Insufficient bid - what does the TD say?

[blackshoe]

Are the laws to be read such that anything which is not explicitly permitted is forbidden? If not, then I don't think the argument that the laws don't explicitly authorize the TD to do such-and-such holds water. And that the TD should (perhaps) do what TDs now do in reading out all the options involved in an irregularity situation does not lead to the conclusion that, for example, the TD should assist a player with his "memory, calculation, or technique" by reading to him the scoring table, which is I think what Jallerton was alluding to.

[CSGibson]

....

What I question is why the standard is a hand you would open, instead of a hand you would overcall. Objectively, why would you make that your standard for allowing or disallowing the substitution of a Michaels call? Is there something in the laws to state that should be the standard, or is this an example of director discretion?

[PeterE]

What I question is why the standard is a hand you would open, instead of a hand you would overcall.  Objectively, why would you make that your standard for allowing or disallowing the substitution of a Michaels call?  Is there something in the laws to state that should be the standard, or is this an example of director discretion?

There is no standard. I'll ask the IBer off the table what he was doing and his answer shows me whether he was "opening" or "overcalling".

And yes, it is in the discretion of the TD.

[PeterE]

Law 10C1 instructs the TD to "explain all of the options available".  In this case, it seems to me that the options available are:

 

1.  South should be given the option to accept the insufficient bid or not.

 

2.  If South does not accept the insufficient bid, East should be given his options: to correct his call to any sufficient bid or to a Pass (or possibly to a Double if this has the same or a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid). 

 

It seems to me that neither Law 81C2 nor Law 10C authorises the TD to explain the consequences of selecting a particular option.  I realise that it is generally accepted TD practice around the world to explain which calls would or would not bar partner, but this practice would appear to be legal only if you consider the Laws themselves to be available authorised information.

The options available are (leaving out the minor things):

 

1a. South may accept the IB, so ...

1b. South may not accept the IB, then

 

2a. East might have a Law 27b1a substitution and may chose that, so ...

2b. East might have a Law 27b1b substitution and may chose that, so ...

2c. East does not have any Law 27b1 substitution or he does not want to chose that, so East has to pass or make a sufficient bid, and West is barred throughout.

 

These are the options that have to be explained before South decides whether to accept the IB or not. The TD does not explain in advance to South which are valid substitutions under 2b or whether there is a possible application of 2a. South may ask supplementary question about NS's system, but that's all.

 

Recommended Tournament Director procedure

 

1. Advise the offender to say nothing at the table which might indicate what it was he thought he was doing, as to do so may create Unauthorised Information [uI] for his partner (Law 16B refers).

 

2. Advise the left hand opponent [LHO] that he may accept or reject the insufficient bid [iB], explaining that if he rejects it the offender will have the following options:-

· if the offender makes the lowest legal bid in the same denomination, and if neither call is artificial, then the auction will continue without any further rectification

· if the offender makes a call (any legal call) which has either an identical meaning a the IB or has a more precise meaning (such meaning being already fully contained within the scope of the IB), then the auction will continue without any further rectification

· otherwise, the offender can make any legal call he wishes other than a double or redouble, but his partner will be silenced throughout.

 

3. The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to guess!).  However, he is entitled to know full details of his opponents system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) and he is entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification of the Law from the Tournament Director [TD]).

 

4. If the IB is rejected, the TD will need to establish what the offender was trying to do when he made it.  He will almost inevitably need to do this away from the table in order that the other three players remain unaware of the reason.  The TD then advises the player of his options (still away from the table) i.e. which calls, if any, will allow the auction to proceed without further rectification.  If the correction is to be allowed under 27B1(b ), this may well involve quite a detailed (and possibly skilled) discussion and analysis of the player’s system.  The offender then selects his call at the table, and the TD advises the table as a whole whether or not partner is silenced throughout.

 

5. There may be Law 26 type lead penalties if the offending side become defenders.  Please see this Law even in 27B1(a) and 27B1(b ) cases [this aspect of Law may be subject to further review by the WBF LC].

