changing a call

[mangurian]

• 
   
  
• My partner opened 1C. I had decided I would respond 1H to any minor opening.
  
• I started to remove the 1H card from the bidding box.
  
• The card had just cleared the box when I realized that RHO had bid 1H.
  
• Only my LHO saw my intended call.
  
• I immediately replaced the 1H card into the box and I bid 1NT.
  
• Am I subject to a penalty ?
  

[pran]

• 
   
  
• My partner opened 1C. I had decided I would respond 1H to any minor opening.
  
• I started to remove the 1H card from the bidding box.
  
• The card had just cleared the box when I realized that RHO had bid 1H.
  
• Only my LHO saw my intended call.
  
• I immediately replaced the 1H card into the box and I bid 1NT.
  
• Am I subject to a penalty ?
  

That depends on the jurisdiction and the applicable bid-box regulation (if any).

As far as I know: Some regulations state that a call is made once the bid card is removed from the box with an indication of intent to be made while other regulations state that a call is made when the bid card is placed on, or held stationary over the table in from of the player.

 

If according to the relevant regulation your 1H bid has been made then the applicable law is

1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender’s LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues (Law 26 may apply).

2. Except as in B1, a substitution not permitted by A is cancelled. The original call stands and the auction continues (Law 26 may apply).

3. Law 16C applies to any call withdrawn or cancelled.

[pescetom]

That depends on the jurisdiction and the applicable bid-box regulation (if any).

As far as I know: Some regulations state that a call is made once the bid card is removed from the box with an indication of intent to be made while other regulations state that a call is made when the bid card is placed on, or held stationary over the table in from of the player.

 

If according to the relevant regulation your 1H bid has been made then the applicable law is (quote 25B).

 

All true of course but I think the OP wanted to know what happens when the (illegal) 1H bid has been made.

I assume that Law 27 Insufficient Bid would apply, and if opponent does not accept the bid we have an interesting Law 23 Comparable Call problem B-)

[pescetom]

Only my LHO saw my intended call.

 

It's rather odd that any player could see your call when you had only extracted it from the box, it should be facing towards you and remain out of their sight. Be that as it may, everyone can see that you changed call, including partner.

[pran]

Only my LHO saw my intended call.

If according to regulations a call has been made then whether or not this call has been seen by the other players at the table is completely irrelevant.

[pescetom]

If according to regulations a call has been made then whether or not this call has been seen by the other players at the table is completely irrelevant.

 

But if according to regulations a call has not been made then whether or not the card originally extracted has been seen by partner would be very relevant, I think. Especially if it was extracted before RHO bid 1H (the OP is not clear in this respect) and partner realised this.

[pran]

But if according to regulations a call has not been made then whether or not the card originally extracted has been seen by partner would be very relevant, I think. Especially if it was extracted before RHO bid 1H (the OP is not clear in this respect) and partner realised this.

In that case it is simply extraneous information from partner and Law 16B applies.

[pescetom]

In that case it is simply extraneous information from partner and Law 16B applies.

 

Exactly.

What do you have to say about Comparable Call after an insufficient (1♥) 1♥ ?

[pran]

Exactly.

What do you have to say about Comparable Call after an insufficient (1♥) 1♥ ?

Tough question. I'm not sure there is any call that I would accept as comparable in this situation. 1NT is probably the "best" try.

 

(Had the intervening bid from RHO been 1S rather than 1H I would probably accept Double ("negative") or possibly even 2H as Comparable Calls.)

[ahydra]

Tough question. I'm not sure there is any call that I would accept as comparable in this situation. 1NT is probably the "best" try.

 

(Had the intervening bid from RHO been 1S rather than 1H I would probably accept Double ("negative") or possibly even 2H as Comparable Calls.)

 

I would agree there's nothing comparable over 1H, barring some weird agreement like 2H being natural.

 

Over 1S, 2H is comparable based on the subset criterion (10+ with 5+H being a subset of 5+ with 4+H). Not sure that X is comparable, as it includes hands with e.g. a long diamond suit but not enough strength to bid 2D.

 

ahydra

[sfi]

Over 1S, 2H is comparable based on the subset criterion (10+ with 5+H being a subset of 5+ with 4+H). Not sure that X is comparable, as it includes hands with e.g. a long diamond suit but not enough strength to bid 2D.

That is why the director needs to talk to the player away from the table. For most of my partnerships, X would obviously be comparable since these hands don't start with a double.

 

It's worth noting that after 1S, 2H would likely be allowed as "lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination ..." (27B1(a)), so the question of comparable call doesn't come into the picture.

[ahydra]

Yes, I just realised that too. Any way one can save themselves the headache of figuring out what is comparable is always welcome :)

 

ahydra

[pescetom]

Yes, I just realised that too. Any way one can save themselves the headache of figuring out what is comparable is always welcome :)

 

If (1H) 1H was replaced with anything I believe that several directors would seriously consider tossing a coin and some would do so ;)

[weejonnie]

It is very difficult to think in this case of a comparable call since presumably 1♥ shows at least 4 hearts and 1NT could be made (presumably) on e.g. AQ doubleton.

