[Cyberyeti]

axman, on 2025-March-07, 13:54, said:

There is compelling reason to require the correction to be at the minimum level. A likely outcome being that the correction bars partner thereby making viable 'guessing' at a high level what otherwise would not have been 'viable' (would not have occurred because anti-system or isn't protected via enforced-pass) absent irregularity (as in preempting NOS out of the auction). It could be said that the IB gave the NOS 'maximum latitude' to compete... and the do-over (unbalancing turns) at the minimum level retains such latitude. Such draws the remedy closer to justice.

If it's a correction, it's at minimum level, if you choose NOT to correct and make a different call instead, it doesn't have to be.

Eg I have 7 reasonable hearts and a card, RHO opens 1♠, I can opt to bid 4♥ instead, which will bar partner

[mycroft]

If it goes (1♦)-1♣ replaced by 2♣, the table (including partner) is allowed to know that the bidder might have fudged the call a bit to keep the auction open. That's the reason 27D isn't written like 16, Vampyr's desire for the opposite notwithstanding - but also part of the source of Vampyr's argument that you should always seriously consider accepting the IB and keeping LHO in confusion about what their partner actually meant to do.

If it is replaced by 3♣, and that is deemed comparable, it is because it's a more specific meaning than 1♣, but encompassed within it (I play IJOs here in one system; I think it would be deemed comparable. A WJO - probably not.) If not deemed comparable, partner is passing, so good luck (again, maybe a reason to accept the IB so the 'Yeti can't come out with 4♥ (in his scenario)/3-5♣ (in mine) and put us to the last guess.)

Again the 'Yeti is right, we should find out what the 1♣ bidder had in mind. 99% of the time, we know; but it's worth checking as a matter of course (for instance, 1NT (let's say for fun, no Announcement or ask)-p-1♥...)

[sanst]

 Cyberyeti, on 2025-March-07, 11:41, said:

Missing the point I was making. If he was thinking of overcalling, he might decide to NOT correct to 2♣ so as not to overstate his values, but make a 3♣ WJO instead, and this might be comparable. That is why you ask what he was thinking.

You don't ask what the player was thinking if only to avoid UI. You give the opportunities (s)he has and the consequences, and answer questions, if necessary away from the table. It's often difficult enough or impossible to keep them quiet ("I wanted to bid XX!" or "I didn't see the 1♦.") or even preventing them to show their hand.
If the player want to bid anything else than the lowest possible bid, you make clear what the consequences are. But still, there's no need to know what the player thought when making the IB.
It's a basic rule for TD's to avoid asking for superfluous information that doesn't influence the ruling and can only lead to UI.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2025-March-08, 04:39, said:

You don't ask what the player was thinking if only to avoid UI. You give the opportunities (s)he has and the consequences, and answer questions, if necessary away from the table. It's often difficult enough or impossible to keep them quiet ("I wanted to bid XX!" or "I didn't see the 1♦.") or even preventing them to show their hand.
If the player want to bid anything else than the lowest possible bid, you make clear what the consequences are. But still, there's no need to know what the player thought when making the IB.
It's a basic rule for TD's to avoid asking for superfluous information that doesn't influence the ruling and can only lead to UI.

Asking away from the table rarely creates UI.

It can however tell you what a comparable call is.

Eg (1♠)-1♦-

You ask away from the table, if the answer to "what were you thinking" was "I thought he opened 1♣, we play 2♦ as a 2 suiter, so I had to bid 1♦ or 3♦ on my 6 count", it would be entirely appropriate to correct to 3♦ WJO as a comparable call.

If the answer was "I thought I was opening" then this would not be the case.

[sanst]

 Cyberyeti, on 2025-March-08, 05:23, said:

Asking away from the table rarely creates UI.

It can however tell you what a comparable call is.

Eg (1♠)-1♦-

You ask away from the table, if the answer to "what were you thinking" was "I thought he opened 1♣, we play 2♦ as a 2 suiter, so I had to bid 1♦ or 3♦ on my 6 count", it would be entirely appropriate to correct to 3♦ WJO as a comparable call.

