Help
- 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 ?
changing a call When is a call completed
#1
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 62
- Joined: 2009-July-05
Posted 2019-November-05, 09:15
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2019-November-05, 09:39
mangurian, on 2019-November-05, 09:15, said:
- 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
Law 25B said:
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 The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues (Law 26 may apply).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 Law 16C applies to any call withdrawn or cancelled.
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 Law 16C applies to any call withdrawn or cancelled.
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,874
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2019-November-05, 10:14
pran, on 2019-November-05, 09:39, said:
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).
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
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,874
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2019-November-05, 10:22
mangurian, on 2019-November-05, 09:15, said:
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.
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2019-November-05, 11:23
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,874
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2019-November-05, 11:32
pran, on 2019-November-05, 11:23, said:
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.
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2019-November-05, 13:17
pescetom, on 2019-November-05, 11:32, said:
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.
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,874
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2019-November-05, 13:26
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2019-November-05, 17:01
pescetom, on 2019-November-05, 13:26, said:
Exactly.
What do you have to say about Comparable Call after an insufficient (1♥) 1♥ ?
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.)
#10
- AQT92 AQ --- QJ6532
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,840
- Joined: 2009-September-09
- Gender:Male
- Location:Wellington, NZ
Posted 2019-November-05, 18:56
pran, on 2019-November-05, 17:01, said:
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.)
(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
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,576
- Joined: 2009-May-18
- Location:Oz
Posted 2019-November-05, 20:29
ahydra, on 2019-November-05, 18:56, said:
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.
#12
- AQT92 AQ --- QJ6532
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,840
- Joined: 2009-September-09
- Gender:Male
- Location:Wellington, NZ
Posted 2019-November-05, 22:06
Yes, I just realised that too. Any way one can save themselves the headache of figuring out what is comparable is always welcome 
ahydra
ahydra
#13
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,874
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2019-November-06, 03:06
ahydra, on 2019-November-05, 22:06, said:
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
#14
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 801
- Joined: 2012-April-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:North-east England
- Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet
Posted 2019-November-06, 04:37
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').
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').
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
#15
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,689
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2019-November-06, 09:59
"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.
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.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#16
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,573
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2019-November-06, 10:48
pescetom, on 2019-November-05, 10:22, said:
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.
#17
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 801
- Joined: 2012-April-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:North-east England
- Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet
Posted 2019-November-06, 10:59
blackshoe, on 2019-November-06, 09:59, said:
"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.
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. Youtube link
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
#18
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,874
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2019-November-06, 11:10
weejonnie, on 2019-November-06, 04:37, said:
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?
#19
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 801
- Joined: 2012-April-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:North-east England
- Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet
Posted 2019-November-07, 05:34
pescetom, on 2019-November-06, 11:10, said:
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...
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
#20
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,052
- Joined: 2009-September-09
Posted 2019-November-07, 07:23
weejonnie, on 2019-November-07, 05:34, said:
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.