[lamford]

---

You are unsure if 2S would have been forcing, and think 3S is natural and forcing. What do you do now, and would it matter if 5D was bid quickly?

[mikeh]

If it matters whether 5D was bid quickly or slowly or in normal tempo, I suggest a remedial course in ethics. Sure, it’s impossible not to be aware of the tempo, but an insta bid is just as harmful as a slow bid in terms of conveying information. Whatever you may think the insta bid implies, you must now run through logical alternatives and consciously reject any that you think have become more logical if you use the insta bid as an influence


Of course, the OP knows all this, plus (given that we didn’t even know whether 2S would have been forcing…and I do play it constructive but nf with one partner) I’m not at all sure what the fast bid implies. If I had to guess, and I do, I’d think it suggests passing, which means that I can’t pass. I bid a hopefully in-tempo but probably agonized 5S.

My rationale? Say he’s got AKQxxxx A Axx xx. He’s trying to tell me to bid slam with a club control.

Do I think that’s what he’s got? No….that’s not an insta 5D…at best it’s an in tempo 5D.

I’m not sure what kind of hand bids 3S, sees a raise, and then wants to sign off in diamonds (I think we’d have had some table feel or action if, for example, he intended 3S as a splinter. Many years ago, I played jumps over 2D as asking bids, but I wouldn’t expect anyone to assume that).

While I sympathize with south (though that 2D bid makes me nauseous), I think passing warrants an adjustment unless bidding would work out better

[mikeh]

If it matters whether 5D was bid quickly or slowly or in normal tempo, I suggest a remedial course in ethics. Sure, it’s impossible not to be aware of the tempo, but an insta bid is just as harmful as a slow bid in terms of conveying information. Whatever you may think the insta bid implies, you must now run through logical alternatives and consciously reject any that you think have become more logical if you use the insta bid as an influence


Of course, the OP knows all this, plus (given that we didn’t even know whether 2S would have been forcing…and I do play it constructive but nf with one partner) I’m not at all sure what the fast bid implies. If I had to guess, and I do, I’d think it suggests passing, which means that I can’t pass. I bid a hopefully in-tempo but probably agonized 5S.

My rationale? Say he’s got AKQxxxx A Axx xx. He’s trying to tell me to bid slam with a club control.

Do I think that’s what he’s got? No….that’s not an insta 5D…at best it’s an in tempo 5D.

I’m not sure what kind of hand bids 3S, sees a raise, and then wants to sign off in diamonds (I think we’d have had some table feel or action if, for example, he intended 3S as a splinter. Many years ago, I played jumps over 2D as asking bids, but I wouldn’t expect anyone to assume that).

While I sympathize with south (though that 2D bid makes me nauseous), I think passing warrants an adjustment unless bidding would work out better

[blackshoe]

Are we to assume that every other call in this auction was in tempo?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2024-September-13, 17:38, said:

Are we to assume that every other call in this auction was in tempo?

No, 3S was also out of tempo. 4S was in normal tempo

[jillybean]

lamford, on 2024-September-14, 06:45, said:

No, 3S was also out of tempo. 4S was in normal tempo

How did the Director rule?

[pescetom]

I would argue that the systemic meaning for 5D here should be a control-bid or similar slam try in spades, if 3S was natural and raised to game. It's hard to imagine why North should ever want to play in diamonds after 3S 4S, particularly if 2D can be balanced rubbish and there was 2NT or some other asking bid available to enquire about the opening.
But it's their system (and the interpretation of it by their peers) that counts, if this is a thinly disguised Laws and Rulings problem and 3S was a misclick or psyche or unsystemic splinter or whatever.

[jillybean]

We are prempting Lamford but, if it sounds like a duck...

Enough of this nonsense of polls, if you allow South to pass 5D we may as well allow players to explain their bids to their partner during the auction.

[mycroft]

Difficult to say in the ACBL, because 2♠ NF (even constructive NF) is Alertable, and any pair who play this has had the director called the first time opener passed, so they know. So either this is a very inexperienced pair, in which case the tempos say "I have no idea what's going on", or it's not, in which case they know if 2♠ is NF or not. So I am a bit out of my usual waters - I can't imagine this.

I think the UK definition of "unauthorized panic" (not an official term, of course, but officially unofficial) is "when partner makes it clear that they didn't understand your bid, bid the suit you actually have, quickly." Now, assuming 3♠ was intended as splinter, they know it wasn't from the raise, but they also know it wasn't from the failure to Alert. That will of course help to trigger UP.

