" rather than a "slip of the fingers"... how your fingers get tangled up between the X card and the 4♠ card, I'm sure I can't imagine.

[han]

Agree, the proper thing to do in this situation is to tell her to take back her bid and don't worry about it.

[jtfanclub]

But the opps can accept 5♠, can they not?

I would say that the 5♠ simply does not exist, much like somebody who tried to correct a revoke after it was too late. It was just a misunderstanding of the rules.

 

They could accept 4♠, but that doesn't bar her partner from doing something smart.

[ralph23]

Agree, the proper thing to do in this situation is to tell her to take back her bid and don't worry about it.

Yea, maybe I'd pull the guy aside and say "Look, you know she just got confused. And you know she didn't mean to bid ♠ at any level. If you really want to accept 4♠ I suppose you can, but it'd be more sporting just to cancel it and start over. What do you say?"

 

They haven't really lost anything except the ability to take advantage of a pitiful player's obvious .... er ... "mistake" is hardly the right word. :P

[han]

Yes, say that and then smack them on the head seems right.

[david_c]

But the opps can accept 5♠, can they not?

No. The WBFLC says:

 

If an insufficient bid is substituted before the Director has explained the options the premature correction is cancelled. LHO, if he so wishes, may accept the original insufficient bid but not the premature correction. Otherwise the Director explains his options to the offender and allows him to select his action.

[Elianna]

So LHO (the regional level director) tried telling me that he would accept 5♠ as a legal, nonconventional bid. I informed him that's not allowed. I then made the mistake of assuming that he won't accept the 4♠ bid (since he basically wanted to accept another bid, plus I assumed that he would have spoken up and said that he'd accept that instead).

 

I told the lady that she may bid anything she wishes, except x, and her partner must pass. After some argument ("but I want to double") she said, "ok, I know what to do" and bid 4NT.

 

This got passed back to RHO who held KQxxx Qx AKQxx xx, and decided to double (which got passed out).

 

Full hand (as near as I remember, I threw my sheet out)

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sxhxxxdxxxcakqxxx&w=sjtxxhxxxxdxxcxxx&e=skqxxxhqxdakqxcxx&s=saxxhakjxdjtxxcjx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

East led the ♠ K. Making, right? No. The king was ducked. Down, right? No, the spade was continued. and somehow (no idea how) this hand made 5. I may have something wrong, but I have E's pointy suits right.

 

And the funniest thing is that EW were arguing that their score should be changed.

 

To give him credit, after a few minutes W changed tack, and agreed that EW could keep their score, but NS's score should change. But it was pretty funny that E (A club director) was still arguing that she should have been allowed to accept the double, and that it's unfair that they have to keep their result.

[TimG]

...

[blackshoe]

/action puts on "stickler for the laws" directing hat.

 

Facts:

South made an insufficient bid (4♠) after East made that same bid.

One of EW pointed out that the bid was insufficient, simultaneously calling the TD.

Before the TD arrived, South corrected to 5♠.

 

Now here's what I'd do:

 

1. Explain to the table, for everyone's edification, that when a player makes an insufficient bid, his LHO is permitted to accept that bid by calling. If he does so, no further action (such as calling the TD) need be taken. If he does not do so, and attention is drawn to the irregularity (as by someone saying "that's insufficient!") - and it will be - then the TD must be called, and no one is permitted to do anything other than call the TD until he arrives, at which point they can answer his questions and follow his instructions.

 

2. Explain to South that she cannot, as mentioned above, correct her IB except after TD instruction. Indeed, the wording in Law 9 suggests that a player who takes an action after the TD has been called should receive a PP "more often than not". I would say to South "consider this your PP - future transgressions will get a PP in MPs or IMPs".

 

3. Explore how she managed to bid 4♠ instead of doubling. It's doubtful this is a Law 25A case, but it might be.

 

4a. If it turns out that (in my opinion as TD, the rest of you shut up ;) ) this is a law 25A case, I rule under that law that she may change her 4♠ bid to double (that being what she said she intended to call). The auction will proceed normally from there.

 

4b. If (as seems likely) this turns out not to be a 25A case, I turn to Law 27. I ask (27A) West if he wants to accept the IB. If he says yes, we're done. If he says no, then after determining whether 4♠ (if RHO had passed) or 5♠ would be conventional in NS's methods, I can rule under either 27B1 (both not conventional) that if she corrects to 5♠ there is no further penalty, though I may adjust the score later, or under 27B2 (either bid may have been conventional, or she corrects to any other sufficient bid or she passes) that her partner must pass for the rest of the auction, and there may be lead penalties if they end up defending (Law 26), and again I may adjust the score later (Law 23). I would make it clear that any score adjustment would be in the interest of restoring the NOS' equity in the hand, and would occur only if I decide they were damaged. I note that changing to double (or redouble for that matter) is not permitted.

 

5. I don't permit any arguing about my ruling. Anybody doesn't like it, they can appeal.

 

6. It appears that EW got a bad score. But did they get it as a consequence of North's enforced pass? I don't think so. That being the case, EW have no grounds for a score adjustment.

 

/action removes "stickler" hat, puts on "be nice to the players" hat

 

In a club game, a PP (other than a warning) would be rare for any offense.

I would not suggest to EW that they need a refresher course on the laws. :angry:

 

I think that covers it. B)

[ralph23]

A great ending which could only have been improved if the LOL had re-XX'ed. :)