[Chris3875]

---

West now bid 1S and North Passed whereupon West said "that wasn't what I meant to bid" and the director was called. The following is a copy and paste of the email I received -

I have a situation from yesterday which may interest you. Board 13 began P-1NT(12-14)-P-1S:P At this point I was called and there was a complicating factor in that West announced that he did not intend to make his bid! I was playing a hand and did not arrive for a minute or so, just to complicate matters.

I ruled that bidding could continue but that the comment made was unauthorised and that East could not act on it. Bidding now continued by EW 1NT(!)-2H; 2S. The contract made exactly 8 tricks, but I delayed making a decision as I had not yet played the hand.

I had the misfortune to play a slow pair last up, was finished last and my computer guru had the scores ready and printed and announced before I could even alter any results. I had to make decisions on another hand as well, which was a little simpler, so now had to return to the above hand.

Systemically I know 2S is a transfer to a minor for this particular pair. I cannot possibly allow them to change the whole meaning of the auction, even if they have been aided by the acceptance of the insufficient bid. I adjusted the score to 2H by W for -200 and the new scores were posted on the web site.

One of the aggrieved players asked by email about the time I got home how they could challenge the severity of my decision. I pointed out that he had given his partner unauthorised information and that I did not permit the transfer sequence. I also said that I could instead have changed it to 3C for -400, which was perhaps more appropriate than the actual 2H. This is one of my regular partners and I feel there is no joy on the way.

The person directing on the day (who sent me the email) is an excellent player (far, far better than me) - and I think if I had been directing I would have simply allowed the auction to continue as the "insufficient bid" had been accepted by South, but maybe I am missing something. I would have liked to know what West was thinking when he bid the 1S. I'd be interested to hear your comments pls people.

[Bad_Wolf]

Chris3875, on 2015-March-06, 19:12, said:

---

West now bid 1S and North Passed whereupon West said "that wasn't what I meant to bid" and the director was called. The following is a copy and paste of the email I received -

I have a situation from yesterday which may interest you. Board 13 began P-1NT(12-14)-P-1S:P At this point I was called and there was a complicating factor in that West announced that he did not intend to make his bid! I was playing a hand and did not arrive for a minute or so, just to complicate matters.

I ruled that bidding could continue but that the comment made was unauthorised and that East could not act on it. Bidding now continued by EW 1NT(!)-2H; 2S. The contract made exactly 8 tricks, but I delayed making a decision as I had not yet played the hand.

I had the misfortune to play a slow pair last up, was finished last and my computer guru had the scores ready and printed and announced before I could even alter any results. I had to make decisions on another hand as well, which was a little simpler, so now had to return to the above hand.

Systemically I know 2S is a transfer to a minor for this particular pair. I cannot possibly allow them to change the whole meaning of the auction, even if they have been aided by the acceptance of the insufficient bid. I adjusted the score to 2H by W for -200 and the new scores were posted on the web site.

One of the aggrieved players asked by email about the time I got home how they could challenge the severity of my decision. I pointed out that he had given his partner unauthorised information and that I did not permit the transfer sequence. I also said that I could instead have changed it to 3C for -400, which was perhaps more appropriate than the actual 2H. This is one of my regular partners and I feel there is no joy on the way.

The person directing on the day (who sent me the email) is an excellent player (far, far better than me) - and I think if I had been directing I would have simply allowed the auction to continue as the "insufficient bid" had been accepted by South, but maybe I am missing something. I would have liked to know what West was thinking when he bid the 1S. I'd be interested to hear your comments pls people.

Just trying to get this straight. First you decided that the 1S was not an 'unintended call' for the purposes of law 25 and secondly you decided that because of the UI east cannot treat the 2H response as a transfer? Really?

[Chris3875]

Well, if you read my OP you will see that I didn't decide anything but if I had been there AND directing I probably would have simply let the auction continue to its 2S making 8 tricks conclusion (depending on what West may have told me about his bid if I had been able to ask). But maybe I am missing something.

[weejonnie]

If West cannot change the call i.e. he intended to bid 1S, then North can accept the bid (which he did by passing) and the auction proceeds.

If West can change his call i.e. when he made it he intended to bid 2S or something else instead of 1S (up to the TD to find out) then the insufficient bid is not made. He can change it under these circumstances as his partner has not yet made a call.

Note that west cannot unchange his mis-call - he must call what he intended to make. Thus if West intended to make a 2 Spade bid as a weak 2 (not having seen the 1NT bid) then that is the call he must make (and pay the consequences) - a player has no recourse if he makes a call on his own misunderstanding.

