[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-27, 10:03, said:

Are you sure about this ivie? I think calling the Director is always an appropriate way of dealing with an irregularity.

That part is relevant to this thread. Calling the TD after the correction point (pard has acted) is not required, since we know he won't let us replace the unintended bid. It might even be an attempt to avert a bigger disaster for us in the continuations--against my personal ethics.

OP did right by dummying up and trying to cope with what he had done.

[ArtK78]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-27, 09:52, said:

This is really LOL. If you do not have a Lawbook, and do not know how to access one online, why answer? Do you feel that your thoughts on the matter are more helpful than the published law dealing with the matter?

I know through personal experience that a mechanical error is correctable. I don't have to refer to a lawbook to confirm that.

I practice law. If I had to refer to a statute book every time I was advising a client it would increase the amount of time that I would spend on the issue significantly. Having dealt with most matters numerous times, I know what the correct procedures are.

Your comment, however, is a complete waste of time (with all due respect). Perhaps it makes you feel better.

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2013-February-27, 10:39, said:

I know through personal experience that a mechanical error is correctable. I don't have to refer to a lawbook to confirm that.

But you weren't sure of the particulars, so your comment was worse than useless.

Quote

I practice law. If I had to refer to a statute book every time I was advising a client it would increase the amount of time that I would spend on the issue significantly. Having dealt with most matters numerous times, I know what the correct procedures are.

But this time you didn't. Would you tell a client, "I think the law is X, but I'm not sure" or would you check and then tell the client with certainty?

Quote

Your comment, however, is a complete waste of time (with all due respect). Perhaps it makes you feel better.

What would make me feel better is if time-wasters who don't know the law for certain would refrain from posting their speculations. Perhaps my comment will have done something towards making such people think twice before doing so.

[Fluffy]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-27, 09:52, said:

This is really LOL. If you do not have a Lawbook, and do not know how to access one online, why answer? Do you feel that your thoughts on the matter are more helpful than the published law dealing with the matter?

What is LOL is a troll asking someone why answer , just 2 easy responses: to share his opinion, to contrast his opinion with more experienced ones.

[ArtK78]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-27, 11:41, said:

What would make me feel better is if time-wasters who don't know the law for certain would refrain from posting their speculations. Perhaps my comment will have done something towards making such people think twice before doing so.

It makes me think twice before responding to a post of yours, because now I know it is a complete waste of time.

(Oops, I have just disregarded my own advice)

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2013-February-27, 12:27, said:

What is LOL is a troll asking someone why answer , just 2 easy responses: to share his opinion, to contrast his opinion with more experienced ones.

Here is L25A -- I am afraid it is not a matter of opinion:

Quote

LAW 25 - LEGAL AND ILLEGAL CHANGES OF CALL

A. Unintended Call

1. 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. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.

2. No substitution of call may be made when his partner has made a subsequent call.

3. If the auction ends before it reaches the player’s partner no substitution may occur after the end of the auction period (see Law 22).

4. If a substitution is allowed the LHO may withdraw any call he made over the first call. Information from the withdrawn call is authorized only to his side. There is no further rectification.

footnote: A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error

PS You may think that name-calling adds weight to your argument, but actually it does not.

[Fluffy]

yeah, just saying it is you who asks people why answer should suffice

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2013-February-27, 13:03, said:

yeah, just saying it is you who asks people why answer should suffice

Not certain what this means, but I will not shift from my position that when a person asks what a law is, they are entitled to be told exactly what it is, not someone's speculation.

Do you honestly disagree with this?

[rmnka447]

Sorry, but I'd never bid 6 ♦ with this hand. There's just too much that needed for that to be right -- bring in ♦s with no more than one loser AND have no losers outside. Even 5 ♦ may be too high if pard's values are concentrated in ♥.

So 3 NT looks like the best bet to me.

With a really good player, I'd just bid 3 NT fully expecting partner to pass. And that player would pass for a couple reasons. First, my hand had a chance to compete in ♥s and didn't. Second, after a simple 2 ♥ raise, partner would recognize that a 3 NT bid is highly unusual if not impossible bid. Partner would figure out that I had to have a good reason for making the bid and respect my judgement. That's called partnership trust. If partner did carry on to 4 ♥, it would probably be for holding something like ♥ AKQ10xxx.

However, with lesser players, 3 NT would be more of a problem. They'd concentrate on the fact we had a ♥ fit, decide I'd done something stupid,and carry on to 4 ♥ to save me. With these partners, I'd probably bid 3 ♦ fully expecting them to carry on to 3 ♥. After 3 ♥, I'd try 3 NT and maybe then they'd get the message.

[iviehoff]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-27, 10:03, said:

Are you sure about this ivie? I think calling the Director is always an appropriate way of dealing with an irregularity.

What's your problem? I said that calling the Director is an appropriate way to begin your attempt to change the call.

Precisely as you say, calling the director is always an appropriate way of dealing with an irregularity. But be aware that there is a point at which this irregularity can no longer be dealt with ie once your partner has called, or if you became aware of it and did not take immediate action. So if it can no longer be dealt with, you would be better not drawing attention to it, because doing so will only give unauthorised information to your partner. You are under no obligation to draw attention to this irregularity, not even an ethical one.

[Zelandakh]

iviehoff, on 2013-February-28, 06:28, said:

What's your problem?

Apparently reading ability. I somehow managed to add an extra not to this sentence. Now it makes sense.

[gordontd]

iviehoff, on 2013-February-28, 06:28, said:

What's your problem? I said that calling the Director is an appropriate way to begin your attempt to change the call.

It looks to me, having read the two posts, as though he most likely misread what you wrote and saw an extra "not" in it.