 

6. At the end of play, the TD may need to examine whether there is any reason to adjust the score.  In general terms (e.g. in the absence of Law 16B type UI), if the IB has been accepted then all should be well.  Also, in general terms (e.g. in the absence of Law 23), if partner has been silenced throughout then all should be well.  Note that ‘rub of the green’ or ‘just being lucky’ is perfectly acceptable when partner has been silenced throughout – Law 27D does not apply, do not even think about going there!

[RMB1]

It seems to me that neither Law 81C2 nor Law 10C authorises the TD to explain the consequences of selecting a particular option.  I realise that it is generally accepted TD practice around the world to explain which calls would or would not bar partner, but this practice would appear to be legal only if you consider the Laws themselves to be available authorised information.

Is this line of argument specific to Law 27 or a general point about whether the laws are available authorised information?

 

Are you suggesting we should not read Law 31A2 before giving a non offender the option of accepting a bid out of rotation, or not reading Law 50C or Law 50D to a non offender before playing on once there is a penalty card?

[bluejak]

Away from the table I ask whether the call was the one he intended when he reached for the bid-box.

 

If not, we go back and apply 25A, where LHO does not have the option to accept the first call.

Law 25A applies if a call is changed, or if there is an attempt to change, without pause for thought. If he makes the call, you get called to the table and take him away, then find out whether it was unintended, how on earth can Law 25A be in time to offer to him?

 

Often a player, especially a new player, is nervous to be talking to the TD away from the table, so it is often a good idea to assure the player that we are here because the other players are not entitled to know WHY he made the insufficient call.

It is not a bad idea to say that taking a player away from the table is the norm in cases of IBs, and you are doing so because the ACBL/EBU/WBF/DBF/IBLF/your wife's sister has said so.

 

:ph34r:

 

I got the impression from the OP that it was not the Director who asked, that he was called after the insufficient bidder said he didn't see the opening bid.  Not that it really matters who asked (players should be trained to just call the director) but west now has significant UI even if east makes the bid sufficient - it was an opening bid, not an overcall.

 

How do the expert directors deal with this?

Law 27D (assuming a Law 27B1a rectification which seems most appropriate here)

No, Law 16B. While we do not have UI from an IB, the normal UI rules apply from remarks made by the players.

 

:ph34r:

 

If I were the director...which everyone is glad I am not....I would be hard pressed to imagine a 2H overcall which would not open 1H, and would let it slide.

xxx

QJ9xx

Kxx

xx

[mjj29]

Away from the table I ask whether the call was the one he intended when he reached for the bid-box.

 

If not, we go back and apply 25A, where LHO does not have the option to accept the first call.

Law 25A applies if a call is changed, or if there is an attempt to change, without pause for thought. If he makes the call, you get called to the table and take him away, then find out whether it was unintended, how on earth can Law 25A be in time to offer to him?

(possibly not in this case, but in general) I think there are cases where we can apply law 25A. If the sequence was:

 

- bid something

- become aware of it and say "argh! that wasn't what I meant to bid, I don't know whether I can change it - Director!" without pause for thought, or (alternatively) (oppo) "That's insufficient, Director!" "what, it's not insufficient? oh dear!" without pause for thought

 

We should _not_ be penalising people for the exact semantics of L25A when they are following the procedure set out in the rest of the laws (L9B1(a) "The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity", L9B2 "No player shall take any action until the Director has explain ...", L11A, etc)

 

Players should be encouraged when something goes wrong to "call the director, then do nothing". Saying "sorry, you did what we told you to, so you now can't correct your mis-pull" is extremely counter productive.

[PeterE]

We should _not_ be penalising people for the exact semantics of L25A when they are following the procedure set out in the rest of the laws (L9B1(a) "The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity", L9B2 "No player shall take any action until the Director has explain ...", L11A, etc)

 

Players should be encouraged when something goes wrong to "call the director, then do nothing". Saying "sorry, you did what we told you to, so you now can't correct your mis-pull" is extremely counter productive.