The issue is, like the last one, that they *don't* have to think about this call, they knew what they were going to do as soon as 3♠ wasn't Alerted. They've already "thought" about it through the other calls, so it comes out "fast". If they would just learn to make their "no issue" calls after a breath (and not, say, reach to pick up their cards after partner bids 3NT before their RHO passes (*)), then there isn't an issue.

Unless they're *trying* to get the message across with the tempo (viz my old club where 1NT-2♦ "transfer"; 2♥-3 diamonds, with spoken bidding and that intonation, always got passed). Then I say, nail 'em to the wall. But most of the time, there's no intention, they just knew they had to get to however many diamonds they needed to when it was their turn to call, so they did.

Which is, of course, why 73C says "carefully avoid", not "ignore" or "do what you always would do without" the UI.

Having said all that, my answer to the original question strongly depends on my agreements on my weak 2♦. Given that I don't have the sixth diamond partner expects (my partners do. Do theirs?) and I don't have any controls (did partner deny first and second, or just first, in clubs?), and partner wouldn't be showing me a shortness control (would she?), there's an argument that "your cards will work in my suits, and mine may not" (it won't be A stiff either, or I have zero tricks for partner and they know it - they don't know about the J) 5♦ might be a safer contract than 5♠ (is it IMPs or MPs? I don't mind losing 2 if both make; I can't really afford half or more a board).

Given that "I didn't notice the call was any faster than normal, I didn't know what 3♠ meant - and we both knew that, which explains why 3♠ was slow (I do admit that, but then again LHO's pass over 2♦ was immediate, rather than pausing as he should), but it's clearly now a splinter for diamonds" is for certain going to be the defence (did E-W mention the fast 5♦/ask to agree the tempo/"reserve rights" before East passed it? If not, especially in the UK, that will be added to the "I didn't notice...and they didn't mention it either"), this one is going to be fun for everybody.

Having said that, I bet E-W will be able to overcome everything and convert their -450 into +50. I hope so, anyway, because I really do have an issue with fast tempo - people get away with it all too often.

I am, of course, reminded of That Appeal From DC where "1330 MPs" did everything wrong, if he wanted a ruling (which he didn't actually want. He just wanted to say "I see what you did, and this is going to Stop, Now, isn't it?") but the UP was so blatant that even sabotaging his case as much as he did, didn't avoid the ruling in his favour, and AWM. Which, frankly, looks an awful lot like this case, except for the "two known losers in clubs" issue.

(*)"But it doesn't matter here!" True, it doesn't. But it's good practise to make even the "obvious to people at the next table" calls in tempo as well; that way you have the habits to get these ones right.

[bluenikki]

This discussion brought back the last time I made a fast call. The player on my right had made an insufficient bid of 4 in the strain my partner had pre-empted. Unfortunately, my fingers remembered the terrible ancient days when some ACBL tournament directors wouldn't let you accept the insufficient bid when they were called. The law has long since clarified that the right to accept is absolute (I hope that's still in effect!) but my fingers couldn't forget and passed.

[pescetom]

bluenikki, on 2024-September-14, 13:00, said:

This discussion brought back the last time I made a fast call. The player on my right had made an insufficient bid of 4 in the strain my partner had pre-empted. Unfortunately, my fingers remembered the terrible ancient days when some ACBL tournament directors wouldn't let you accept the insufficient bid when they were called. The law has long since clarified that the right to accept is absolute (I hope that's still in effect!) but my fingers couldn't forget and passed.

Our bidding boxes have a "Director!" card and I never managed to learn how it was intended to be used. The first time I waved it in the air, I quickly gathered that this was not how it worked now, if ever. It did work well when I laid it firmly across an insufficient bid while waiting for the Director.

[blackshoe]

Ours used to have the director card, but they all mysteriously disappeared years ago. Though strangely, I did see one recently in a box where the cards had just been replaced with new ones (also something that doesn't happen often here).

[mycroft]

The right to accept an insufficient bid is not absolute. Law 25A takes precedence (a call "not intended" (not "the wrong call") "doesn't exist" until partner calls). That is not specifically stated in the Laws, but is in the Commentary (I believe) and is absolutely how the ACBL views it. Correctly, IMO.

