[Polixenes]

At an ACBL club game yesterday I mis-sorted my hand and opened 1NT on 16 HCP and a void. 5-5-3-0 but I initially thought it was 3-5-3-2.

Lefty overcalled 5C, partner doubled. I tanked and passed for +800. Opps were aggrieved. We all agreed he might have bid 5C over a 1S opening, but his play of the trump suit (4 missing) may have differed and saved him a trick.

As a general proposition, if you accidentally call 1NT illegally, and the director is satisfied you don't have an illegal agreement, can an opponent expect redress? Director was unsure and the opps didn't press it so no ruling was made at the table.

[Cyberyeti]

I had a 4(23)4 hand and opened 1N. Partner transferred to spades, at this point I realised both black suits were clubs. I bid 3N, it made, the opps accepted my explanation.

No right to redress

[pescetom]

This should probably be moved to 'Simple Rulings'.

Although there is a general bridge aspect too as it is rarely right to overcall strong NT at 5 level vulnerable. Maybe you could include a hand diagram?

[AL78]

The 1NT opening was not based on any undisclosed agreement so I'd question if the term "illegal" is appropriate, it was a careless mistake due to mis-sorting the hand. The opponents have no right to redress just because they might have got punished for your mistake. If I got redress every time my opponents made a mistake/did something outrageous which worked I'd probably be regularly finishing in the top 3 in my club duplicates.

[shyams]

I am no expert on ACBL matters but I recall reading that the above 1NT bid is deemed illegal by ACBL regulations and opponents have a right to redress.

That condition applies regardless of whether it is systemic, psychic, or accidental.

[Polixenes]

 AL78, on 2024-January-12, 11:13, said:

The 1NT opening was not based on any undisclosed agreement so I'd question if the term "illegal" is appropriate, it was a careless mistake due to mis-sorting the hand. The opponents have no right to redress just because they might have got punished for your mistake. If I got redress every time my opponents made a mistake/did something outrageous which worked I'd probably be regularly finishing in the top 3 in my club duplicates.

LOL, yes I agree! But I'm using "illegal" in the sense that the ACBL has a rule that a 1NT opening bid must conform to certain standards and having a small singleton or a void are both considered illegal here. As shyams notes in the post below yours. He recollects that even accidentally bid, it may trigger redress for the opps and that is the part I wanted to clarify.

[smerriman]

From a Bridge Bulletin article on Ruling the Game:

Quote

If an agreement would be disallowed unless it satisfies a specific high-card point or shape requirement, a player may not use judgment to include hands with fewer high-card points or a different shape.

That language means that deliberately opening 1NT with a disallowed shape (including a singleton below the queen), a point count below 10 HCP, or a range greater than 5 HCP can no longer be treated as a legal deviation. It is now simply an illegal bid in itself. Whether a pair has an agreement leading is no longer relevant.

It is OK for a player to deviate without partner’s knowledge as long as that deviation does not cross the line into what would otherwise be an illegal agreement, though...

Note that out-and-out psychs of 1NT openings are not covered under these rules. However, ‘psych’ is now defined in the charts as generally being two cards fewer, or an ace weaker (or stronger), than expected for the range. Directors should not accept from players the argument that smaller deviations were intended as psychs and therefore exempt from these rules. As well, it is not a violation of these rules if the director is convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the deviation was the result of a missorted hand...

That last line makes this case pretty clearly legal.

[pescetom]

 Polixenes, on 2024-January-12, 12:56, said:

LOL, yes I agree! But I'm using "illegal" in the sense that the ACBL has a rule that a 1NT opening bid must conform to certain standards and having a small singleton or a void are both considered illegal here. As shyams notes in the post below yours. He recollects that even accidentally bid, it may trigger redress for the opps and that is the part I wanted to clarify.

Most if not all RAs frown on 1NT with a void. Where ACBL took a step beyond others is that they not only disallowed an agreement to open in this way (which is their right) but also disallowed an occasional but intentional "judgement" deviation to open the same way (which is arguably not their right). I imagine and hope they would accept an accidental deviation, my RA certainly would.

Still puzzled about 5♣ and the actual layout, if you could satisfy my curiosity.

[jillybean]

It is not illegal to misbid. It's not a psych and they do not have an agreement to open 1nt with a void.
Result stands, the error worked in your favour this time.
Next board.

[Polixenes]

 pescetom, on 2024-January-12, 13:48, said:

Most if not all RAs frown on 1NT with a void. Where ACBL took a step beyond others is that they not only disallowed an agreement to open in this way (which is their right) but also disallowed an occasional but intentional "judgement" deviation to open the same way (which is arguably not their right). I imagine and hope they would accept an accidental deviation, my RA certainly would.

Still puzzled about 5♣ and the actual layout, if you could satisfy my curiosity.

I'm embarrassed to show it but I found it on the Live For Clubs website (I had 15 HCP not 16 as stated in OP):

---

I don't think 5Cx escapes 6 losers on normal play, even if defenders played with their cards revealed to declarer. The rather large pre-empt was also fueled by a mis-sorting, he had the spade in with his clubs.

[Polixenes]

 smerriman, on 2024-January-12, 13:28, said:

From a Bridge Bulletin article on Ruling the Game:

That last line makes this case pretty clearly legal.

Thanks for this, I forwarded your quote to the game director and also our club's head director so we can make sure we are all on the right page in future.

[jillybean]

 Polixenes, on 2024-January-12, 17:19, said:

Thanks for this, I forwarded your quote to the game director and also our club's head director so we can make sure we are all on the right page in future.

What was the ruling at the table?

[Polixenes]

 jillybean, on 2024-January-12, 20:01, said:

What was the ruling at the table?

Discussion between players and director continued yesterday, and with the guidance from this thread, director ruled -800 would stand. Thanks to everyone who advised me here.

[pescetom]

 Polixenes, on 2024-January-12, 17:14, said:

I don't think 5Cx escapes 6 losers on normal play, even if defenders played with their cards revealed to declarer. The rather large pre-empt was also fueled by a mis-sorting, he had the spade in with his clubs.

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. I think I would have passed given the vulnerability and proposed contract.

[barmar]

 Polixenes, on 2024-January-12, 17:19, said:

Thanks for this, I forwarded your quote to the game director and also our club's head director so we can make sure we are all on the right page in future.

It doesn't really matter why you misbid. Misbids are always legal.

However, your opponents are entitled to file a recorder form. If you frequently "misbid" in a similar way, this may be considered evidence of an illegal agreement. The recorder process is the way that we can theoretically uncover patterns of behavior like this.

[blackshoe]

Agree with both Jillybean and Barmar. I would move this to Simple Rulings, but I don't have authority to do that from here.

[mycroft]

I would rephrase barmar's statement (while true) as "Misbids are legal. Calling it a 'misbid' isn't a Get-Out-Of-Jail Free card though; you'll have to convince the director that it wasn't intentional. If it truly was a misbid, it shouldn't be too hard to convince them." (a 5=5=3=0 hand? I'd believe you meant to open 1♠ and pulled the wrong card and also 'I sorted my hand 3=5=3=2, sorry' over 'I intended to open 1NT with 5=5=3=0',, whichever one was what you actually did.)

Yes, it becomes harder to convince directors when there is a pattern of "misbids" that a particular player makes, especially when if that were part of their agreement, it wouldn't be a legal agreement. And yes, the Recorder process comes in handy there. At a club, if it's a "one-person show", you've already told the "Recorder". If it's a bigger club, ensuring the club committee/head of directing knows about it helps disseminate the knowledge to all the club directors, effecting the "recorder" process in small.