I disagree.

 

I (and IMHO the laws) make a difference between an unintended call and other errors in procedure during the bidding.

 

When a player calls out of rotation or makes an ("intended") IB etc. and someone draws attention to that fact, it is true: Law 9B (and possibly 9C) applies.

But when a player makes an unintended call (whether insufficient or not) and wants the TD to let that call be corrected, he has to (try to) change it even if Law 9B says the opposite. Special law prevails general law.

[bluejak]

The options available are (leaving out the minor things):

 

1a. South may accept the IB, so ...

1b. South may not accept the IB, then

 

2a. East might have a Law 27b1a substitution and may chose that, so ...

2b. East might have a Law 27b1b substitution and may chose that, so ...

2c. East does not have any Law 27b1 substitution or he does not want to chose that, so East has to pass or make a sufficient bid, and West is barred throughout.

 

These are the options that have to be explained before South decides whether to accept the IB or not. The TD does not explain in advance to South which are valid substitutions under 2b or whether there is a possible application of 2a. South may ask supplementary question about NS's system, but that's all.

In San Remo I asked Ton Kooijman, Max Bavin, Grattan Endicott and Maurizio Di Sacco whether, if the TD felt there was Law 27B1B option, he should say so, and if so, whether he should say what the bid was.

 

One of them thought he should tell what the bid was, one thought he should say that there was one but not what it was, one said he would just read the Law out without saying whether there was one or not, and one said he thought you should read the relevant bits of the Law out, ie you do not read out Law 27B1B if there is no such option.

 

Very helpful, I told them.

 

So I do not think we have reached the stage where we really know how to approach Law 27B cases, and so long as a TD does certain things, the rest he can do as he sees fit.

 

The general approach should be as in Peter Eidt's first post, about the tenth post of this thread, which is an excellent template.

[pran]

I got the impression from the OP that it was not the Director who asked, that he was called after the insufficient bidder said he didn't see the opening bid.  Not that it really matters who asked (players should be trained to just call the director) but west now has significant UI even if east makes the bid sufficient - it was an opening bid, not an overcall.

 

How do the expert directors deal with this?

Law 27D (assuming a Law 27B1a rectification which seems most appropriate here)

No, Law 16B. While we do not have UI from an IB, the normal UI rules apply from remarks made by the players.

 

;)

 

Sorry David but this cannot possibly be correct. What remarks???

 

From my work on Law 27 during the revision of this law I know that one major goal with Law 27B1b was to have it apply only when the rectification does not add extraneous information.

 

Law 27B1a explicitly states Law 16D does not apply but see D following

 

Law 27B1b includes the same reference to Law 27D, but has no reference at all to Law 16D, simply because one of the achievements from Law 27B1b was that there shall be no extraneous information from the retracted call (insufficient bid) when the replacement call conveys the same or a more precise meaning.

 

And in Law 27D to which both L27B1a and L27B1b refers there is a specific procedure to follow but no reference at all to any part of Law 16. It is worth noting that this procedure specified in Law 27D lacks similarity to any of the procedures in Law 16 since Law 27D has no condition about UI received from any "source".

 

Like other specific laws Law 27D is a specific law that overrides the more general Law 16.

[bluejak]

If a player says to the table "I did not see the opening bid so meant to open 1♠" then that is UI and is treated as such under Law 16.

 

Law 27 does not over-rule Law 16 where any UI is concerned except the IB itself - which is not UI.

[PeterE]

I agree with David and I disagree with Sven.

 

Law 27B1 a+b only work "normal" with no UI from the offender how he came to the IB. Only in that case offender's partner is entitled to make a (correct) guess about offender's intention. And only in that case there is no recourse to Law 16D.

 

And furthermore: Law 16 is not a general law; it is an universal law. That means Law 16 is always applicable - as long, as it is not explicitely excluded.