[Chris3875]

Going back to Bad_Wolf's reply - if the Director decided that the 1S was NOT unintended and treated it as insufficient, accepted by North - then surely West's later bid of 2H would not be a transfer to spades but would be showing a second suit. With 4 hearts and 3 spades, wouldn't East pass or even bid 3H ?

[blackshoe]

If 2♥ shows a second suit, then he has at least five spades. Partner, with three, might well support spades.

[Chris3875]

Hi Blackshoe - what about in this instance though where he was actually trying to transfer to spades ... and only had 2 small hearts. Can he transfer now ? I find this situation really difficult. What do you think about the Director adjusting the score to 2H by West going off ? I can't get my head around it at all.

[helene_t]

I am not sure that there is any ui since the comment might just mean that w realizes that he had made an ib.
It could also suggest that he meant to bid hearts rather than spades in which case passing 2h would be unethical. It is not likely to mean that he meant to bid 2s since he didn't use the stop card. So the failure to use the stop card suggests that w doesn't have clubs but the 2h bid isn't consistent with long clubs so that doesn't matter.

So the 2s bid is certainly allowed.

W might need some education about what constitutes an unintended call but there is no reason to adjust the score.

[sanst]

The director is right in pointing out that West's remark is UI to East. But what is East to make of it? We know the hands and can safely assume that the call was not unintended in regards to Law 25A, but E doesn't know that. The information from the call itself is allowed to East. Whether the 2♥ bid is a transfer or natural E has to guess, assuming that EW have no (illegal) agreements about bidding after an IB, so the 2♠ bid is allowed. That W should pay more attention to the play is obvious, but if we hand out PP's for mistakes like this, most members in club where I'm one of the directors would start looking for somewhere else to play.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2015-March-09, 03:11, said:

It is not likely to mean that he meant to bid 2s since he didn't use the stop card.

The use of the stop card here would be quite unusual, I think.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-09, 09:27, said:

The use of the stop card here would be quite unusual, I think.

lol yes, if E meant to respond 2♠ to the 1NT opening he wouldn't have used the stop card.

But E can conclude from the lack of stop card that W didn't mean to open 2♠.

[blackshoe]

Chris3875, on 2015-March-08, 23:36, said:

Hi Blackshoe - what about in this instance though where he was actually trying to transfer to spades ... and only had 2 small hearts. Can he transfer now ? I find this situation really difficult. What do you think about the Director adjusting the score to 2H by West going off ? I can't get my head around it at all.

"That wasn't what I meant to bid" is an assertion that 1♠ was an unintended call. It may well have been — or West's thought when he pulled the bidding card out might have been "I have to show my spades". TD has to investigate that. If she determines that the bid was unintended, West can change 1♠ to his intended (presumably) 2♥, and then North can change his pass if he wants to. There is no further rectification. If the TD determines that the bid was not unintended, 1♠ stands, North's pass stands (and accepts 1♠) and the auction continues with no further rectification.

What AI does East have? He knows that West either has spades, or he wanted to relay to 3♣ or transfer to 3♣ ("transfer to a minor" sounds like the former, IOW it sounds like their agreement is that West might have either minor, and will either pass 3♣ or bid 3♦ — that's not a transfer, even though many (most?) people call it one). So he bids 1NT ("partner, let's start over; tell me what you really meant"). Now West bids 2♥. What is East to make of this? Two possibilities: it's natural, and West has 5+ spades and 4+ hearts, or it's "I meant to transfer to spades". If West has the former hand, I suppose pass might be considered a LA. Maybe. However, if West has spades and is transferring, then pass is not an LA - it's completely illogical. So the AI indicates that East should bid 2♠, and passing is not an LA — if West has both, and wants to go on (choice of games, look for slam) he can do that. And if West has a minor, he can bid it now. Note that the auction is AI to East, so if West now bids 3m, East may well conclude that West intended to relay (or transfer) showing a (presumably weak) minor all along.

Now, about that "UI".

Quote

Law 16A3: No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).

Doesn't matter. Following the logic in my previous paragraph, there's no LA to bidding 2♠ over West's 2♥. One could also argue that the information arose "from the legal procedures authorized in these Laws" (Law 16A1{c}. So I would rule the result stands.

This ruling isn't all that simple, so I'm moving it to "Laws and Rulings".

[whereagles]

I dare suggest that a playing director, upon a situation that calls for a close look at the hand like this one, to do just that and rule appropriately. If she happens to play the hand later, make it 50/60% (60% opps, of course).