New Insufficient Bid Law

[dburn]

As I understand the matter, the thinking behind the progressive watering down of many Laws is that as far as is practicable, "normal bridge results" should be obtainable even by those incapable of realising whose turn it is to bid, or that spades outrank hearts, or that there is a requirement to follow suit when able to do so.

 

Suppose that you have:

 

♠3 ♥AK10943 ♦6 ♣AKQ85

 

After mature consideration, you choose to open 1♥. An awkward silence supervenes, during which you observe two things fractionally before everyone else at the table points them out to you: (1) you are not the dealer; (2) your partner, who is, has opened 1♥ and your RHO has passed.

 

Of course, had you been paying sufficient attention to the game, you would now bid Blackwood. But not under the new new Law 27 nor the old new Law 27 nor the old old Law 27 nor the Institutes of Justinian can you bid Blackwood, because partner will be barred and you will play there. What do you do?

 

That was an easy question - naturally, you call the Director. Now for the more difficult question: what should he do? In particular, how should he respond to your plaintive query "Can I bid 2NT, game-forcing with heart support in our methods, and not have partner barred?"

 

I should state in advance that the hand I have quoted above is not one that occurred in real life. Had it done, my RHO would doubtless have bid Blackwood anyway, thus barring his partner who would have put down this dummy:

 

♠KQ2 ♥QJ876 ♦KQ2 ♣73

 

Clubs would have broken 3-3 and I would have scored yet another bottom. My only consolation is that when you're as bitter and twisted as I am, you get twisted through 360 degrees often enough that for a short while, you turn out sweet and straight again.

[skjaeran]

Discussions with some members of the WBF Laws Commission indicate that the idea behind the new Law 27 is that you may without penalty (or "rectification" in the new Laws) replace an insufficient bid with any call you like, provided that your partner does not thereby receive any unauthorized information.

I dunno. In a competitive auction, it seems difficult to impossible to determine if UI has been passed (depending upon how confident the partner is about what kind of error it was). The previous Law, you assumed mechanical failure (the person reached for NX, and pulled out (N-1)X). This one, the director has to make a guess.

 

How is this going to work, anyways?

 

Bidding goes 1NT P 1♥. Director rules no additional information for a change to 2♦. Auction continues P 2♥ P 4♥, makes an overtrick on bad defense.

 

The defenders appeal, and win. 1♥ revealed considerably more information than 2♦ did.

 

So now what? 1♥ making 5? 4♥ played the other way, and assume that the defenders get all the defensive plays right this time? A+/-? Split score? How can this be taken care of?

TD error IMO, A+ for both sides.

 

You can't allow replacing 1♥ with 2♦, since 2♦ can contain hands not included in 1♥ (whether it was a 1♥ opening or a 1♥ response to a presumed 1m opening). 2♦ could be bid on 0 hcp - a hand well outside what 1♥ shows.

[jtfanclub]

As I understand the matter, the thinking behind the progressive watering down of many Laws is that as far as is practicable, "normal bridge results" should be obtainable even by those incapable of realising whose turn it is to bid, or that spades outrank hearts, or that there is a requirement to follow suit when able to do so.

Then they should have made the rules the same as hesitations. On any insufficient bid, UI is passed. TD is called, person is allowed to correct to anything. If their partner uses that UI, or makes a bid that is demonstrably indicated by the UI, blah blah blah, you know the drill. IMO, this is a lot easier for the director, especially if the director is not familiar with the system being played.

 

I'm sure they thought of this, though.

[dburn]

Further discussion reveals that, in the opinion of at least one distinguished member of the WBFLC, what you are actually supposed to do is explain that you meant to open 1♥. Then, you are permitted to bid a natural and forcing 2♥ and the auction continues without further "rectification".

 

Either the world has gone mad, or I have. The question of which is not the subject of a poll on this forum.

[jtfanclub]

Further discussion reveals that, in the opinion of at least one distinguished member of the WBFLC, what you are actually supposed to do is explain that you meant to open 1♥. Then, you are permitted to bid a natural and forcing 2♥ and the auction continues without further "rectification".