 

For the simple reason that 'double' doesn't show a heart suit we would have to disqualify that as a comparable call (compare with my posting on another site where the suit called showed only three. (Although the consensus is that this also is not a comparable call, I think it much closer than the OP position (original bid showed an opening hand with 3+ clubs, double showed an opening hand with club tolerance and 4 spades. I ruled it as a CC due to the calls being 'similar').

[blackshoe]

"always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct."

 

Heh. I like your sig, but...

 

"It has been said that they are so wilful that they do not need to dig tunnels, they just argue with the rock until it moves." -- Harnmaster Gold Players' Edition, Kelestia Productions, 2009, on the subject of the dwarves of Hârn.

[barmar]

It's rather odd that any player could see your call when you had only extracted it from the box, it should be facing towards you and remain out of their sight. Be that as it may, everyone can see that you changed call, including partner.

Many players place their bidding box at an angle, not perpendicular to the edge of the table -- my regular club partner angles it almost directly to the left. So it's not hard for LHO to see what card you're pulling.

[weejonnie]

"always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct."

 

Heh. I like your sig, but...

 

"It has been said that they are so wilful that they do not need to dig tunnels, they just argue with the rock until it moves." -- Harnmaster Gold Players' Edition, Kelestia Productions, 2009, on the subject of the dwarves of Hârn.

It's a parody on what the football manager Brian Clough once said when asked what he did if any player disagreed with him.

[pescetom]

It is very difficult to think in this case of a comparable call since presumably 1♥ shows at least 4 hearts and 1NT could be made (presumably) on e.g. AQ doubleton.

 

Let me see. My thinking is that I would need to ask the offender, away from the table, what he meant to do when making the insufficient bid of 1♥. If he told me that he wanted to cue hearts showing spades and a minor (or whatever) then I would sigh with relief and let him know that I would tell him a replacement with 2♥ was acceptable, should he so ask. But if he told me that he wanted to open 1♥ or (as is actually the case) overcall 1♥ then I would ask about the meaning of 2♥, and if that was normal I would have to tell him I could see no comparable call and explain the consequences, reading out 27B2 and summarising lead restrictions. Correct?

[weejonnie]

Let me see. My thinking is that I would need to ask the offender, away from the table, what he meant to do when making the insufficient bid of 1♥. If he told me that he wanted to cue hearts showing spades and a minor (or whatever) then I would sigh with relief and let him know that I would tell him a replacement with 2♥ was acceptable, should he so ask. But if he told me that he wanted to open 1♥ or (as is actually the case) overcall 1♥ then I would ask about the meaning of 2♥, and if that was normal I would have to tell him I could see no comparable call and explain the consequences, reading out 27B2 and summarising lead restrictions. Correct?

Yes - in the first case it is a Law 25A matter (unintended call). In the second case you explain what a CC is and ask him if he has any call that he thinks is comparable. i.e. a bid that shows at least 4 hearts - if that is what the 1 Heart call shows. Like you, presumably, I don't have such a call in my locker, but that does not mean that the player doesn't - for instance 1 Heart might have been a transfer response showing spades...

[VixTD]

Yes - in the first case it is a Law 25A matter (unintended call).

If it was an unintended call you would expect the offender to have said something to that effect by now. You could try taking them away from the table and asking something neutral such as "how did you come to bid 1♥?" and see what they say. This doesn't look like an unintended call to me.

 

Pescetom is right to look for possible meanings of 1♥ other than the obvious (trying to open or overcall in hearts), but law 23 refers to the meanings attributable to 1♥, not the intended meaning of 1♥. I find it difficult to attribute the meaning of "Michaels cue-bid" to 1♥, just as I struggle to attribute "Stayman, asking for majors" to 1♣. Calls at the one level can never have these meanings.

[pescetom]

Pescetom is right to look for possible meanings of 1♥ other than the obvious (trying to open or overcall in hearts), but law 23 refers to the meanings attributable to 1♥, not the intended meaning of 1♥. I find it difficult to attribute the meaning of "Michaels cue-bid" to 1♥, just as I struggle to attribute "Stayman, asking for majors" to 1♣. Calls at the one level can never have these meanings.

 

I share your perplexity about the relevance of intended meaning, but then strictly speaking there is no logical or legal meaning attributable to an insufficient call either. This is one of the many paradoxes of this law. But the WBF 2017 Laws Commentary gives the explicit example of 2NT – Pass – 2♣ (acting as if it was a 1NT opening; asking for majors, not accepted) and says that in this case a sufficient call asking for the majors is comparable - so it seems that the WBF does want us to consider "insufficient" conventional calls as attributable meanings. I don't see that 1NT – Pass – 1♣ (asking for majors, not accepted) is significantly different. The Commentary also says that the TD might need to ask the offender (away from table) what he meant to do when making the insufficient bid - presumably because this determines or helps determine the meaning attributable, and alternative methods are deemed impractical or superfluous.

