[Phil]

At the club game yesterday, South in 3rd seat opened 2♦ with ♠Qxx ♥void ♦ATxxx ♣Qxxxx. This was alerted by our partner, since their agreement is that a 2♦ opening is 18-19 balanced.

Even before the opponents inquired, South tried to 'change' her call to 1♦ which she felt she could since her partner had not taken a call yet. She also claimed she was making a mechanical error.

I have seen similar cases at the table, but I can't find the chapter and verse of the laws.

What section covers this and how would you rule?

[AlexJonson]

Phil, on 2011-April-09, 12:46, said:

At the club game yesterday, South in 3rd seat opened 2♦ with ♠Qxx ♥void ♦ATxxx ♣Qxxxx. This was alerted by our partner, since their agreement is that a 2♦ opening is 18-19 balanced.

Even before the opponents inquired, South tried to 'change' her call to 1♦ which she felt she could since her partner had not taken a call yet. She also claimed she was making a mechanical error.

I have seen similar cases at the table, but I can't find the chapter and verse of the laws.

What section covers this and how would you rule?

Interesting idea that you could correct a mechanical error to a psych (1D?) - unless they had an appropriate 2NT minor suit bid.

If they play 2NT for the minors as a preempt, and it is on the card, I would just believe them.

[gordontd]

Phil, on 2011-April-09, 12:46, said:

What section covers this and how would you rule?

Quote

L25A. 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.

I usually start by asking the player which bidding card she was reaching for when she made her call. If she says 1♦, as would be necessary for her to even have a chance of a L25A substitution, I would ask her why she thought that hand was worth an opening bid. I think the likelihood is not great that I would be convinced by her answers that the conditions of L25A have been satisfied.

[gordontd]

AlexJonson, on 2011-April-09, 13:15, said:

If they play 2NT for the minors as a preempt, and it is on the card, I would just believe them.

Even then, if you thought she had made a mechanical error and had been reaching for the 2NT card, this would not allow her to correct it to 1♦.

[AlexJonson]

gordontd, on 2011-April-09, 13:38, said:

Even then, if you thought she had made a mechanical error and had been reaching for the 2NT card, this would not allow her to correct it to 1♦.

Of course not! Correction to 2NT.

[jallerton]

Did South pull out the 'stop' card before pulling out the 2♦ bid?

[aguahombre]

gordontd, on 2011-April-09, 13:36, said:

I think the likelihood is not great that I would be convinced by her answers that the conditions of L25A have been satisfied.

Agree. And forget 2NT, even if it is on their card; she didn't try to change to that. As director, I would be more inclined to believe she remembered their Mexican 2D agreement after perpetrating a weak-2.

Of course I wouldn't have to say that at the table; just disallow L25A correction, let the auction proceed, and make whatever adjustment is appropriate for the UI afterward. In ACBL land, the stop card not having been used is not much of a clue.

[gordontd]

AlexJonson, on 2011-April-09, 14:41, said:

Of course not! Correction to 2NT.

But that's not what she tried to do.

[AlexJonson]

gordontd, on 2011-April-09, 16:40, said:

But that's not what she tried to do.

Yes thanks Gordon, I think I already mentioned the problem of 'correcting' to a 1D psych.

I really must stop assuming people read posts with a willingness to understand and a vestige of humour.

[blackshoe]

I lived in England for three years. Still, English humor sometimes goes right over my head.

[gordontd]

AlexJonson, on 2011-April-09, 16:54, said:

Yes thanks Gordon, I think I already mentioned the problem of 'correcting' to a 1D psych.

It's not the fact that it's a psych that would be the problem - it's that it would be a change of mind.

AlexJonson, on 2011-April-09, 16:54, said:

I really must stop assuming people read posts with a willingness to understand and a vestige of humour.

I'm more concerned with the right information being put out for those who don't already know it, than I am with whether those who don't know me think I have a sense of humour or not.

[campboy]

Wait, why are we looking at the player's hand before deciding whether 25A applies?

[gordontd]

campboy, on 2011-April-10, 06:30, said:

Wait, why are we looking at the player's hand before deciding whether 25A applies?

I don't think anyone has suggested doing that, but we do know the hand because we were told it in the original post, so it's reasonable to consider it in the context of whether L25A ought to have applied.

[Phil]

aguahombre, on 2011-April-09, 16:24, said:

Agree. And forget 2NT, even if it is on their card; she didn't try to change to that. As director, I would be more inclined to believe she remembered their Mexican 2D agreement after perpetrating a weak-2.

Of course I wouldn't have to say that at the table; just disallow L25A correction, let the auction proceed, and make whatever adjustment is appropriate for the UI afterward. In ACBL land, the stop card not having been used is not much of a clue.

This is what I was thinking at the time, but I didn't know the relevant section.

[aguahombre]

Phil, on 2011-April-10, 09:34, said:

This is what I was thinking at the time, but I didn't know the relevant section.

Me neither. But, once 25A is out of the way (can't change the bid), don't we just get into UI, LA's, etc --and whether subsequent actions are judged to be based on UI, reverse UI, panic, etc.?

For instance, a raise to 3D is a transfer to hearts as far as responder is concerned; but I think opener only gets to know it as a diamond raise? Don't know all the responses to Mex. 2D, but I am sure they are all relevant.

[blackshoe]

There are at least half a dozen different versions of "Mexican 2♦" out there, so it would be important to find out exactly what this pair are playing.

[Phil]

Mexi 2♦ is one of these treatments played at our club where no one has any clue about the 2nd round of bidding except that they are required to bid 2♠. I'm pretty sure I'd get blank stares if I asked what any call would mean after 2♦ except 2♠. Additionally, I don't think that they would know what to do in the auction 2♦ -2♠ - 3♣.

None of these pairs really have a clue about their ethical responsibilities and what to do when someone misbids and the resulting UI after partner alerts.

It is a growing process for the directors too

[blackshoe]

Seems you have some people in need of education.

Mexican 2♦ done right is a useful convention. Mexican 2♦ done half-assed — which is what your players seem to be doing — is kind of like trying to put out a chunk of burning C4 by stomping on it with your foot.

[mycroft]

Offtopic, but with a straightline like Ed's...

[blackshoe]

Heh.