Assuming the person intended to make that call - and no, "I intended to bid hearts at the cheapest legal level" isn't "I pulled the wrong card out, I thought 1♥ was the cheapest legal level" - then yes, you can accept it for whatever reason you choose.

It is uncomfortable to me that the ACBL has taken the option to say "you can not have agreements over illegal calls", because everybody knows what 1♣-2♥-1♠-2♥ means, but we can't talk about it. But I think the obvious alternative is worse for the game; and allowing "what we all know we actually do" as a regulation is very difficult to write cleanly. So yeah, there's that.

[bluenikki]

 mycroft, on 2024-September-15, 10:09, said:

The right to accept an insufficient bid is not absolute. Law 25A takes precedence (a call "not intended" (not "the wrong call") "doesn't exist" until partner calls). That is not specifically stated in the Laws, but is in the Commentary (I believe) and is absolutely how the ACBL views it. Correctly, IMO.

Assuming the person intended to make that call - and no, "I intended to bid hearts at the cheapest legal level" isn't "I pulled the wrong card out, I thought 1♥ was the cheapest legal level" - then yes, you can accept it for whatever reason you choose.

It is uncomfortable to me that the ACBL has taken the option to say "you can not have agreements over illegal calls", because everybody knows what 1♣-2♥-1♠-2♥ means, but we can't talk about it. But I think the obvious alternative is worse for the game; and allowing "what we all know we actually do" as a regulation is very difficult to write cleanly. So yeah, there's that.

In my case, I believe the player intended to double but got confused. Where does that fall?

[bluenikki]

 mycroft, on 2024-September-15, 10:09, said:

The right to accept an insufficient bid is not absolute. Law 25A takes precedence (a call "not intended" (not "the wrong call") "doesn't exist" until partner calls). That is not specifically stated in the Laws, but is in the Commentary (I believe) and is absolutely how the ACBL views it. Correctly, IMO.

Assuming the person intended to make that call - and no, "I intended to bid hearts at the cheapest legal level" isn't "I pulled the wrong card out, I thought 1♥ was the cheapest legal level" - then yes, you can accept it for whatever reason you choose.

It is uncomfortable to me that the ACBL has taken the option to say "you can not have agreements over illegal calls", because everybody knows what 1♣-2♥-1♠-2♥ means, but we can't talk about it. But I think the obvious alternative is worse for the game; and allowing "what we all know we actually do" as a regulation is very difficult to write cleanly. So yeah, there's that.

I cannot believe that idiotic "no agreement on actions over insufficient bids" rule is still in effect. Why is it bad for the game to agree that double of an insufficient bid is takeout, but doubling after not accepting is penalty?

[Thranduil]

In regards to the original example, my bid would most likely be pass.
3♠ for my partner and me is and weak with a 7+ cards spades suit (2♠ would be forcing); with strong hands, we would most likely bid 2NT as a relay to find out more about the weak two opener. The 5♦ bid, regardless of its tempo, would mean, for me, that partner either forgot our system and his3♠ was a splinter based on ♦ or has some other reason he prefers 5♦ over 4♠.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-September-15, 10:09, said:

The right to accept an insufficient bid is not absolute. Law 25A takes precedence (a call "not intended" (not "the wrong call") "doesn't exist" until partner calls). That is not specifically stated in the Laws, but is in the Commentary (I believe) and is absolutely how the ACBL views it. Correctly, IMO.

Assuming the person intended to make that call - and no, "I intended to bid hearts at the cheapest legal level" isn't "I pulled the wrong card out, I thought 1♥ was the cheapest legal level" - then yes, you can accept it for whatever reason you choose.

I struggle with this example - could you spell it out please?
I can see that in a case like (1NT)-1♥ "I am drunk and thought I had selected spades" Law 25 should arguably take precedence, but I imagine you are thinking about something subtler (and more likely) than that.
As an aside, I see no mention of this in the Commentary.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2024-September-13, 12:26, said:

You (...) think 3S is natural and forcing.

Why? Do we have an agreement? If so, say so. If not, why do I think natural is correct rather than it being a splinter, or a fit jump? Give us the same info as South if you want us to offer an informed opinion.

[mycroft]

Apologies, two weeks of tournaments, I didn't notice these clearly.

bluenikki, on 2024-September-15, 19:47, said:

In my case, I believe the player intended to double but got confused. Where does that fall?