 

The reference in Law 27 B1a regarding the non-applicability of Law 16 D is for the IB itself (and the information guessed from it). It does - of course - not mean further UI is also allowed to be used.

[mjj29]

The reference in Law 27 B1a regarding the non-applicability of Law 16 D is for the IB itself (and the information guessed from it). It does - of course - not mean further UI is also allowed to be used.

(L27 not being quite what we'd like it to be aside) - the point of the new ability to correct is that the partner of the IBer has no more information having seen the IB than he does from having seen the replacement, since the replacement must be entirely within the meaning of the IB. If the IBer has announced the meaning of the IB and that announcement meets the test in L27, then their partner can, perforce, have no additional information over and above the replacement. If the announcement does _not_ meet the test in L27, then L27 wouldn't apply.

 

Now, you may consider that the laws aren't worded for the above to be true (and given what we know about L27, that may be the case) - but it's clearly the intent of that section.

 

(Obviously, if the IBer made some other comment, there would be UI considerations.)

[PeterE]

No, mjj29, I disagree with most of the above.

 

In Law 27 B1a there is no requirement for the substitute bid to be within the meaning of the IB. The only requirement is that both are not artificial and that both are made in the same denomination.

 

Example:

1♠ - (2♣) - 1NT (not having seen the overcall)

1NT is made on (and was intended to show) 6-9 HCP, (nearly) any distribution

2NT now would show ca. 11 HCP and a ♣ stop.

 

According to Law 27 B1a offender might substitute his IB with 2NT without further rectifications.

As long as offender did not mention that he overlooked the overcall offender's partner is allowed to guess that offender was indeed making a 1NT answer to 1♠ and that he does not held 11 HCP and need not have a ♣ stop. All these inferences may be legally drawn by offender's partner, as Law 16 D does not apply. Of course the TD has to examine after the board whether the final contract was only reached with the help of the IB and he may adjust the score in that case.

[RMB1]

... the point of the new ability to correct is that the partner of the IBer has no more information having seen the IB than he does from having seen the replacement, since the replacement must be entirely within the meaning of the IB. If the IBer has announced the meaning of the IB and that announcement meets the test in L27, then their partner can, perforce, have no additional information over and above the replacement. If the announcement does _not_ meet the test in L27, then L27 wouldn't apply.

At Brighton, there was a case where the insufficient bid was a 4♥ response to 4NT. Responder told the TD that 4NT was Blackwood (for kings) and 4♥ was a "1 king" response to 4♣ Gerber (for kings). So a replacement bid of 5♦ did not silence partner.

 

If 4NT bidder was not sure what 4NT was, or what responder had taken 4NT as, this combination of 4♥ replaced by 5♦ and not being silenced must surely have made things clearer.

[pran]

I agree with David and I disagree with Sven.

 

Law 27B1 a+b only work "normal" with no UI from the offender how he came to the IB. Only in that case offender's partner is entitled to make a (correct) guess about offender's intention. And only in that case there is no recourse to Law 16D.

 

And furthermore: Law 16 is not a general law; it is an universal law. That means Law 16 is always applicable - as long, as it is not explicitely excluded.

 

The reference in Law 27 B1a regarding the non-applicability of Law 16 D is for the IB itself (and the information guessed from it). It does - of course - not mean further UI is also allowed to be used.

When we are dealing with insufficient bids then that is an irregularity that is completely handled by law 27.

 

If in connection with an insufficient bid a player makes some extraneous remarks then that is a separate irregularity which must be handled on its own. And for that irregularity the appropriate law is of course Law 16. We must not mix the two irregularities and treat them as one.

[jallerton]

I have a question on this:  If the insufficient heart bidder instead decided to substitute a michaels 2♠ bid, under what circumstances would that be legal?

It is sufficient and thus of course legal.

 

But partner would have to pass whenever it is his turn to call.

Even if the pair has an agreement showing approximately opening hand, or at least overcall, strength (maybe vul vs not)? Wouldn't that encompass hands that would overcall 1 ♥, but also be more defined, and thus legal?

