[helene_t]

1♠-(pass)-3♥-(pass)

Responder did not use the stop card which is unusual (jump shifts are unusual in this partnership anyway) and prompted opener to ask her partner if she meant to bid 2♥. Yes, it was indeed a mechanical error and responder wanted to correct it to 2♥. Opener's LHO wasn't sure this was legal and called the TD.

Is responder allowed to change her bid? Should opener get a PP for drawing attention to her partner's mechanical error? (Isn't going to happen at this club but just in principle).

[pran]

helene_t, on 2015-May-23, 02:21, said:

1♠-(pass)-3♥-(pass)

Responder did not use the stop card which is unusual (jump shifts are unusual in this partnership anyway) and prompted opener to ask her partner if she meant to bid 2♥. Yes, it was indeed a mechanical error and responder wanted to correct it to 2♥. Opener's LHO wasn't sure this was legal and called the TD.

Is responder allowed to change her bid? Should opener get a PP for drawing attention to her partner's mechanical error? (Isn't going to happen at this club but just in principle).

Curious event.

Am I right that responder following her 3♥ bid more or less immediately prompted opener to ask if she (responder) intended to bid 2♥?

If that is the case I am tempted to take this "prompt" as an "attempt(s) to do so, without pause for thought" (Law 25A1) and allow the change.

There are many acceptable ways a player can attempt to "substitute his intended call for an unintended call". This is a very unusual one but I see no real reason to refuse it if the circumstances otherwise appear genuine.

[helene_t]

Oh sorry the word prompted was confusing. My bad.
I meant that it was the failure to use the stop card that prompted the question.

So opener simply asked her p if it was a mechanical error.

[pran]

helene_t, on 2015-May-23, 03:44, said:

Oh sorry the word prompted was confusing. My bad.
I meant that it was the failure to use the stop card that prompted the question.

So opener simply asked her p if it was a mechanical error.

In that case I would rule that opener's question was illegal communication with partner, deny the substitution of 2♥ for the (allegedly unintended) 3♥ bid and rule that all information arisen from the question itself and the subsequent activity is unauthorized for the opener and responder. (i.e. opener must continue the auction as if 3♥ were indeed intended.)

I would normally not bother with more than a warning to the two players.

[lamford]

pran, on 2015-May-23, 05:26, said:

In that case I would rule that opener's question was illegal communication with partner, deny the substitution of 2♥ for the (allegedly unintended) 3♥ bid and rule that all information arisen from the question itself and the subsequent activity is unauthorized for the opener and responder. (i.e. opener must continue the auction as if 3♥ were indeed intended.)

I think the WBFLC ruled that a correction for a mechanical error was allowed however the error was discovered, for example if someone opened 1NT intending 2C, and his partner announced 12-14, and then the opener says, "I did not intend to open 1NT". Some think that correcting it is then breaching Law 73C, but I think the WBFLC has decreed that it is not. I agree, however, that there is illegal communication and you can assess a penalty for that, but I do not think you can prevent a correction to 2H. Perhaps you have to award an adjusted score.

[blackshoe]

Paul's right, the minute makes things a little tricky. Also, the rectification for violations of Law 73A-73E provided in Law 73F applies only when "the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo or the like of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit". Some other route to score adjustment would have to be found.

Quote

Law 73B1: Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and expla- nations given or not given to them.

The emphasis is mine. Opener's question is an extraneous remark. "Shall not" is a strong prohibition; I would issue a procedural penalty.

The relevant minute, from the meeting of October 18, 2011, says "It was decided to add to the Laws a footnote to Law 25A as follows: ‘A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error.’" So I would allow responder to correct his bid under Law 25A. I'm not sure the director can adjust the score later, because of Law 12B2 ("The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.")

[par31]

Opener seems to be permitted under Law 9A1 to point out that partner should have used the Stop card (instead of asking the question that she asked). This would presumably also have had the effect of causing responder to realise that she had misbid and allowing her to correct it.