[Phil]

Had this auction today:

1♦ - 2♣ - dbl - 2♦

At this point the 2♦ bidder says "oops, I didn't see the 1♦ opener".

Her hand was Kxx, xx, AQxxx, T9x (which actually looks darn close to a limit raise anyway).

I ruled that the 2♦ call stands, but her partner has some UI because of the table comment. Her partner rebid 3♣ on seven (corrected) solid and actually didn't shift to a stiff diamond at T2 against a 3♥ contract, so that seemed very ethical to me.

Did I get this right, and if so was there anything else I should have done?

Could she be allowed to change her call? Under 25, it certainly appears her call was 'inadvertent, but only because she didn't notice the opening bid.

Thanks.

[Lobowolf]

Phil, on Mar 4 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

Had this auction today:

1♦ - 2♣ - dbl - 2♦

At this point the 2♦ bidder says "oops, I didn't see the 1♦ opener".

Her hand was Kxx, xx, AQxxx, T9x (which actually looks darn close to a limit raise anyway).

I ruled that the 2♦ call stands, but her partner has some UI because of the table comment. Her partner rebid 3♣ on six solid and actually didn't shift to a stiff diamond at T2 against a 3♥ contract, so that seemed very ethical to me. 

Did I get this right, and if so was there anything else I should have done?

Could she be allowed to change her call? Under 25, it certainly appears her call was 'inadvertent, but only because she didn't notice the opening bid.

Thanks.

Assuming it hasn't changed in the recent revisions, you should probably offer the player the option to change her call with the limitation that the best result she can get is A-. I don't have a book in front of me, so I don't know the rule number. It's under something like "Voluntary Change of Call."

I definitely would not give her a free change of call. She intended to bid 2D; that's not inadvertent.

Assuming she doesn't want to change her call with the understand that her best result will be an average minus, I think you handled it correctly; the call stands, and monitor for use of UI.

I think the only remaining concern might be if you thought the overcaller with 6 solid would have done something more than bid 3♣ if he thought he was looking at a limit raise vs. a waiting response to 2♣.

[LH2650]

Purposeful Correction is gone from Law 25 in the new version. She is stuck with the 2♦ bid. As for the rest of it, the complete auction and play would be necessary.

[Phil]

LH2650, on Mar 4 2009, 08:51 PM, said:

Purposeful Correction is gone from Law 25 in the new version. She is stuck with the 2♦ bid. As for the rest of it, the complete auction and play would be necessary.

The bidding continued:

2♥ - 3♣ - 3♥ - AP

The 2♣ bidder had Jxx xx x AKQJxxx

The 1♦ / 2♥ bidder had: Qxx AKxx KJTx xx

Opening lead was a club with a club (?!) continuation. Making 4.

[hotShot]

1♦ - 2♣ - dbl - 2♦
Your first duty is to find out what 2♦ would mean, if the 2♦ bid had been serious.
If it is natural or lead directing, I don't see why the 2♣ bidder should not lead ♦, it might be even required that he leads ♦.
If it is artificial, other consequences occur. If it was a GF cue-bid, than partners pass over 3♥ was forcing and the 2♣ bidder might be forced to bid 5♣.

[Phil]

hotShot, on Mar 5 2009, 03:44 AM, said:

1♦ - 2♣ - dbl - 2♦
Your first duty is to find out what 2♦ would mean, if the 2♦ bid had been serious.
If it is natural or lead directing, I don't see why the 2♣ bidder should not lead ♦, it might be even required that he leads ♦.
If it is artificial, other consequences occur. If it was a GF cue-bid, than partners pass over 3♥ was forcing and the 2♣ bidder might be forced to bid 5♣.

2♦ would have been a limit raise or better in clubs.

They were a weak partnership, so I doubt that they had forcing pass rules even over 2♥, much less 3.

[movingon]

The 2 diamond bid would have been a limit raise in clubs, but the statement made by the 2 diamond bidder indicates that she really did have diamonds (unauthorized information).

So, as director I believe that the opening leader could have/should have been forbidden to lead a diamond on opening lead or for as long as he/she held that lead.

Since the opening leader did not lead a diamond when she had the opportunity to do so, things worked out normally anyway.

[Phil]

I spoke with a senior director in the area and he had a strange opinion.

He thinks that Law 16 mandates that pard is barred (?!) for the auction because of the extent of the UI.

[blackshoe]

Strange indeed, given there is no such provision in Law 16.