[Xiaolongnu]

3H - 4NT - 4D. Without loss of generality assume 4NT is Blackwood 0314 in hearts. He claims to have wanted to respond 5D.

First, how would u verify the L25 inadvertentness of the bid?

Replacement bids? L27B1b.

[blackshoe]

The general rule is that if a player says his 4♦ was inadvertent, we allow a change to 5♦ under Law 25A, provided he has met all the criteria of that law. In such a case, Law 27B1b is not relevant.

[aguahombre]

And, in the auction 3H-3NT, 4D would not occur; so the TD would have no problem believing that the player simply pulled the wrong card out of the box in response to 4N.

[lamford]

It is up to the TD to establish whether 4D was a mechanical error or a brain error. If he intended to select 5D, then he is allowed a correction, but if he intended to select 4D he is not.

[lamford]

It is up to the TD to establish whether 4D was a mechanical error or a brain error. If he intended to select 5D, then he is allowed a correction, but if he intended to select 4D he is not, and he will have to select the final contract, effectively.

[iviehoff]

 Xiaolongnu, on 2013-November-23, 21:54, said:

First, how would u verify the L25 inadvertentness of the bid?

You ask the question "what bidding card did you think you held in your hand at the time you placed it on the table" (or some similar question for other methods of making bids. You have to hope for an honest answer of course.

[iviehoff]

 lamford, on 2013-November-24, 18:46, said:

It is up to the TD to establish whether 4D was a mechanical error or a brain error. If he intended to select 5D, then he is allowed a correction, but if he intended to select 4D he is not, and he will have to select the final contract, effectively.

If it is a brain error rather than a mechanical error (ie the bidder was aware at the time of bidding that he was bidding 4D), then whether it can be corrected by 5D without penalty under L27B1b depends upon what 4D "means". If it means "a two-step response to Blackwood", then it can be corrected without penalty. If it means something else, then you are correct. You can't just look on someone's convention card to find the meaning of an insufficient bid, you basically have to ask the player (away from the hearing of the other playes) what he thought 4D meant. A 2-step response to Blackwood could well be just what he thought it meant.

[lamford]

 iviehoff, on 2013-November-25, 02:56, said:

If it is a brain error rather than a mechanical error (ie the bidder was aware at the time of bidding that he was bidding 4D), then whether it can be corrected by 5D without penalty under L27B1b depends upon what 4D "means".

I don't agree. 4NT-4D has no meaning in the player's system. If he intended to select 5D but missed by a level, then you would be right. If he intended to bid 4D, even if he thought at the time that this was a two-step response, then I do not think you are right. Substitutions are allowed without penalty if he thought the auction was different, and he can make a bid that has the same (or approximately the same) meaning as his IB. But I have not been keeping abreast of all the interpretations of this dreadful Law, so I am happy to be corrected. Indeed Vampyr thinks I am wrong, and that he is allowed to correct to 5D if he thought 4NT-4D showed two key cards.

[chrism]

 lamford, on 2013-November-25, 06:55, said:

I don't agree. 4NT-4D has no meaning in the player's system. If he intended to select 5D but missed by a level, then you would be right. If he intended to bid 4D, even if he thought at the time that this was a two-step response, then I do not think you are right. Substitutions are allowed without penalty if he thought the auction was different, and he can make a bid that has the same (or approximately the same) meaning as his IB. But I have not been keeping abreast of all the interpretations of this dreadful Law, so I am happy to be corrected. Indeed Vampyr thinks I am wrong, and that he is allowed to correct to 5D if he thought 4NT-4D showed two key cards.

Indeed, he is also allowed to correct to 5♣ if he thought he was replying 0 or 3 to keycard Gerber(!) (or 0 aces to regular Gerber when also playing good-old Blackwood). The TD has to determine as best he can what the player thought his bid meant at the time he made it; if there is a sufficient call that shows the same set of hands or a subset thereof, a correction to that call is allowed. I don't altogether agree that the law is dreadful; it can be significant extra work for the TD but is more equitable than the Draconian consequences of the pre-2007 version, and gives a better chance of the board being decided by the classical bridge skills of bidding judgement and card play rather then by Law, which I believe is more attractive to most non-SBs.

[iviehoff]

 lamford, on 2013-November-25, 06:55, said:

I don't agree. 4NT-4D has no meaning in the player's system. If he intended to select 5D but missed by a level, then you would be right.

Of course no insufficient bid has a meaning in anyone's system. But the law requires us to ascribe a meaning to it, and all we can do is ask the player what they intended it to mean, it is the only way to make any sense of this terrible law. And if he intended his conscious 4D bid to mean a 2-step response to Blackwood, but miscalculated what level he had to bid at to make that response, then that is the only meaning we can ascribe to it, it certainly doesn't have any other meaning if it has a meaning at all.

