Another Insufficient Bid

[JoAnneM]

S W N

1C - 2S - 1D The 1D bid was not accepted, and North then bid 2D. Now I tried to make sense out of the book, which usually escapes me. As far as I could tell North was required to make the bid sufficient, 3D, and south was then barred from the bidding.

 

Did I read that right?

[blackshoe]

East has the same option to accept (or not) the second IB as he did the first. Other than that, don't forget about the possible impact of laws 26 and 23, but yeah, he must make the bid sufficient, and his partner must pass throughout.

[JoAnneM]

Right, I forgot to mention that the 2nd bid was not accepted. I am getting really good at doing that part.

[JoAnneM]

I was going to ask, can the bid be any sufficient bid? As it happened on this hand, north just bid 3D because I said "you have to make it sufficient". Some were in 3nt making 4 and and few were in 6nt down, so it was and average plus board for e/w. I don't think she would have bid 3nt since south was the one with the spade stopper.

[mink]

Law 27 F. Replaced with an Insufficient Bid

 

If the offender attempts to replace the insufficient bid with another

insufficient bid the attempted call is cancelled and a pass is substituted.

His partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead

restrictions in Law 26 may apply and see Law 23.

Looks like it is not possible to accept the second insuffient bid.

 

Karl

[blackshoe]

I don't know where you got that, Karl. An old version of the laws?

If the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid, the director rules as in B3 above if the LHo does not accept the substituted insufficient bid as A above allows.

There is no Law 27F. There wasn't in the 1997 laws, either.

 

Yes, it can be any sufficient bid. With partner barred, the bidding is no longer an exercise in consulting with or communicating with partner in order to reach the best contract. The offender gets the chance to bid whatever he thinks he can make.

 

I think that if North would have bid something else if given the correct information on her options, you would (if the correction period has not expired) have to rule director error under Law 82C. If you judge that she would not have bid something else, of course, then 82C does not apply.

[mink]

Very sorry. I copied this law 27F from a file that I downloaded from ecatsbridge in 2007, at least I think that I got it from there. Maybe this was only a draft.

 

Karl

[blackshoe]

Yes, ecats did have an early draft up back then. Don't know if it's still there. The current laws are here.

[LH2650]

This should not have happened. Either you were called late to the table (in which case some strong words should be used) or the offender did not understand your explanation of his options.

[jillybean]

S W N

1C - 2S - 1D The 1D bid was not accepted, and North then bid 2D. Now I tried to make sense out of the book, which usually escapes me. As far as I could tell North was required to make the bid sufficient, 3D, and south was then barred from the bidding.

 

Did I read that right?

I thought partner was only barred from the auction if ♦'s are conventional or if it is corrected by any other bid, or pass. Why is South barred here?

[blackshoe]

Because North tried to replace an IB with another IB. There's a specific law covering that (27B4, which I quoted upthread, leading to 27B3), and it says partner must pass throughout.

[Sven Pran]

I think that if North would have bid something else if given the correct information on her options, you would (if the correction period has not expired) have to rule director error under Law 82C. If you judge that she would not have bid something else, of course, then 82C does not apply.

Director's error (Law 82C) kicks in whenever the Director has failed to inform a player of all available options.

 

Whether the player would have selected an option different from what (s)he did does not matter in this respect, but it matters for the possible subsequent adjustments selected by the Director.

 

regards Sven

[bluejak]

While the wording is not very clear I do not think you can accept the second insufficient bid.

 

if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does not accept the

substituted insufficient bid as A allows.

The "substituted insufficient bid" is the original one. The second one cannot therefore be accepted, and Law 27B3 applies.

[jdonn]

While the wording is not very clear I do not think you can accept the second insufficient bid.

 

if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does not accept the

substituted insufficient bid as A allows.

The "substituted insufficient bid" is the original one. The second one cannot therefore be accepted, and Law 27B3 applies.

It seemed clear to me when I read it that the "substituted insufficient bid" was the second one, the first would be more like the "substituted-for insufficient bid". What makes you think it's the original one?

[bluejak]

I believe that in English something that is substituted is something that has been replaced by something else, not that is replacing something else.

[blackshoe]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with David, and agree with Josh. B)

[jdonn]

I believe that in English something that is substituted is something that has been replaced by something else, not that is replacing something else.

