Insufficient conventional bid

[dickiegera]

After agreeing to a Spade contract a 4NT is followed with a 4 Diamond response.

After a five second delay LHO calls for director and 4NT bidder remarks that the 4D bidder

merely pulled the wrong card and 4D bidder corrects to 5D before director arrives.

 

Since the Diamond bid is Insufficient & Conventional, what is the correct ruling?

Does 4D and 5D have the same meaning?

Thank you

[pran]

After agreeing to a Spade contract a 4NT is followed with a 4 Diamond response.

After a five second delay LHO calls for director and 4NT bidder remarks that the 4D bidder

merely pulled the wrong card and 4D bidder corrects to 5D before director arrives.

 

Since the Diamond bid is Insufficient & Conventional, what is the correct ruling?

Does 4D and 5D have the same meaning?

Thank you

No, but if the Director is convinced of a mispull he should rule Law 25A and allow the auction to continue without any other rectification that the replacement of (insufficient) 4D with 5D.

 

The 5 seconds delay does not constitute a pause for thought; such pause shall be measured from the moment the player becomes aware of his mistake.

[blackshoe]

Asker's remark is out of line.

[pran]

Asker's remark is out of line.

Asker simply called attention to his partner's error, that is his privilege (Law 9).

 

The Director must rule whether the manner in which this attention was called, or other circumstances, prevents a law 25A rectification. We have no way of making that ruling here from the information submitted. However, I consider the probability of a true mispull to be rather high.

 

If he rules Law 25A then the call is changed to 5♦ and the auction continues without any further rectification.

 

If not then the offender is free to replace his insufficient 4♦ bid with any legal call at his choice, and regardless of which call he selects the asker must pass for the rest of the auction. (The information that asker in this case must pass is of course authorized to the offender)

[jeremy69]

Asker simply called attention to his partner's error, that is his privilege (Law 9).

 

You must be reading a different problem to me. An opponent called for the director following the insufficient bid and the "asker" then offers his own reason as to why the insufficiency by his partner happened thus perhaps prompting the responder to claim he pulled the wrong card from the bidding box (which he may, of course, have done). I agree with Blackshoe that this is out of line.

[blackshoe]

Asker's remark is out of line.

Asker simply called attention to his partner's error, that is his privilege (Law 9).

No, he did not. He asserted a reason for the IB. He cannot know that reason is correct. Granted that an ethical player will not now assert that 4♦ is unintentional if that is in fact not the case, but that doesn't excuse his partner. Besides, as Jeremy says, an opponent had already called for the TD. It was IBer's LHO who called attention to the IB.

[Chris3875]

If not then the offender is free to replace his insufficient 4♦ bid with any legal call at his choice, and regardless of which call he selects the asker must pass for the rest of the auction. (The information that asker in this case must pass is of course authorized to the offender)

 

Surely this is not correct - under the new Laws isn't the player free to change his insufficient 4♦ bid to 5♦ with no restriction on partner?

[Vampyr]

If not then the offender is free to replace his insufficient 4♦ bid with any legal call at his choice, and regardless of which call he selects the asker must pass for the rest of the auction. (The information that asker in this case must pass is of course authorized to the offender)

 

Surely this is not correct - under the new Laws isn't the player free to change his insufficient 4♦ bid to 5♦ with no restriction on partner?

It depends on what the 4♦ and 5♦ bids mean. Of course this is a nonsense, since partnerships do not have agreements about the meaning of a 4♦ bid over 4NT, nor about any other insufficient bids. But this is the new Law, and we have to live with it (not, I suspect, until 2017).

[pran]

Asker simply called attention to his partner's error, that is his privilege (Law 9).

 

You must be reading a different problem to me. An opponent called for the director following the insufficient bid and the "asker" then offers his own reason as to why the insufficiency by his partner happened thus perhaps prompting the responder to claim he pulled the wrong card from the bidding box (which he may, of course, have done). I agree with Blackshoe that this is out of line.