Where is the smiley for my jaw hitting the floor and bouncing twice?

[kgr]

Further discussion reveals that, in the opinion of at least one distinguished member of the WBFLC, what you are actually supposed to do is explain that you meant to open 1♥. Then, you are permitted to bid a natural and forcing 2♥ and the auction continues without further "rectification".

 

Either the world has gone mad, or I have. The question of which is not the subject of a poll on this forum.

I will make agreement with my partner that if I would ever happen to make an insufficient call (accidently of course) then the first sufficient bid will always have exactly the same meaning as the insufficient bid.

eg:

1S-(P)-1H...replaced by 1NT that now means: 5+ card H and 12+ HCP.

=> no penalties then?

[PassedOut]

I will make agreement with my partner that if I would ever happen to make an insufficient call (accidently of course) then the first sufficient bid will always have exactly the same meaning as the insufficient bid.

Sure seems like the right strategy.

[jdonn]

Further discussion reveals that, in the opinion of at least one distinguished member of the WBFLC, what you are actually supposed to do is explain that you meant to open 1♥. Then, you are permitted to bid a natural and forcing 2♥ and the auction continues without further "rectification".

 

Either the world has gone mad, or I have. The question of which is not the subject of a poll on this forum.

I will make agreement with my partner that if I would ever happen to make an insufficient call (accidently of course) then the first sufficient bid will always have exactly the same meaning as the insufficient bid.

eg:

1S-(P)-1H...replaced by 1NT that now means: 5+ card H and 12+ HCP.

=> no penalties then?

I certainly don't feel like looking, but I thought it was specifically outlawed to make any agreements that are in any way related to either your side's or the opponents' insufficient bids.

[Guest Jlall]

Further discussion reveals that, in the opinion of at least one distinguished member of the WBFLC, what you are actually supposed to do is explain that you meant to open 1♥. Then, you are permitted to bid a natural and forcing 2♥ and the auction continues without further "rectification".

 

Either the world has gone mad, or I have. The question of which is not the subject of a poll on this forum.

I will make agreement with my partner that if I would ever happen to make an insufficient call (accidently of course) then the first sufficient bid will always have exactly the same meaning as the insufficient bid.

eg:

1S-(P)-1H...replaced by 1NT that now means: 5+ card H and 12+ HCP.

=> no penalties then?

I certainly don't feel like looking, but I thought it was specifically outlawed to make any agreements that are in any way related to either your side's or the opponents' insufficient bids.

I also was under this impression

[paulg]

I certainly don't feel like looking, but I thought it was specifically outlawed to make any agreements that are in any way related to either your side's or the opponents' insufficient bids.

True for you, but probably not for most.

 

There is nothing in the Laws that prevents agreements after irregularities. However the ACBL says,

 

Rick Beye wanted confirmation that it was illegal to have conventional agreements to handle irregularities (such as insufficient bid) by an opponent. The Commission was in unanimous agreement that this was illegal as currently regulated in the ACBL.

I believe agreements are legal in the UK.

 

Paul

[skjaeran]

I certainly don't feel like looking, but I thought it was specifically outlawed to make any agreements that are in any way related to either your side's or the opponents' insufficient bids.

True for you, but probably not for most.

 

There is nothing in the Laws that prevents agreements after irregularities. However the ACBL says,

 

Rick Beye wanted confirmation that it was illegal to have conventional agreements to handle irregularities (such as insufficient bid) by an opponent. The Commission was in unanimous agreement that this was illegal as currently regulated in the ACBL.

I believe agreements are legal in the UK.

 

Paul

I'm pretty sure there's a WBF LC enterpretation in a minute outlawing such agreements worldwide (under 1997 law). I don't understand WHY, but so be it.

[barmar]

I'm pretty sure there's a WBF LC enterpretation in a minute outlawing such agreements worldwide (under 1997 law). I don't understand WHY, but so be it.

