Clarification of new Law 27B1(a)

[schulken]

While a bit tangential to the instant example, I have been intrigued by my favorite sleepwalking call from the old laws - 1♣ - 1♣. Back then, there was nothing the offender could do but bid 3 NT and hope for the best. Now, it seems as though offender could consider replacing his errant 1♣ bid with either pass or X. The commentary on the new laws issued by ACBL states "Other changes have been made to give directors more discretion in some situations in an attempt to achieve more equitable results instead of imposing arbitrary penalties that often lead to random outcomes." I think you'd stand a better chance of achieving equitable results with either of these options rather than 3 NT.

 

There are certainly many times when I may have a hand that I would open 1♣ but I can't because RHO has already done so. Therefore, I pass. My question then is, "Is pass a comparable call under 27B1.©?" I may also be able to justify X holding 3ish ♣ - possibly more if I play minimum offshape takeout doubles. Double seems more acceptable since it shows an opening hand and 16C doesn't apply to withdrawn calls under 27B.1.(b). I have noted that the discussion herein seems to focus on explaining the law to the offender and letting him decide what is comparable. If offender's judgment is faulty, we can adjust the score under 27D.

 

Which brings me back to what the meaning of comparable call is: comparable to the call I just made considering the prior calls or without regard thereto?

[VixTD]

While a bit tangential to the instant example, I have been intrigued by my favorite sleepwalking call from the old laws - 1♣ - 1♣. Back then, there was nothing the offender could do but bid 3 NT and hope for the best. Now, it seems as though offender could consider replacing his errant 1♣ bid with either pass or X.

Double is not permitted as a replacement call for an insufficient bid unless it is a comparable call. I cannot see how double would be a comparable call in this situation.

[Vampyr]

I knew it was a general discussion, the difficulty would be how to implement it into a legal framework.

 

I think that at the moment, players should be grateful that in many, if not the majority of cases, the partnership will not be unduly hamstrung by an IB or BOOT. Just remember the previous situation.

 

"Unduly"? I think there is a huge gulf among posters as to what, if any, consequences should be suffered by people who fail to make legal calls.

 

This is starting to make sense to me.

 

We don't have to determine first what they meant by the illegal call. We determine the meaning of the replacement call (relatively easy), then determine if this is consistent with any likely misunderstanding of the auction that led to the illegal call.

 

If they try to replace a 1♥ insufficient with 2♣, that seems fishy -- it's hard to come up with a reason they would replace a bid that shows either 5 hearts or 5 spades (depending on why they mistakenly bid 1♥) with one that asks for a 4-card major. Although if they play 4-card majors, the original 1♥ bid could have been an opening bid showing 4 hearts, and with this hand they would indeed bid Stayman.

 

It is starting to make sense to me too. The difference between the new law and the old one is that now we determine the bidder's intention at the table instead of away from it. But I still cannot make out how exactly the multiple options are presented to the IBer.

 

I guess we will have to wait for 2017 for sense to prevail and 1997 law to de reinstated, but in the meantime I would really like to know what to do upon arriving at a table.

[barmar]

It is starting to make sense to me too. The difference between the new law and the old one is that now we determine the bidder's intention at the table instead of away from it. But I still cannot make out how exactly the multiple options are presented to the IBer.

Just tell them to make the call that shows what they were trying to show when they made the IB. The only time UI becomes an issue is if there is no such call. Then you have to tell their partner to ignore the information from the original bid.

 

Like in the above (1♣) - 1♣, corrected to Pass -- 4th hand must not take advantage of knowing that their partner has an opening hand with clubs.

 

I guess we will have to wait for 2017 for sense to prevail and 1997 law to de reinstated, but in the meantime I would really like to know what to do upon arriving at a table.

2027? What's the chance we'll still be playing with physical cards most of the time then?

[VixTD]

It is starting to make sense to me too. The difference between the new law and the old one is that now we determine the bidder's intention at the table instead of away from it. But I still cannot make out how exactly the multiple options are presented to the IBer.

No, not the bidder's intention, we're no longer interested in that.

 

What you do at the table might depend on whether the attributable meanings are obvious. If the auction starts 1♦ - (1♠) - 1♥ you might say to offender "...if you replace it with 2♥ and that would be natural, or if you replace it with a double and that would promise four hearts, you may make that call and there's no further penalty, although I may have to award an adjusted score if...." Otherwise, I think you might well have to take the offender away from the table to ascertain what penalty-free replacement calls they may have by asking them about their methods. But not by asking about their intention when they made the insufficient bid.

[WellSpyder]

Double is not permitted as a replacement call for an insufficient bid unless it is a comparable call. I cannot see how double would be a comparable call in this situation.

I played against a pair last weekend whose defence to our strong club was to double to say "I was going to open our strong club".

[Vampyr]

2027? What's the chance we'll still be playing with physical cards most of the time then?

 

100%, I think?

[VixTD]

I played against a pair last weekend whose defence to our strong club was to double to say "I was going to open our strong club".

Good point. I've even played that system with one of them, so I should have remembered it.