Sorry, Overlooked that. Mea culpa

[pran]

If not then the offender is free to replace his insufficient 4♦ bid with any legal call at his choice, and regardless of which call he selects the asker must pass for the rest of the auction. (The information that asker in this case must pass is of course authorized to the offender)

 

Surely this is not correct - under the new Laws isn't the player free to change his insufficient 4♦ bid to 5♦ with no restriction on partner?

4♦ can be corrected to 5♦ without any further rectifications on three different possibilities:

 

1: A Law 25A rectification

2: A Law 27B1{a} rectification

3: A Law 27B1{b} rectification

 

Alternative 2 is excluded because 5♦ in this situation will be an artificial call.

Alternative 3 is excluded because no interpretation of the 4♦ bid will make the 5♦ bid have the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than the 4♦ bid.

[pran]

If not then the offender is free to replace his insufficient 4♦ bid with any legal call at his choice, and regardless of which call he selects the asker must pass for the rest of the auction. (The information that asker in this case must pass is of course authorized to the offender)

 

Surely this is not correct - under the new Laws isn't the player free to change his insufficient 4♦ bid to 5♦ with no restriction on partner?

It depends on what the 4♦ and 5♦ bids mean. Of course this is a nonsense, since partnerships do not have agreements about the meaning of a 4♦ bid over 4NT, nor about any other insufficient bids. But this is the new Law, and we have to live with it (not, I suspect, until 2017).

One example to demonstrate the effect of the new law here:

 

1♣ - 1♠ - 1♥ - Director!

 

The insufficient 1♥ bid can now be replaced by a double that shows 4 Hearts, (or 5+ hearts but insufficient strength to bid 2♥).

 

The double in this position has a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid would have had (without the intervening 1♠ bid)

[helene_t]

One example to demonstrate the effect of the new law here:

 

1♣ - 1♠ - 1♥ - Director!

 

The insufficient 1♥ bid can now be replaced by a double that shows 4 Hearts, (or 5+ hearts but insufficient strength to bid 2♥).

 

The double in this position has a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid would have had (without the intervening 1♠ bid)

Only if they play Walsh. Otherwise the insufficient bid gives opener the info that responder doesn't have longer diamonds than hearts.

[gordontd]

Alternative 3 is excluded because no interpretation of the 4♦ bid will make the 5♦ bid have the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than the 4♦ bid.

Sure it can:

 

"What did 4D mean?"

"I meant to show 1 or 4 keycards, but got confused about the level of my response".

[pran]

One example to demonstrate the effect of the new law here:

 

1♣ - 1♠ - 1♥ - Director!

 

The insufficient 1♥ bid can now be replaced by a double that shows 4 Hearts, (or 5+ hearts but insufficient strength to bid 2♥).

 

The double in this position has a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid would have had (without the intervening 1♠ bid)

Only if they play Walsh. Otherwise the insufficient bid gives opener the info that responder doesn't have longer diamonds than hearts.

Your comment reveals another misunderstanding of Law 27B1{b}

 

"More precise" is easiest understood this way:

 

If you can find a hand on which the replacement call would be used but the insufficient bid would not (in its context) then the replacement call is less precise, not more precise than the insufficient bid.

 

You provide an example where the insufficient bid can be made with a hand on which the replacement call can not. This is quite OK because the replacement call is more precise.

 

Another example to demonstrate the opposite:

 

1NT - pass - 2♣ and 2NT - pass - 3♣ are both Stayman sequences.

Quite often (as in my own case) Stayman then indicates possible game interest, so 2♣ promises some 8+ HCP while 3♣ similarly promises some 4+ HCP.

 

In the sequence:

2NT - pass - 2♣ - Director!

The insufficient bid of 2♣ can then not be replaced with 3♣ because 3♣ although principally the same type of Stayman can be made with only 4 HCP which is too little for 2♣ as Stayman over 1NT.