Perhaps it's based on Law 16: "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays". An insufficient bid is not a legal call, so it's UI, and you can't have agreements on how to use UI.

[PassedOut]

Perhaps it's based on Law 16: "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays". An insufficient bid is not a legal call, so it's UI, and you can't have agreements on how to use UI.

Interesting situation. Isn't kgr's idea designed to get the auction back on track legally, whenever possible, without conveying any UI about the insufficient bidder's hand?

[jdonn]

I certainly don't feel like looking, but I thought it was specifically outlawed to make any agreements that are in any way related to either your side's or the opponents' insufficient bids.

True for you, but probably not for most.

 

There is nothing in the Laws that prevents agreements after irregularities. However the ACBL says,

 

Rick Beye wanted confirmation that it was illegal to have conventional agreements to handle irregularities (such as insufficient bid) by an opponent. The Commission was in unanimous agreement that this was illegal as currently regulated in the ACBL.

I believe agreements are legal in the UK.

 

Paul

I'm pretty sure there's a WBF LC enterpretation in a minute outlawing such agreements worldwide (under 1997 law). I don't understand WHY, but so be it.

It's easy to see why.

 

1NT (2♠), playing standard lebensohl you have no way to sign off in hearts and get partner to declare. Oh wait unless you "accidentally" bid 2♦ then correct it to 3♦ as a transfer! I suspect there are thousands of ways to take advantage like this. Of course it's illegal to do on purpose, but just try to prove it. So I think it's best to make this sort of agreement illegal.

[PassedOut]

1NT (2♠), playing standard lebensohl you have no way to sign off in hearts and get partner to declare. Oh wait unless you "accidentally" bid 2♦ then correct it to 3♦ as a transfer! I suspect there are thousands of ways to take advantage like this. Of course it's illegal to do on purpose, but just try to prove it. So I think it's best to make this sort of agreement illegal.

I see your point. What is the rationale for disallowing agreements over an opponent's insufficient bid?

[jdonn]

1NT (2♠), playing standard lebensohl you have no way to sign off in hearts and get partner to declare. Oh wait unless you "accidentally" bid 2♦ then correct it to 3♦ as a transfer! I suspect there are thousands of ways to take advantage like this. Of course it's illegal to do on purpose, but just try to prove it. So I think it's best to make this sort of agreement illegal.

I see your point. What is the rationale for disallowing agreements over an opponent's insufficient bid?

My only theory would be to prevent unfair collusion or a pair gaining advantage over the field. It seems like a less problematic issue to me though.

[skjaeran]

I certainly don't feel like looking, but I thought it was specifically outlawed to make any agreements that are in any way related to either your side's or the opponents' insufficient bids.

True for you, but probably not for most.

 

There is nothing in the Laws that prevents agreements after irregularities. However the ACBL says,

 

Rick Beye wanted confirmation that it was illegal to have conventional agreements to handle irregularities (such as insufficient bid) by an opponent. The Commission was in unanimous agreement that this was illegal as currently regulated in the ACBL.

I believe agreements are legal in the UK.

 

Paul

I'm pretty sure there's a WBF LC enterpretation in a minute outlawing such agreements worldwide (under 1997 law). I don't understand WHY, but so be it.

It's easy to see why.

 

1NT (2♠), playing standard lebensohl you have no way to sign off in hearts and get partner to declare. Oh wait unless you "accidentally" bid 2♦ then correct it to 3♦ as a transfer! I suspect there are thousands of ways to take advantage like this. Of course it's illegal to do on purpose, but just try to prove it. So I think it's best to make this sort of agreement illegal.

Sure. It's obvious (to me) that you can't have agreement after your own sides insufficient bids (or bids out of turn etc.). But I can't see any real reason why you shouldn't be allowed such agreements after opponents such bids. You're allowed to accept such bids. It's not logical (for me) that you're not allowed to take full advantage of the situation.

[barmar]

I think the reason for not allowing agreements over an opponent's infraction is to keep the game "pure". We want the game to be about normal, valid actions. Infractions are not supposed to be part of the game, they're necessary evils that we're stuck with because of the mechanics (although some of them can be prevented with technology, as in online bridge). Allowing agreements over them appears to legitimize them.

