Gerber

[Chris3875]

I come from Gerberland and recently have had 3 fairly similar situations -

 

1. The opposition were not bidding at all and the bidding went - 1S - 3S - 4C (Gerber) - all pass. Opener commented "oh, so I am playing this in CLUBS?" Director called and responder said he thought partner had bid 4S. Although I felt sorry for the pair I ruled under Law25A3 and they had to play it in 4C - disaster of course !

 

2. The opposition were not bidding at all and the bidding went 1S - 3S - 4C (Gerber) - followed by 2 passes and a gasp from opener - whereupon responder called Director and said that he thought partner had bid 4S. LHO had not bid and responder wanted to change his bid. I ruled under Law 25B1 that the pass was intended at the time it was made (albeit sloppy bidding from someone not paying enough attention) and again did not allow the change. Was this correct or too tough?

 

I must say that in both scenarios above the writing was quite clear.

 

3. The opposition were not bidding at all and the bidding went 1S - 2H - 3S - 3C (immediately changed BEFORE the Director arrived to 4C). 3C was not accepted by opponents and my ruling under Law 27C was that 4C was different to the original bid (it now became Gerber as that is what this pair play), that partner was barred from the remainder of the auction, and the final contract became 4C.

 

Help! I am a fairly new Director and all three situations above caused players to become disgruntled and say that the rulings were not fair! My reply was that they should pay more attention

[aguahombre]

3 more reasons not to play Gerber ;) 3 good rulings.

[Chris3875]

;) Hahahaha - YES !

[TylerE]

2/3

 

In case 3 the 3/4♣ bidder gets to bid whatever he wants. His *partner* is barred, but he's allowed to place the contract.

[Chris3875]

Except he had replaced the bid BEFORE the Director arrived - so my reading of Law 27C is that "unless the insufficient bid is accepted... the substitution stands". In this case 4C.

[aguahombre]

i assumed he was explained that pard was barred and chose 4C. When the director arrives you back up to 3C not accepted, explain the 3C bidder's options, and he does not have to leave the premature 4C bid on the table. I thought he chose to leave it.

[Chris3875]

OK - as I explained I am fairly new to this Directing business. However, my reading of Law 27C is that if there is a premature replacement the Director shall take the bid back to the IB (in this case 3C, which I did, and which was not accepted by ops) and then if that IB is not accepted, the substitution (in this case the 4C bid) stands. The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution.

[aguahombre]

my understanding is that the substution 4C bid only stands if the offender wants it to stand, after knowing his pard is barred. I am no expert in the fine points of the laws, but that is my story and I am sticking to it.

[iviehoff]

Did you make a decision to rule that 3C is an insufficient bid as opposed to an unintended call, or did the NOS bounce you into that? One proper test is "what bid did you think you were making at the moment you put the 3C card on the table?" If the answer is "4C" and it is credible, it is unintended.

 

The substitution of an apparently insufficient bid before the director arrives would be quite legal and normal if it was the correction of an unintended call under 25A. In which case Law 27 does not apply: the opposition have no right to "accept" the first call (which is now treated as never having been made) and partner is not barred.

 

If this is an insufficient bid, then I think Chris's reading of 27C looks correct. 27C is a new piece of law which was not in the 1997 laws.

[Chris3875]

Yes, the 3C bid was intended - the player was looking for NT.

[Chris3875]

The substitution of an apparently insufficient bid before the director arrives would be quite legal and normal

 

I was just reading the above sentence again - surely a player cannot change a bid (even if it was an unintended bid) before the Director arrives ?

[iviehoff]

OK, the bid was changed between the director being called and him arriving. Once the director has been called, no one should do anything. It is substituting an unintended bid before the director has been called that is normal and legal per 25A1.

[mjj29]

my reading of Law 27C is that if there is a premature replacement the Director shall take the bid back to the IB (in this case 3C, which I did, and which was not accepted by ops) and then if that IB is not accepted, the substitution (in this case the 4C bid) stands.

And this is why people should call the director when the laws say that they must do. All four players were responsible for calling the director as soon as the IB was pointed out and the laws say they shouldn't do anything at that point until the director arrives. If they don't do this, then it's their own lookout if it goes wrong for them.

[bluejak]

Three excellent rulings.

 

Of course a player should not do anything before the TD arrives [Law 9B2]. But we are involved here in players doing things wrong, and one of the most common infractions is that after an insufficient bid, players try to change it to a sufficient one - and in some cases change it to another insufficient one!

 

After EBU advice we thought logical, followed by a WBF ruling which I can no longer find that reversed our view, I am pleased that the 2007 Laws cover this position so we no longer need worry about it.

 

In the third case 3♣ was not unintended so Law 25A does not apply. It was corrected to 4♣ before the TD arrived, so Law 27B4 tells us that the player has to bid 4♣, unless his RHO accepts the 3♣ bid, and accept the consequences.