 

Law 27B1{b} is rather tricky, but once you get the grasp of that law it is very logical.

 

 

OK I see your point slightly different, but then change the opening bid to 1♦ instead of 1♣ and the objection about Walsh (i don't know what that is) should go away?

Edited January 11, 2010 by pran

[blackshoe]

Alternative 3 is excluded because no interpretation of the 4♦ bid will make the 5♦ bid have the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than the 4♦ bid.

Sure it can:

 

"What did 4D mean?"

"I meant to show 1 or 4 keycards, but got confused about the level of my response".

If that qualifies as a reason for allowing a 27B1{b} correction, we have a bigger mess than I thought we did with this law. :blink:

[pran]

Alternative 3 is excluded because no interpretation of the 4♦ bid will make the 5♦ bid have the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than the 4♦ bid.

Sure it can:

 

"What did 4D mean?"

"I meant to show 1 or 4 keycards, but got confused about the level of my response".

If that qualifies as a reason for allowing a 27B1{b} correction, we have a bigger mess than I thought we did with this law. :blink:

I don't understand how it can.

 

If that argument is relevant it must be a law 25A rectification?

[blackshoe]

Gordon is saying, it seems to me, that "I just got confused about the level" is an argument that 4♦ meant the same thing as 5♦ would have, thus allowing a change under Law 27B1{b}.

 

It seems to me that a player who "got confused about the level" intended to bid 4♦, so no, not 25A.

[iviehoff]

3: A Law 27B1{b} rectification

Alternative 3 is excluded because no interpretation of the 4♦ bid will make the 5♦ bid have the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than the 4♦ bid.

I thought the "purpose" of 27B1{b} (to the extent we can identify a purpose) was precisely to allow such (arguably, entirely innocuous) corrections such as this one. Someone intends to bid two steps up from 4N but does their sums wrong and comes out with 4D. Clearly 25A doesn't apply. But now he is forgiven by 27B1{b} instead.

 

Who can say what an insufficient bid "means" - you have to get inside the mind of the player to know. In the case of a 4D response to 4N, we can be pretty sure it usually means the same as 5D. And that is what brings this law into disrepute in wider cases, because we can't always be so sure.

 

Consider the case of a 2C response to 2N. If the player thought he was responding to 2N and merely miscalculated the level, he can correct it to 3C: in such a case 2C means precisely the same thing as 3C. But that isn't the only thinkg that could have happened. If he thought he was responding to 1N, or he was opening 2C, or something like that, then he probably can't correct it, unless by luck he can find a new bid that is more precise than the one he made. We can only tell the difference by asking him, and then we rely upon the truthfulness of his response. (Though an unlikely lie might be exposed later.)

 

Helene's example is an example of an even wider application of this new law.

 

This law seems to come from the same school of thought that devised the now repealed "purposeful correction", ie, trying to forgive people innocuous errors. The problem is that it is very difficult always to be sure what is an innocuous error.

[duschek]

"More precise" is easiest understood this way:

 

If you can find a hand on which the replacement call would be used but the insufficient bid would not (in its context) then the replacement call is less precise, not more precise than the insufficient bid.

That was the original definition issued by the WBF-LC. However, there are examples which were probably intended as legal but which were illegal by this definition, such as 1♣-(1♠)-1♥... oops Double, and 2NT-2♣ Stayman.

 

In the meantime, the WBF-LC decided to loosen the requirements for applying Law 27B1b, which is reflected in the Beijing Meeting Minutes.

 

The Committee has noted an increasing inclination among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the Director judges that the outcome could well have been different without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in consequence the non‐offending side has been damaged).

Not really a concise definition, but that is what they have provided us with :ph34r:

[Chris3875]

In the "Zone 7 Law Interpetation, Regulation and Guidance" document, effective 1st June 2008, if specifically sets out the example of 1S - 3S - 4NT - 4D and says "if the Director is satisfied that East was answering Blackwood but at the wrong level, then East will be allowed to correct to 5D without any restriction".