[blackshoe]

I share your perplexity about the relevance of intended meaning, but then strictly speaking there is no logical or legal meaning attributable to an insufficient call either. This is one of the many paradoxes of this law. But the WBF 2017 Laws Commentary gives the explicit example of 2NT – Pass – 2♣ (acting as if it was a 1NT opening; asking for majors, not accepted) and says that in this case a sufficient call asking for the majors is comparable - so it seems that the WBF does want us to consider "insufficient" conventional calls as attributable meanings. I don't see that 1NT – Pass – 1♣ (asking for majors, not accepted) is significantly different. The Commentary also says that the TD might need to ask the offender what he meant to do when making the insufficient bid - presumably because this determines or helps determine the meaning attributable, and alternative methods are deemed impractical or superfluous.

Interesting. In my methods 1NT-2!C is made with at least one four card major, while 2NT-3!C is made with at least one three card major. A minor difference perhaps, but there are many hands that would bid 2!C over 1NT that would not bid 3!C over 2NT. I guess “looking for a major suit fit” is enough similarity to make the bids comparable in spite of the differences between them.

[pescetom]

Interesting. In my methods 1NT-2!C is made with at least one four card major, while 2NT-3!C is made with at least one three card major. A minor difference perhaps, but there are many hands that would bid 2!C over 1NT that would not bid 3!C over 2NT. I guess “looking for a major suit fit” is enough similarity to make the bids comparable in spite of the differences between them.

 

A 3-card suit is not a subset of a 4-card suit, I agree; one could argue that the bid has the same or similar meaning all the same. But Law 23 says that if the replacement call has the same purpose (such as a relay or asking bid) then it is comparable, and the Commentary courageously adds "then it doesn’t even matter whether the strength or suits referred to are the same; the call is comparable by definition." So that's that then? As both calls look for a major suit fit, the call should be automatically comparable. Not quite. The Commentary still feels the need to consider possible differences in what "looking for a major suit fit" means in this example, specifically it says "A sufficient call asking for the majors, even when asking for 4- or 5 cards while 2♣ asked for 4 cards, is a comparable call (Law 23A3)."

 

My conclusion is to hope for a rapid revision of the laws and carry a coin in the meantime :huh:

[barmar]

Pescetom is right to look for possible meanings of 1♥ other than the obvious (trying to open or overcall in hearts), but law 23 refers to the meanings attributable to 1♥, not the intended meaning of 1♥. I find it difficult to attribute the meaning of "Michaels cue-bid" to 1♥, just as I struggle to attribute "Stayman, asking for majors" to 1♣. Calls at the one level can never have these meanings.

The problem is that pairs generally don't have agreements as the meanings of illegal calls. So this is interpreted as the meaning of the call had it been legal, which means you have to assume a different auction leading up to it. That's what leads us to ask what auction the offending player thought they were bidding in.

[VixTD]

I share your perplexity about the relevance of intended meaning, but then strictly speaking there is no logical or legal meaning attributable to an insufficient call either. This is one of the many paradoxes of this law. But the WBF 2017 Laws Commentary gives the explicit example of 2NT – Pass – 2♣ (acting as if it was a 1NT opening; asking for majors, not accepted) and says that in this case a sufficient call asking for the majors is comparable - so it seems that the WBF does want us to consider "insufficient" conventional calls as attributable meanings. I don't see that 1NT – Pass – 1♣ (asking for majors, not accepted) is significantly different. The Commentary also says that the TD might need to ask the offender (away from table) what he meant to do when making the insufficient bid - presumably because this determines or helps determine the meaning attributable, and alternative methods are deemed impractical or superfluous.

I can see that the WBFLC might attribute the meaning of "Stayman, asking about major-suit holdings" to a 2♣ bid, even if it's in response to a 2NT opening bid, because that's what 2♣ commonly means in response to a 1NT opening bid. Responder has obviously got something muddled, and the level of the opening bid, or how high he needs to bid in clubs to supersede that bid are two of the things he could have muddled in his mind.

 

A player cannot intentionally bid 1♣ in response to anything, and will never bid 1♣ to ask partner about their major-suit holdings, so I struggle to attribute such a meaning to 1♣. A player who responds 2♣ to 2NT does not have to be thinking that clubs outrank no trumps, or that two is a higher number than three, which are very difficult mind-sets for an experienced bridge player to get into. They just have to be thinking: "I'll bid Stayman" and reach absentmindedly for the 2♣ card without connecting it with the information that partner has bid no trumps at the two level, a much easier mistake to make.

 

I agree with everything else you've said, including that asking offender away from the table what the intended meaning was can reveal an attributable meaning that you wouldn't have thought of yourself.