Did they reach for the double card and 1♥ came out? No? Then it's not inadvertent, it's a change of mind. Confusion is a brain mistake, not a finger or speech mistake.

I paraphrase this as "going from 'not thinking' to 'thinking' is a change of mind." The Law says (my emphasis):

Law 25B said:

If the player’s original intent was to make the call selected or voiced, that call stands. A change of call may be allowed because of a mechanical error or a slip of the tongue, but not because of a loss of concentration regarding the intent of the action.

"Got Confused" is clearly "a loss of concentration".

bluenikki, on 2024-September-15, 19:51, said:

I cannot believe that idiotic "no agreement on actions over insufficient bids" rule is still in effect. Why is it bad for the game to agree that double of an insufficient bid is takeout, but doubling after not accepting is penalty?

I'm not the best person to answer this; ask the C&CC committee. My guess is: if we allowed agreements after infractions, the opportunity to communicate beyond what would be allowed - "call the TD and,..." "don't mention the infraction, and..." "mention the infraction, and..." is too high, and there would also be an incentive to elicit infractions (how? No idea, but "get opponents confused"?), which we do not wish to encourage.

But that's 100% unfounded guesswork, and my official response is "Because it's against regulation. It's been reviewed at least once (with the 2017 Laws), and the decision stood." You want to know why? Ask them.

pescetom, on 2024-September-30, 11:12, said:

I struggle with this example - could you spell it out please?
I can see that in a case like (1NT)-1♥ "I am drunk and thought I had selected spades" Law 25 should arguably take precedence, but I imagine you are thinking about something subtler (and more likely) than that.

As an aside, I see no mention of this in the Commentary.

Basically, the same thing I'm saying to bluenikki above. It doesn't matter *why* your intent was to make an insufficient bid, and "thought it was sufficient" (even "saw 1♣ not 1♠", as long as it's not something like "player pulled the 1♠ card, but announced 1♣ to the blind opponent". I would definitely apply this to "S didn't push the tray through the screen enough, N didn't fix it to confirm, and didn't see the bid", too.) shows that "you meant" to make the call you did.

I mentioned this specific case ("I meant to make the lowest sufficient call in hearts") because it's a common excuse, and because it's a good start to deciding if it's 25A (and the opponents don't get to accept it) or 25B (and the opponents do get to accept it before "replace with the lowest sufficient call that shows the same denomination" (27B1a, "with no penalty" - i.e. no 26 lead penalty or 16 UI issue. Yes, 27D, but that 'never happens'.) Players, when asked that question, will almost never outright lie. They frequently "um" tank, trying to come up with a way to say "yeah, I thought 1♥ was enough" that isn't "going to get them into trouble", but they don't outright lie. Which is fine, because as mentioned, the downside for the truth is so small.

Moving away from legality for a minute, morally this seems right, too. "I meant to bid 2♥ but 1♥ came out" becomes "2♥ was always the call, finger trouble"; "I meant to bid hearts sufficiently, I thought 1♥ was enough" becomes "okay, if you like 1♥ - which he thought was high enough - complete the auction. Otherwise, he gets to 'bid hearts sufficiently'."

Obviously, if the thinking process was "I want to show my hearts, but only if I can do it below 3♥" - and when he finds out that he can't, chooses to not show his hearts (pass?), then we're in a different world; and frankly, that different world is penalized appropriately. And the number of times they don't realize until the director is called that they *can* choose to do something different (with penalties) is worth it.

If you think about it this way, then "'I thought my bid was legal' is considered inadvertent, unless, after the director call, he doesn't want to 'make it sufficient'" can't possibly be correct.

[mycroft]

Interestingly enough, I had one of these - complete with the "um" tank when I asked whether they thought their call was sufficient - last week.

And we went through all the game. LHO after all of the information decided to accept and "raise" partner.

But I got called back after the hand, and was asked when the offender's LHO gets to force them to "make it sufficient". To which I responded "Never. She has the right to accept, or require a legal call; she does not have the right to insist he make a specific legal call." And to the further question of "why does it happen?" I said "because the players think their opponents have that right, and don't call the director."

But it was a table of players that know me well and I could afford to be that blunt. And it was two days after 20 sessions of tournament directing with a trip through Customs, Immigration, and Government Vet in the middle. I might, possibly, have had a lower filter than normal.