If the answer was "I thought I was opening" then this would not be the case.

Still you don't need to know what the player was thinking. If (s)he wants to know what doesn't restrict the partner, you can answer away from the table. In your example 3♦ is "the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination". In this case the information from both the IB and the replacement are allowed to the partner and doesn't be considered to be a WJO even if that's their agreement without the IB. The comparability doesn't play a role.
Of course the opps have a right to know why the 2♦ is not bid, but it's up to them to ask.

[jillybean]

sanst, on 2025-March-08, 06:14, said:

Still you don't need to know what the player was thinking. If (s)he wants to know what doesn't restrict the partner, you can answer away from the table. In your example 3♦ is "the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination". In this case the information from both the IB and the replacement are allowed to the partner and doesn't be considered to be a WJO eben if that's their agreement without the IB. The comparability doesn't play a role.
Of course the opps have a right to know why the 2♦ is not bid, but it's up to them to ask.

This is an important detail that I did not understand.

[mycroft]

In order to work out potential comparable calls (whether you tell, or hint, them to the player or not), you need to know what meaning would be "attributable to the withdrawn call". Which means, you do need to know what the player was intending to do with the insufficient bid. It is not superfluous information.

Even for "specifies the same denomination(s) as the withdrawn call", you need to know what denominations the player thought they were showing with their insufficient bid. Witness my 1NT-p-1♥ example above (they didn't announce the 1NT opening. Do they just not do that, or did they miss the bid? Or read it as 1♦? Does he have hearts, or spades? Without asking, how do you know?) or even (1NT)-1♥. If they lost their mind and thought they were showing "hearts and a minor" or even "spades", but the 1 level was enough, then 2♥ might be the 27B1a call, but maybe 2♠ is. Or 2♥ *doesn't* show the same denomination(s) as the withdrawn call, because they didn't see the opening and were showing 12 high and 5 hearts...which would be a 2♦ overcall of 1NT (but that doesn't show the same either, because it's "hearts or spades". So - 3♥?)

Sure, you can look at the hand, but if it's 2524, you still don't know if the player was intending to show hearts and a minor or just hearts.

And, of course, sometimes you're told that "I thought I had bid 2♥" (even though you asked if that was "what you intended when...") Sometimes they just don't work out the question at the time.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-March-08, 12:50, said:

In order to work out potential comparable calls (whether you tell, or hint, them to the player or not), you need to know what meaning would be "attributable to the withdrawn call". Which means, you do need to know what the player was intending to do with the insufficient bid. It is not superfluous information.

Even for "specifies the same denomination(s) as the withdrawn call", you need to know what denominations the player thought they were showing with their insufficient bid. Witness my 1NT-p-1♥ example above (they didn't announce the 1NT opening. Do they just not do that, or did they miss the bid? Or read it as 1♦? Does he have hearts, or spades? Without asking, how do you know?) or even (1NT)-1♥. If they lost their mind and thought they were showing "hearts and a minor" or even "spades", but the 1 level was enough, then 2♥ might be the 27B1a call, but maybe 2♠ is. Or 2♥ *doesn't* show the same denomination(s) as the withdrawn call, because they didn't see the opening and were showing 12 high and 5 hearts...which would be a 2♦ overcall of 1NT (but that doesn't show the same either, because it's "hearts or spades". So - 3♥?)

Sure, you can look at the hand, but if it's 2524, you still don't know if the player was intending to show hearts and a minor or just hearts.

And, of course, sometimes you're told that "I thought I had bid 2♥" (even though you asked if that was "what you intended when...") Sometimes they just don't work out the question at the time.

Exactly (and sorry to sanst if I have been busy elsewhere and did not get to reply to this).
I think it is obvious that one should ask (away from the table) if there is doubt about intended denomination and/or strength, the WBF Commentary makes that clear too (although for EBUland I do seem to remember reading a recommendation - perhaps on the EBU Directors forum - that TD should neither ask nor disallow any call comparable to any of the possible options, which seems to me like a dubious interpretation of already dubious law).