Legal Double

[Nick Whitten]

What about this case?
A player opens 1D.
The next player holds S: Qx H: Jxx D: KJx C: AKQxx and intended to overcall 2C but bids 1C instead.
If that player uses the short 1C opening as described above (11-18 with no 5-card major) or for that matter a Precision 1C (any 16+) then it can’t be corrected to 2C applying 27B1(a) because that requires “both the IB and substituted bid are incontrovertably not artificial”.
Or can the director rule on the basis that the IB was not an attempted opening bid if he is satisfied that was the case?

[Ed Reppert]

If his intended call was 2C, he can change it under Law 25A. In many IB cases (if not all) TD needs to consider this possibility.

[Nick Whitten]

Durrh I hadn’t been considering that. I had always regarded someone who bid the wrong number (but the right suit) had done so intentionally at the time. But that aint necessarily so.
So I guess that whenever a player says he was intending to bid 2C (or whatever) and actually bids 1C AND the hand is consistent with the 2C bid according to their methods, then 25A should apply (and the next opponent does not have the option of condoning the IB).
Does that seem reasonable?

[Ed Reppert]

With the caveat that you should not be looking at the player's hand until after the play, yes, it's reasonable. So what do you do if it later turns out that his hand was not consistent (in your opinion) with a 2C bid? I'd ask him to explain first, why this hand would bid 2C in the given auction, and second, if he can't satisfactorily explain that, why he lied to the director. I might, I suppose, be a tad more diplomatic. Then I'd probably adjust the score. If I did determine he lied (or might well have lied) I'd hit him with a hefty DP.

[Nick Whitten]

I’m confused about the “should not be looking at the player's hand until after the play”. I don’t see how it can be avoided in many situations.
For example if someone wants to change an unintended call, a glance at the hand will often establish whether it should be allowed or not. Isn’t that better than allowing the change anyway and later having to decide whether the player lied or not?
And in many other situations a ruling can be made more quickly/simply knowing what the offenders hand is.

[Ed Reppert]

And in many cases the TD will give information about the hand(s) he sees to the players. This is a Bad Thing™.

The criteria for a 25A change are that the player intended a different call, that as soon as he realizes the call he made wasn't the one he wanted, he change or attempt to change it, and that his partner has not yet called. The only one of those that might be helped by looking at his hand is the first - and that won't necessarily tell you anything, unless you are thoroughly familiar with both his system and his style (unlikely, IMO). Knowing precisely what he did - what happened at the table - is far more useful to the TD than looking at the hand. And you don't really need to look at the hand. If he says the call was unintended, he's probably telling the truth - and if he's not, you can often tell that from his attitude.

I have to say I've never seen a player lie about whether his call was unintended. I have seen a player stretch the truth a bit, but when called on it admitted that he did intend it, but then realized it was the wrong call. Sometimes, btw, players don't get what "unintended" means in the context of this law.

I think it's far more likely that looking at a player's hand in the middle of the bidding/play of that hand will convey information to the other players than that it will be necessary to look in the course of making a ruiing. As for making the TD's job easier, well, that would be nice, but not at the expense of possibly causing other problems.

Last night I had a UI/MI case - same board at two different tables (sharing) in the same round. One player had S xxx H QJT9xxx D x C xx. At both tables, partner opened, and this hand bid 3H, which was alerted and explained as a splinter. At both tables the player rebid 4H. One of them kept trying to show me her hand, but I refused to look. I don't need to know, at the time I was called (when the 4H bid was made) what she has. I only need to know if I'm going to adjust the score, and I don't need to decide that until they're done playing it.

[Nick Whitten]

Quote: [Ed Reppert]
“I think it's far more likely that [the TD] looking at a player's hand in the middle of the bidding/play of that hand will convey information to the other players than that it will be necessary to look in the course of making a ruling. As for making the TD's job easier, well, that would be nice, but not at the expense of possibly causing other problems.”

That I fully understand (finally) I think .
So with that in mind what should the TD do in a case like this? (which I had to rule on not long after the new IB laws came in.)
The bidding was N: 1NT; E: 2S; S: 2D
South may have been bidding diamonds naturally at the wrong level, or attempting a transfer to hearts having missed the 2S bid.

I glanced at South’s hand and, on seeing it held long diamonds, then wrote 3D on a bit of paper and showed it to her alone saying “you may substitute this and the bidding continues normally, or you can pass or bid something else and partner must pass throughout”. And if the hand had held long hearts I would have done similarly (although any level of H bid would be Ok of course). There would only be a problem if the hand had long diamonds AND hearts.
Is there a better way?

[Chris]

Would taking the player away from the table and asking her what she was trying to do produce the same result Nick ?

Her reply, "I was bidding diamonds", or "I was transferring to hearts" would give you the same information and you could then advise her of the Law.

Must confess that I have always been a "hand looker", and will have to try and change that after reading Ed's response.

[Ed Reppert]

How do you know 3D was natural in their system, Nick?

Chris is right - this is a case for taking the player away from the table, finding out what 2D and 3D would systemically mean to her partnership, and then basing the ruling on those facts.

[bluejak]

Originally Posted by Ed Reppert

If his intended call was 2C, he can change it under Law 25A. In many IB cases (if not all) TD needs to consider this possibility.

Well, now. I know that ACBL TDs do this, but I am pretty unconvinced. Law 25A1 says "Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought....." Now, if a TD comes to the table, takes him away, asks him what he meant, and is convinced it was unintended, how can you say that he substituted [or attempted to do so] without pause for thought? I do not believe that Law 25A applies unless there is a change or attempted change immediately: in my view the policy of ACBL TDs to find out whether the call was unintended but to take no notice of whether there was an attempt to substitute means they are not following the Law.

So I would not permit a Law 25A substitution for an insufficient bid unless the player indicated at the time that he wanted to change it or that he had got it wrong.