In fact, this example is probably a canonical example of the law working just as the writers of it intended. They thought, if someone heard partner call Blackwood and they called 4D instead of 5D because they simply miscalculated the level, surely we can just let them correct it to 5D rather than impose a rule that will destroy the hand. Of course, there are some unpleasant ramifications that they overlooked in other more complex cases, but in simple cases like this one, they probably aren't too far wrong.

[Vampyr]

 chrism, on 2013-November-25, 08:28, said:

is more equitable than the Draconian consequences of the pre-2007 version,

If it is Draconian for everyone, then it is a lot more equitable than under the current Law.

Quote

gives a better chance of the board being decided by the classical bridge skills of bidding judgement and card play rather then by Law, which I believe is more attractive to most non-SBs.

I disagree. Of course it depends on how badly the IB has spoilt the board, but requiring the IBer to select the final contract for his side (perhaps with the old exception of making a minimally-sufficient natural substitution of a natural IB) would be transparent and fair (and appear fair) to everyone, and would still allow for the result to be decided by card play if not bidding judgment. A ruling that depends on the faulty temporary state of mind of a player is nonsense. And it wouldn't surprise me if many people would have to answer honestly that they just don't know what was going through their minds at the time. The aberration will have been extremely brief.

I don't know why so many people, including, unfortunately, the members-for-life of the Drafting Committee, are so opposed to penalising people who fail to abide by the basic mechanics of the game.

[campboy]

I don't know about the drafting committee, but I think it is a bad idea to make everything depend on the TD's judgement of whether what went through the player's mind was more like

"I want to show 1 or 4 and we play 0314 so that is clubs, diamonds ... 4♦" *bids 4♦*

or

"I want to show 1 or 4 and we play 0314 so that is clubs, diamonds ... 5♦" *bids 4♦*.

[Vampyr]

 campboy, on 2013-November-25, 18:39, said:

I don't know about the drafting committee, but I think it is a bad idea to make everything depend on the TD's judgement of whether what went through the player's mind was more like

"I want to show 1 or 4 and we play 0314 so that is clubs, diamonds ... 4♦" *bids 4♦*

or

"I want to show 1 or 4 and we play 0314 so that is clubs, diamonds ... 5♦" *bids 4♦*.

This is a little different, since you seem to be making a distinction between a mechanical error and a brain error. This distinction should, IMO, still be made, especially as cards will sometimes stick together and you have to take the top one off.

[campboy]

Of course it is important that we allow a change in a genuine 25A case. The problem is that it is difficult for the TD to tell whether it is one, especially when many players are not really aware of the difference. At the moment in cases like this one it is not vital if the TD gets the decision between 25A and 27 wrong, as unless the next player wants to accept an IB the result is essentially the same. In the old laws a lot rode on this decision.

[WellSpyder]

I think only a very small proportion of insufficient bids are genuine 25A cases, though TDs often seem willing to allow players to get away with rather dubious claims about misbids without trying to pin down exactly what sort of misbid is being talked about.

[aguahombre]

I don't find it difficult at all to distinguish between a finger fumble and a brain fart; nor do the other players at the table.

[WellSpyder]

 aguahombre, on 2013-November-26, 07:07, said:

I don't find it difficult at all to distinguish between a finger fumble and a brain fart; nor do the other players at the table.

Of course it isn't difficult if you are asked a question that clearly distinguishes these. But if the TD asks the player "what happened?", and the player responds "I meant to bid x" then is the distinction clear?

[jeffford76]

 Vampyr, on 2013-November-25, 19:26, said:

This is a little different, since you seem to be making a distinction between a mechanical error and a brain error. This distinction should, IMO, still be made, especially as cards will sometimes stick together and you have to take the top one off.

With sensible bidding box rules, I don't think this is a problem. If a bid isn't made until it hits the table, there is plenty of time to remove a stuck card before that happens.

[mycroft]

Very few will say they meant to make an IB, "they meant to bid high enough", but they didn't realize what was high enough.

I have to be careful when I ask the question, because I get that. My followup usually makes it clear whether they actually meant to bid 2♠ because it was enough or whether they meant to bid 3♠ and 2 came out.

I think, at least.

[aguahombre]

 mycroft, on 2013-November-26, 11:44, said:

Very few will say they meant to make an IB, "they meant to bid high enough", but they didn't realize what was high enough.

I have to be careful when I ask the question, because I get that. My followup usually makes it clear whether they actually meant to bid 2♠ because it was enough or whether they meant to bid 3♠ and 2 came out.

I think, at least.

Yes. You apply your people skills to evaluate the reaction of the offender and the opponents' contributions. You note the locations of the two bids in the box, and you articulate your questions clearly. Good job.