Misclick but info OK: what to tell opponents

[wooey]

RHO opens 1NT, 15-17. Our methods are that 2♣ shows a 1-suiter ♦/♥ or ♠.

I have a spade 1-suiter so I enter this in the Explain field but then click on .. 2♠ instead of 2♣.

The auction concludes p-p-p to me.

 

What, if anything, do I do here? Obviously the explanation that they are looking at isn't consistent with the bid I made.

In the interest of fairness I called the Director but this just burned valuable minutes (in a Speedball).

[Gerardo]

Tell no one. You're allowed to misbid, and opponent got the right explanation of your agreements.

 

Your partner has the same information than your opponents have.

 

Your obviously can't tell your partner your misbid.

 

Your opponents are not entitled to know more than your partner.

 

EDIT: MIsread the situation, nothing I said above is valid.

Tell opps the meaning of you 2!S BID, even when it does not match your hand.

 

[pescetom]

Tell no one. You're allowed to misbid, and opponent got the right explanation of your agreements.

 

Your partner has the same information than your opponents have.

 

Your obviously can't tell your partner your misbid.

 

Your opponents are not entitled to know more than your partner.

 

Not sure I agree with Gerardo here.

You gave the right explanation of your agreements about the 2♣ bid you intended to make, but as far as the system and the opponents are concerned it was the wrong explanation of the 2♠ bid that was made.

Your misbid was also a mechanical error (in the spirit of many bidding box regulations at least) and as such you are allowed to correct it; yet you were not able to do so (it would seem).

 

Seems to me one of the many potential dilemmas posed by on-line play that future laws will need to render either impossible or manageable in a fair way.

These things can't be left up to software designers or dropped in the lap of unfortunate directors.

[Vampyr]

I’m afraid you have to tell the opponents the systemic meaning of the bid you actually made. If you have already given the explanation with the bid, say, sorry, X not Y is the correct explanation.

[Vampyr]

Tell no one. You're allowed to misbid, and opponent got the right explanation of your agreements.

 

No, this didn’t happen.

 

Your partner has the same information than your opponents have.

 

Also not true.

[wooey]

Partner is dummy. The auction is over.

[barmar]

Legally, the correct thing to do is change the explanation to the actual meaning of the bid you made, even though it doesn't match your actual hand.

 

However, the opponents will probably figure out that the first explanation describes what you meant to bid, and that it's what you actually hold.

 

What I've seen some people do is change the explanation to "misclick". Partner doesn't see this, so they don't know you misbid. The opponents know essentially the same thing as if you did the above (unless they're not clever enough to make the inference).

[Gerardo]

I misread it then, sorry.

 

At this point, you're declarer, so you tell them the correct meaning of 2♠, as sson as possible, preferably beore the opening lead.

[Vampyr]

Partner is dummy. The auction is over.

 

No, not if the opponents made a call based on misinformation. The last person who passed gets their bid back.

[barmar]

No, not if the opponents made a call based on misinformation. The last person who passed gets their bid back.

Not on BBO. There's no support for returning to the auction (maybe if undoes are enabled at the table you can undo the last pass).

 

If this is a tournament, and the TD judges that this prevents normal play of the hand, they can assign a result.

[pescetom]

Not on BBO. There's no support for returning to the auction (maybe if undoes are enabled at the table you can undo the last pass).

 

Yet another issue for future on-line laws.

The WBF is fiddling while Rome burns.

[Vampyr]

Not on BBO. There's no support for returning to the auction (maybe if undoes are enabled at the table you can undo the last pass).

 

If this is a tournament, and the TD judges that this prevents normal play of the hand, they can assign a result.

 

Exactly many laws have been ignored by BBO for all these years? It would be interesting to compile them all and see whether the WBF agree that the site should retain the word “bridge”. I had honestly thought that BBO was a bridge site, and was thus using the Bridge Laws with the possible exception of looking at one’s convention card, as this can neither be detected nor enforced. Please explain why adherence to the laws was never considered.