[campboy]

weejonnie, on 2015-July-21, 03:00, said:

Certainly - otherwise we allow the change - providing the player can persuade me that it was a mechanical error - such as a 4♥ response to Blackwood. Many players may not realise that the option is available and if we get a "... 4NT - 4♥ - Director" call quickly then there is probably a natural tendency not to try and correct the call. Just one more thing to check on.

I don't think you get my point. There are three different cases.

• The player thinks he is responding to 1NT. Now the insufficient bid requires more strength or distribution than a 3♣ replacement call, so there is no 27B1b replacement available.
  
• The player realises partner opened 2NT, and intended to bid 3♣, but pulled the wrong card. This is a 25A case and opponents do not have the opportunity to accept 2♣.
  
• The player realises partner opened 2NT, and intended to bid Stayman, but something in his brain said "Stayman=2♣". This is not a 25A case, and opponents do have the opportunity to accept the IB. If they don't, a 3♣ replacement shows exactly the same hands (because he was always trying to bid Stayman over 2NT) and so is a 27B1b replacement.

In my experience, 3 is much more common than 1. In the case where another player draws attention to the 2♣, it is also much more common than 2, since in case 2 the player normally realises before the 2♣ card hits the table. I think the main advantage of the new rule over the old rule is that it has become much less crucial to work out whether 2 or 3 actually applies. (As I said earlier, in the EBU there is no difficulty distinguishing between 1 and 2/3, since announcements will make it clear what he thought the opening bid was.)

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2015-July-21, 05:31, said:

… in the EBU there is no difficulty distinguishing between 1 and 2/3, since announcements will make it clear what he thought the opening bid was.

True. Had the case occurred in the ACBL though, there would still be a problem, since the range of only 1NT openings is announced. Now the director will have to try to determine whether a failure to announce was because responder thought the opening bid was 2NT or because he thought the opening was 1NT but forgot he was supposed to announce the range — or got distracted.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-20, 13:22, said:

This is what I get for trying to address the general case.

Sorry, it looked to me like you might have misread the auction. I didn't think you would need to repeat everything that's clearly stated in the law book but irrelevant to this case.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-July-21, 09:56, said:

Sorry, it looked to me like you might have misread the auction. I didn't think you would need to repeat everything that's clearly stated in the law book but irrelevant to this case.

I suppose I went a little overboard.

[Zelandakh]

campboy, on 2015-July-21, 05:31, said:

(As I said earlier, in the EBU there is no difficulty distinguishing between 1 and 2/3, since announcements will make it clear what he thought the opening bid was.)

Not sure I agree with this. A person can very easily make the correct announcement of the opening bid, then mentally forget this and think the opening bid is different. Have you really never correctly observed a bid or card and then mixed it up with another line of thinking before making your next decision?