You simply repeated what you believe, so all I can do is simply repeat that I'm quite sure you are wrong. B) Just look in the dictionary, almost every definition supports me. The very first one on dictionary.com: a person or thing acting or serving in place of another. That would be the second insufficient bid, not the first.

 

(Plus, at risk of getting skewered by suggesting this even matters, the law itself makes much more sense to me this way.)

[cherdanno]

Heh. I vote for bluejak (and believe jdonn misunderstood the dictionary if his reference is

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/substituted ).

[helene_t]

Google gives 24,300 hits for "substituted for an earlier" versus only 1400 hits for "substituted with a new". Although this is not a definitive answer of course, I think it does suggest that "the player substituted a new bid for the original one" would be in line with a more common usage than "the player substituted the original bid with a new one".

 

On the other hand, one can say "we supplied the goods to the customer" and also "we supplied the customer with the goods", so it wouldn't surprise me if both were "correct".

[jdonn]

I don't see how I misunderstood the dictionary, it seems quite clear to me and even now I can't really see how it could be understood the other way. Also regarding the law itself, it wouldn't make sense for substituted to refer to the first bid since if the first bid had been accepted there would be no second bid, and we wouldn't be here reading law 27B4.

 

Nonetheless, as you surely feel the same about the opposite viewpoint, this just goes to show how difficult it really is to write clear laws.

 

Edit (since I don't want to add another post on this): Based on your post below I now see what you mean.

[cherdanno]

I don't see how I misunderstood the dictionary, it seems quite clear to me and even now I can't really see how it could be understood the other way.

The phrase you quoted was the explanation for the noun "subsitute".

I change my vote though to "both exist" and "jdonn is right in this specific use in law 27B4".

However, in the context that REALLY matters, i.e. football (the one with a ball not the one with a banana), there is clearly a "substitute" = new player, and a "substituted player" = the one who had to come off the field.

[bluejak]

I don't see how I misunderstood the dictionary, it seems quite clear to me and even now I can't really see how it could be understood the other way.

I read the reference given and it does not seem to tell me anything about "substituted" [sic] used as an adjective.

 

Also regarding the law itself, it wouldn't make sense for substituted to refer to the first bid since if the first bid had been accepted there would be no second bid, and we wouldn't be here reading law 27B4.

Not everyone likes to pre-empt the TD. If my RHO makes in insufficient bid, and changes it to another insufficient bid, I do not accept anything: I call the TD and let him tell me what I can accept.

 

Nonetheless, as you surely feel the same about the opposite viewpoint, this just goes to show how difficult it really is to write clear laws.

Oh, sure, it is another unclear Law.

 

Although this is not a definitive answer of course, I think it does suggest that "the player substituted a new bid for the original one" would be in line with a more common usage than "the player substituted the original bid with a new one".

But that is using "substituted" as a verb: the Law uses it as an adjective, does it not?

[david_c]

I don't see how I misunderstood the dictionary, it seems quite clear to me and even now I can't really see how it could be understood the other way.

The phrase you quoted was the explanation for the noun "subsitute".

I change my vote though to "both exist" and "jdonn is right in this specific use in law 27B4".

However, in the context that REALLY matters, i.e. football (the one with a ball not the one with a banana), there is clearly a "substitute" = new player, and a "substituted player" = the one who had to come off the field.

Agree with this: Josh's version looks right to me in this context, but I think in general it could be either.

[jdonn]

Also regarding the law itself, it wouldn't make sense for substituted to refer to the first bid since if the first bid had been accepted there would be no second bid, and we wouldn't be here reading law 27B4.

Not everyone likes to pre-empt the TD. If my RHO makes in insufficient bid, and changes it to another insufficient bid, I do not accept anything: I call the TD and let him tell me what I can accept.

I don't get it, why didn't you call after the first one?

[Sven Pran]

Law 27B4: if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does not accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows

 

In the Norwegian translation we have assumed this to mean:

 

if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does not accept the last insufficient bid as A allows

 

We felt confident that this was the real intention of law27B4.

 

Law 27B4 never applies unless LHO has already refused to accept the first insufficient bid, therefore (implicitly) referring to the first insufficient bid in Law 27B4 makes no sense.

 

regards Sven