Not necessarily.

 

With the two hands below:

 

[a] x AQJxx x AKJxxx

void AKQJxxx AKQJxx void

 

(i) what would you open; and (ii) would you make a Michaels cue bid over a 1♠ opening?

 

However, I believe that a correction to an intermediate jump overcall of 3♥ would be permitted under Law 27B1 without silencing partner as all IJO hands would open 1♥.

[jallerton]

It seems to me that neither Law 81C2 nor Law 10C authorises the TD to explain the consequences of selecting a particular option.  I realise that it is generally accepted TD practice around the world to explain which calls would or would not bar partner, but this practice would appear to be legal only if you consider the Laws themselves to be available authorised information.

Is this line of argument specific to Law 27 or a general point about whether the laws are available authorised information?

 

Are you suggesting we should not read Law 31A2 before giving a non offender the option of accepting a bid out of rotation, or not reading Law 50C or Law 50D to a non offender before playing on once there is a penalty card?

Yes, this is the more general point. Advising a player which calls would or would silence partner is surely just as much an aid to technique as is advising them what Law 77 says.

[jallerton]

The options available are (leaving out the minor things):

 

1a. South may accept the IB, so ...

1b. South may not accept the IB, then

 

2a. East might have a Law 27b1a substitution and may chose that, so ...

2b. East might have a Law 27b1b substitution and may chose that, so ...

2c. East does not have any Law 27b1 substitution or he does not want to chose that, so East has to pass or make a sufficient bid, and West is barred throughout.

 

These are the options that have to be explained before South decides whether to accept the IB or not. The TD does not explain in advance to South which are valid substitutions under 2b or whether there is a possible application of 2a. South may ask supplementary question about NS's system, but that's all.

So, let's get this straight. The WBF recommended procedure is for the TD to aid the technique of the offending side (by telling the insufficient bidder which calls, if any, fall within Law 27B1), whilst the TD is forbidden from letting the member of the non-offending side know the same information.

[RMB1]

Yes, this is the more general point.  Advising a player which calls would or would silence partner is surely just as much an aid to technique as is advising them what Law 77 says.

I have rather lost the thread here, but can we get away from Law 27.

 

Do you object to players asking and being told the score for 3 down doubled compared with 4S= during the auction?

 

Do you object to declarer being told of the lead penalties associated with a defender having a major penalty card, before defender's partner gets on lead?

 

Do you object to declarer being told that a defender must play a major penalty card when it is legal, before the first legal opportunity for the card to be played (at the defender's turn to play)?

[bluejak]

The reference in Law 27 B1a regarding the non-applicability of Law 16 D is for the IB itself (and the information guessed from it). It does - of course - not mean further UI is also allowed to be used.

(L27 not being quite what we'd like it to be aside) - the point of the new ability to correct is that the partner of the IBer has no more information having seen the IB than he does from having seen the replacement, since the replacement must be entirely within the meaning of the IB. If the IBer has announced the meaning of the IB and that announcement meets the test in L27, then their partner can, perforce, have no additional information over and above the replacement. If the announcement does _not_ meet the test in L27, then L27 wouldn't apply.

 

Now, you may consider that the laws aren't worded for the above to be true (and given what we know about L27, that may be the case) - but it's clearly the intent of that section.

 

(Obviously, if the IBer made some other comment, there would be UI considerations.)

First of all, I do not care what the intent of a Law is: if another Law applies, saying the intent of the first Law is irrelevant. Or, to be specific, when Law 16 applies, ie in cases where a player gives UI to his partner except through an IB, then Law 16 applies whatever the intent of Law 27, 45, 193 or any other is.

 

As to the convolutions you are talking about, we are just back at the old "I had AI so the UI did not matter" wrong approach: the UI Laws apply when there is UI, whether there is AI or not [try reading them!]. The AI affects what may be an LA.

 

So if a player makes a remark at the table, whether he has made an IB or not, this is UI to partner and the UI Laws apply, whether there is some AI on point or not.