[jdonn]

I think the reason for not allowing agreements over an opponent's infraction is to keep the game "pure". We want the game to be about normal, valid actions. Infractions are not supposed to be part of the game, they're necessary evils that we're stuck with because of the mechanics (although some of them can be prevented with technology, as in online bridge). Allowing agreements over them appears to legitimize them.

That sounds reasonable, but begs the question then why can we accept the insufficient bid to begin with?

[barmar]

I think the reason for not allowing agreements over an opponent's infraction is to keep the game "pure".  We want the game to be about normal, valid actions.  Infractions are not supposed to be part of the game, they're necessary evils that we're stuck with because of the mechanics (although some of them can be prevented with technology, as in online bridge).  Allowing agreements over them appears to legitimize them.

That sounds reasonable, but begs the question then why can we accept the insufficient bid to begin with?

Most everything involved with infractions is some kind of compromise.

[geller]

I think the reason for not allowing agreements over an opponent's infraction is to keep the game "pure".  We want the game to be about normal, valid actions.  Infractions are not supposed to be part of the game, they're necessary evils that we're stuck with because of the mechanics (although some of them can be prevented with technology, as in online bridge).  Allowing agreements over them appears to legitimize them.

That sounds reasonable, but begs the question then why can we accept the insufficient bid to begin with?

Suppose you pass over the insufficient bid without calling the director, thereby condoning it (whether deliberate or because you simply didn't notice). In this case the laws have no choice but to allow the auction to continue normally. That being the case, a player who duly calls the director after noticing the infraction shouldn't be penalized for this by being denied the right to have the option to accept the insufficient bid. At least I suppose that's why this is allowed.

 

-Bob

[benlessard]

Im french speaking so it seems like a lot of jumbo-mumbo for me 2.

 

But from what i have read. It the same rule as before excepting a very minor point.

 

The very small difference is here.

 

(:unsure: if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is

corrected with a legal call that in the Director’s

opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise

meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being

fully contained within the possible meanings of the

insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further

rectification, but see D following.

 

So if a corrected call has a wider meaning different meaning then partner is also barred from auction.

 

 

1S----(2H)----2D (insufficient bid refused)

 

replaced by 3D

 

the meaning of 3D is fully included in 2D so bidding procced as usual.

 

 

1H----(2S)------2H (insufficient bid refused)

 

corrected to 4H.

 

Here the meaning of the 4H bid insnt fully contained within the possible meanings of the 2h bid.

 

For the rest its the same...

 

1-- you correcting an artificial bid = barring partner.

 

2- you correcting to an artificial bid = barring partner.

 

So all those case with transfer or stayman or jacoby 2nt are irrelevant.

 

23D is the same then 27b1.

 

The premature correction is the same.

[joshs]

I think I'm a fairly smart person who understands the laws well.

 

And I'm totally confused...

This is definitely a confusing area, and despite a lot of effort the law is difficult to read. However, my understanding of what it means (and I think a careful reading will confirm this) is that you can change even a conventional insufficient bid to a different bid as long as the insufficient bid doesn't give your partner any information that isn't included in the sufficient bid. So, to take a simple example - I play weak NT and open 1♣ with all balanced hands in the 15-19 HCP range. Suppose that RHO opens 2♠ and I "overcall" 1♣. On it being pointed out to me that 1♣ is insufficient, and after the law is carefully explained to me, I change my bid to 2NT, which shows a balanced hand of 16-18 or so HCP. My second bid is one that was included in the hands shown by the first bid but is more precise, thus it is allowed - my partner doesn't have any information other than that provided by the 2NT bid.

 

On the other hand, suppose that I play 2-way Stayman over both 1NT and 2NT opening bids (OK, that's not something anyone plays, but it makes the point). Partner opens 2NT and I bid 2♦ forcing to game and asking about Majors. I am not allowed to correct this to 3♦ even though that also is forcing to game and asking about Majors because the original bid showed a better hand than the new bid and so partner knows something about my hand that is not included in the new bid.

