Panel TD Weekend Simulation
After an enjoyable and informative weekend, I came to re-analyse the simulation I did on Sunday (Board 8)
West opens 1 Diamond:
North passes
East Bids 1 Heart
North bids 2 Hearts.
It transpires tha North intended to bid "Stop 2 Hearts" but pulled out the wrong card. (The hands don't matter for the discussion below).
Initially I was going to remove the pass on the assumption that it wasn't pulled out with intention - but that is not what the blue book says. It says "with apparant intent, but the TD may apply law 25") - in this case the pass WAS removed with apparant intent.
So we have a law 25 (change of unintentended call) with partner not having called - North may change the call to the call he intended to make. (There are UI issues for both North and South due to East having bid hearts (the call is withdrawn AI/UI etc)).
At least that was the ruling at the table and the discussion that involved - but something niggled me.
What about the "2 Hearts" call already on the table?
Since a call has been made (pass) and substituted (with 2 Hearts), and the player intended to make the second ("2 hearts") call then 25A cannot apply to the second call. Thus we have a call made when it is LHO turn to call (31C - which references Law 25)
So we have to apply law 25B - East may accept the 2nd (2 heart) call, but is under no obligation to do so, but if he doesn't then the 2nd 2 Heart call is cancelled - and Law 26 May apply.
**Thus if NS become defenders declarer may forbid any non-heart lead until South loses the lead. **
A (minor point) - If East doubles - West can use the AI that he bid 1H to suspect that this is a penalty double - even though notionally it might be negative). Presumably he doesn't alert it, if the agreement is that it is for takeout.
Thoughts?
Comments
The pass card was pulled out inadvertently but not unintentionally, so it stands as a made call. This might not go down well at club level. Was East's 1H bid made so quickly that it should count as a break in tempo?
I think that West should alert the 2H if the partnership varies its agreements after an irregularity by opponents. Otherwise, if he doesn't alert it, then he should bid as though it were takeout, lest he be giving misinformation by not alerting. Note that he has the information that his partner had withdrawn the 1H call, which opponents don't have.
I had the same situation at the Torquay Annual Swiss Pairs yesterday - W pulled out the pass card instead of the stop card. I ruled the same - mechanical error, "inadvertently" corrected before the director called.
My first thought was what the "apparent" means in "with apparent intent". Is it what it looks like to everyone else, or what director determines was in the players mind. Probably the former (otherwise why give the option to apply law 25?) I presume not "with apparent intent" is something like knocking the bidding box over or dropping the stack of bidding cards whilst attempting to make a bid and having the wrong card land in the table.
These two laws do indeed seem to conflict. In terms of resolving this, I suggest the earlier correction takes priority (happens first), and after that correction the pass bid was never made, and so E cannot reject the 2H bid.
Jeremy
No - just remember that East's one heart call was made without a 'STOP' card being present. (I assume you mean - should West alert the double). North was (presumably) being deliberate in selecting the 2 Heart card (some players may actually wait before making the actual call - although this of course is not SOP.)
With regards to 'apparant intent' it would appear that to East, North had just reached into the bidding box and pulled out the 'pass' card - quite deliberately. It isn't a case of cards getting stuck and the player immediately putting the wrong ones back.
East cannot reject the 2nd 2 Heart call (the one correcting the pass, since you are ruling under 25A) - but he can reject the 1st 2 Heart call under 25B - since that was made deliberately.)
Yes, sorry, I didn't proof-read my earlier post. I meant that West should alert the double if it's for penalties, not that he should alert the 2H. We'd have the auction 1D-2H-dble, with a withdraw 1H bid, which is AI to EW and UI to NS.
My other thought on this situation is whether East made his 1H bid so quickly as for it to be a BIT. We're not given this information.
I don't see this: I think it's a straight application of L25A. The player put on the table a call that was unintended and then place on the table the call that was intended. This is allowed by L25A1. Why would you go to 31C?
So in effect you are saying there is only 1 2-heart call. Fair enough. Obviously we want to do what is both legal and right.
Well, the 'right' thing to do does seem to me that, the player having been trying to bid 2H all along, we want to allow that bid. But equally it seems unfair to punish a 1H bid made in good faith. I think the law seems about right here.