[dburn]

Do you object to players asking and being told the score for 3 down doubled compared with 4S= during the auction?

I wouldn't, but apparently the WBFLC would. Law 77 is one of the Laws you are (presumably) supposed to remember.

 

Parenthetical question: suppose my opponent asked me during the auction or play "what's three down doubled non-vulnerable?" and I said "minus 500". What is the penalty for aiding and abetting in a breach of Law 40C3a? And is my opponent in duty bound to ignore the answer I have just given?

 

Do you object to declarer being told of the lead penalties associated with a defender having a major penalty card, before defender's partner gets on lead?

I wouldn't, and apparently neither would the WBFLC. Law 50 is one of the Laws you are (presumably) not supposed to remember.

 

Do you object to declarer being told that a defender must play a major penalty card when it is legal, before the first legal opportunity for the card to be played (at the defender's turn to play)?

I refer the Honourable Member to the answer I gave immediately above. The truth appears to be that players are entitled to any number of aids to memory, calculation or technique when someone at their table (including themselves) has just broken a Law, but not when they haven't. The people who wrote the Beijing 2008 minute are... well, they would not meet the initial requirements for playing a game of marbles.

[McBruce]

Away from the table I ask whether the call was the one he intended when he reached for the bid-box.

 

If not, we go back and apply 25A, where LHO does not have the option to accept the first call.

Law 25A applies if a call is changed, or if there is an attempt to change, without pause for thought. If he makes the call, you get called to the table and take him away, then find out whether it was unintended, how on earth can Law 25A be in time to offer to him?

I stand corrected (except that I am currently seated). ;)

[jallerton]

Yes, this is the more general point.  Advising a player which calls would or would silence partner is surely just as much an aid to technique as is advising them what Law 77 says.

I have rather lost the thread here, but can we get away from Law 27.

 

Do you object to players asking and being told the score for 3 down doubled compared with 4S= during the auction?

 

Do you object to declarer being told of the lead penalties associated with a defender having a major penalty card, before defender's partner gets on lead?

 

Do you object to declarer being told that a defender must play a major penalty card when it is legal, before the first legal opportunity for the card to be played (at the defender's turn to play)?

I believe that there are two possibilities:

 

1. If one believes in the "Cult's" strict interpretation of Law40C3(a), then one should object to all three of your scenarios.

 

2. If one does not believe in the "Cult's" strict interpretation of Law40C3(a) and that the TD's job is to tell the players what the Laws actually say, then one should not object to any of your three of your scenarios.

 

What I object to is people insisting that Law X must be used in one situation and then pretending that the same Law X can be interpreted differently in another.

[RMB1]

As a practical matter, I think players are expected to know/remember the laws as they relate to normal play (e.g. bids must be sufficient, follow suit, doubled vulnerable undertricks are 200, then 300 a piece). But players are entitled to be told the laws as they relate to action following an actual irregularity.

 

I think I am acting in the mistaken belief that Law 10C1 continues "the Director shall explain all the options available and their consequences for the rest of the play of the hand." Without that wording, my belief appears to be an act of blind faith in my training.

 

[Returning to the subject of the thread, and to continue a rant I delivered at Brighton.] Whatever the laws in general say or should say, Law 27 as it stands should be treated as a special case or should explicitly state what information should be available to which players during the process of operating the law. The law as it finally appeared in the "2007" Law Book is not operable in line with principles elsewhere in the laws, and no amount of subsequent "interpretation" by WBFLC has changed that.

 

It is wrong that the basis for a ruling (the meaning of the insufficient bid) is determined by the word of an offender, given away from the other players. It is wrong that the TD's judgement on which calls by offender will not silence partner is made available to the offender (but not other players) before the offender selects his call (above and beyond having Law 27B1b read to the offender). If the provisions of Law 27 are not substantially changed, then we need clear statements on how the law should operate and the exceptional way that information is made available to both sides during the operation of the law.