 

The point is to be fair - did you ever get caught by the old rule when partner opened 2NT and you mistakenly responded 2♣ Stayman and now had no way to avoid a penalty? Yet allowing you to correct 2♣ to 3♣ wouldn't damage the opponents and would get things back to "normal." Should it matter that the bid isn't just one level higher in the same strain? For example, I play transfer responses to 1♣. A 1♦ response shows 4 or more hearts and says nothing more about the hand. If the opponent overcalls 1♦, my DBL substitutes for the 1♦ bid. The set of hands in DBL is a little smaller than those in 1♦ since I might respond 1♦ on hands that would pass over 1♣-(1♦) but there are no hands with which I would DBL but not bid 1♦ in the uncontested auction. So there is no harm done by allowing me to DBl when the 1♦ overcall is pointed out to me.

 

I hope that makes it clear. And I really do think that is what the law says, admittedly using more words in order to make sure it is complete. I admit my logic days are far behind me, so I can't easily discuss it in terms of sets and intersections and exclusions. But the point is that the new bid is allowed so long as the insufficient bid doesn't provide any information that is not provided by the new bid. So there have to be no hands that are included in the new bid and not in the insufficient one, since those hands would be excluded by the information provided by the insufficient bid. There can be hands that are included in the insufficient bid but not in the new bid, because then the insufficient bid doesn't clarify the new bid.

Example 1: 1C on Balanced 15-19, Then correct 1C to 2N over a 1S opener.

 

I think you have eliminated :

a. Hands with a 5 card spade suit

b. 4441 hands

c. 4351 hands

from the 2N bid. While not likely, it does give some information.

 

Example 2:

As to 2N-2C , thats insufficient someone points out, 3C auctions.

2N-3C-3S-3N

on average as a weaker hand then a hand that was bidding stayman over 1N. yes you might have a 3451 garbage stayman hand, but there is an increased likelihood of you having 8-11 points, relative to the 3-7 you might have had.

 

Personally, I think you should allow the 2N bid and the 3C bid, but there is possible UI in these auctions which should slightly restrict partner. For instance, I would never allow opener to bid on over 3N in the example 2 auction.

[jtfanclub]

So if a corrected call has a wider meaning different meaning then partner is also barred from auction.

But the silly part about this is that an insufficient call never has a meaning. Nobody has an agreement about what a 1♦ response to 1♥ means, or at least they shouldn't. Whether the person meant to open 1♦, respond 2♦ to 1♥, or respond 1♦ to 1♣ is unknown. There is no corrective bid that can possibly cover all three posibilities, since they show very different hands.

[benlessard]

I keep reading post where people talk about artificial bid being corrected to other artificial bids do they think partner isnt barred from the auction if so where did they get this idea ???

 

Example 2:

As to 2N-2C , thats insufficient someone points out, 3C auctions.

2N-3C-3S-3N

 

If 2C or 3C is stayman you are screwed partner is automatically barred.

 

But the silly part about this is that an insufficient call never has a meaning.

 

Think about

 

1H---(1S)----1Nt vs

1H---(2S)----2Nt

 

1H----(2S)---1Nt

 

Vs

 

1H----1S-----2D

1H----2S-----3D

 

1H----2S-----2D

 

In the 2nd case all hand that you are bidding 3D are hands that you can bid 2D with. So 3D is a more precise or at least included in the 2D bid. So partner isnt barred.

 

In the first case if 2Nt is lebensohl or 1Nt or 2nt is whatever artificial bid partner is barred.

 

But in the first since then 2nt bids inst included in the 1nt bid partner is also barred.

 

aqX

aj

XXXX

XXXX

 

1h---(1s)----

 

here everybody would bid 2Nt and this hand doesnt fall into the 1nt category.

 

So when it goes

 

1H---(2S)----1Nt

corrected to 2Nt

 

then we know that responder is not 11 pts & not 6-7.