 

It was interesting to read the 2NT - 2C scenario as I probably would have just automatically allowed IB'er to correct to 3C (if the 2C bid was stayman) - I see now that that would not be the case.

[Chris3875]

Darn!! Going back to the 2NT - 2C (stayman) - wants to change to 3C (stayman)

 

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/law...sCommentary.pdf says - "... the auction cannot be continued normally" but then goes on to say later - "The WBF-LC has decided to give the Regulating Authorities the right to apply the criteria in Law 27B1(:ph34r: with a liberal interpretation which could lead to accepting the 3C bid (if both calls 2C and 3C are considered to be just asking bids they fulfil the requirements given).

 

What's a girl to do ?

[pran]

Darn!! Going back to the 2NT - 2C (stayman) - wants to change to 3C (stayman)

 

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/law...sCommentary.pdf says - "... the auction cannot be continued normally" but then goes on to say later - "The WBF-LC has decided to give the Regulating Authorities the right to apply the criteria in Law 27B1(B) with a liberal interpretation which could lead to accepting the 3C bid (if both calls 2C and 3C are considered to be just asking bids they fulfil the requirements given).

 

What's a girl to do ?

When it is difficult even for those of us who more or less took part in the revision of the very first release of Law 27B1{b} to keep fully updated on the progress with this law I absolutely feel with you.

 

One thing is certain: Over the next years we shall see much work being done on clarifying examples for which changes are admissible and which are not.

 

In the meantime I think what we have to do is to keep in mind the main purpose of the Director: Have the players play bridge as fairly as possible.

[gordontd]

Alternative 3 is excluded because no interpretation of the 4♦ bid will make the 5♦ bid have the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than the 4♦ bid.

Sure it can:

 

"What did 4D mean?"

"I meant to show 1 or 4 keycards, but got confused about the level of my response".

If that qualifies as a reason for allowing a 27B1{b} correction, we have a bigger mess than I thought we did with this law. <_<

I don't understand how it can.

 

If that argument is relevant it must be a law 25A rectification?

No: at the time the player bid 4D, his intention was to bid 4D not 5D.

 

But in any case, not all mechanical errors satisfy the requirements of L25A - they might not have immediately had attention drawn to them- and those that don't might qualify for a L27B1b correction.

[Vampyr]

In the meantime I think what we have to do is to keep in mind the main purpose of the Director: Have the players play bridge as fairly as possible.

Fairness is not really possible while the new L27B is in force. A law that forced an insufficient bidder to make the final (non-pass) call for his side would be fair, and is perhaps the only method of dealing with IBs that meets that criterion. I happen to think that this would be a perfectly acceptable law, but that is neither here nor there.

 

Meanwhile, a law that is totally subjective in its application (and admits it) is neither fair nor perceived to be fair (which is perhaps even more important). Especially when the average volunteer club director has nowhere near the time, the bridge expertise or the comprehensive knowledge of the players' bidding system needed to apply this law in any fashion that is not completely random.

 

I never thought I would say this, but I would actually welcome a change back to the 1997 27B!

[mjj29]

Fairness is not really possible while the new L27B is in force. A law that forced an insufficient bidder to make the final (non-pass) call for his side would be fair, and is perhaps the only method of dealing with IBs that meets that criterion.

How is it fair that if I make a mistake which transmits no unauthorised information to partner and which I can fix by just making it sufficient bars him from the rest of the auction? I agree that the old law definitely doesn't harm the NOS, but that's a long way from being fair. The new law allows the TD to use discretion to continue play where he thinks there is no unauthorised information from the IB. In some cases the new 27B is stricter on this than the ability to correct a natural IB to a sufficient natural bid in that suit.

 

You are not entitled to a good score just because the opps make a mistake. I will give you the point that it may be harder for the average club TD to apply well, but that's true of all judgement rulings and is a matter of training.

 

Matt