Insufficient bid - what does the TD say?

[bluejak]

Absolutely correct.

[pran]

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.

In my honest opinion this is an obvious consequence of the clause the Director shall explain all the options available in Law 10C1. He dosen't explain "all" unless he includes the consequences.

 

[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.

Here I must strongly disagree. Maybe because I myself have been involved in the work on Law 27, but I have no difficulty applying Law 27B1 (which I believe is the part of Law 27 that causes the most problems for Directors?) in its present state.

 

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).

All of this is perfectly correct: The Director shall definitely not take the words from one person on the offending side alone for a fact; he must of course judge the complete situation and establish for himself an opinion whether or not the conditions in Law 27B1a or Law 27B1b are satisfied, and then rule correspondingly.

Don't forget that both parts of Law 27B1 contain the words: in the Director’s opinion. And honestly I question the reason for taking any player away from the table in this process. After all the Director must base his Law 27 ruling on information that is AI to all the players at the table.

(If some player should during this process provide any information that is UI to his partner then that will be a separate irregularity to be dealt with after ruling on the insufficient bid.)

 

  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.

[RMB1]

All of this is perfectly correct: The Director shall definitely not take the words from one person on the offending side alone for a fact; he must of course judge the complete situation and establish for himself an opinion whether or not the conditions in Law 27B1a or Law 27B1b are satisfied, and then rule correspondingly.

 

Don't forget that both parts of Law 27B1 contain the words: in the Director’s opinion. And honestly I question the reason for taking any player away from the table in this process. After all the Director must base his Law 27 ruling on information that is AI to all the players at the table.

Obviously this is where we disagree. I am trying to operate Law 27 using the Recommended Tournament Director procedure which appears on the internet.

 

Item 4. reads

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 uner 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.

 

This suggests to me that

• the TD will usually need to talk to offender away from the table;
  
• the meaning of IB is determined by what the offender was trying to do;
  
• the TD will advise the offender which calls will allow the auction to proceed without silencing partner.
  

This is the procedure I am trying to be faithful to, despite my feeling that it is inconsistent with how the rest of the laws operate.

 

I am sure pran has been operating Law 27 happily with no problems "having been involved on the work on Law 27" but others (myself included) have also been working on how to operate the current Law 27 at all levels of the game, since before the current laws were adopted, and are not so happy.

[RMB1]

Apologies to pran: the "Recommended Tournament Director procedure" is regarded as out of date and is no longer recommended. Any procedure that works and is compatible with the laws is worth using.

 

I think I will streamline my previous approach.

• Try to establish whether this is a Law 25A case, whether Law 27B1a applies and whether Law 27B1b might apply at the table.
  
• Tell LHO whether Law 27B1a applies and whether there may be other calls that do not silence offender's partner under Law 27B1b (but not what those other calls may be).
  
• If the bid is not accepted, then I offer to tell offender (away from the table) whether various calls will not silence partner.
   
  Having discussed this and seen what mistakes TDs can make, it is not reasonable for a player to have to decide how a particular TD might rule, when making a call that is unexpected ruled to silence partner could be disasterous.
  

[pran]

Apologies to pran: the "Recommended Tournament Director procedure" is regarded as out of date and is no longer recommended.  Any procedure that works and is compatible with the laws is worth using.

 

I think I will streamline my previous approach. 

• 
   
  
• Try to establish whether this is a Law 25A case, whether Law 27B1a applies and whether Law 27B1b might apply at the table.
   
  
• Tell LHO whether Law 27B1a applies and whether there may be other calls that do not silence offender's partner under Law 27B1b (but not what those other calls may be). 
   
  
• If the bid is not accepted, then I offer to tell offender (away from the table) whether various calls will not silence partner. 
   
  Having discussed this and seen what mistakes TDs can make, it is not reasonable for a player to have to decide how a particular TD might rule, when making a call that is unexpected ruled to silence partner could be disasterous.
   
  

Thanks,

 

Now (after in case excluding a Law 25A ruling and having had a refusal from LHO to accept the IB), what I usually do is to read to the offender (and in fact the table) the words in Laws 27B1a and 27B1b making sure that the offender understands these two laws and the possible consequences from his choice of a replacement call.

 

So far I see no reason to take any player away from the table, and it is definitely not any of the Director's business to counsel the offender on his replacement call.

 

Then, after the offender has chosen his replacement call I rule whether I consider this call to comply with the condition in L27B1a or L27B1b, or if his partner is forced to pass during the rest of the auction. If I find it necessary for this ruling I clarify with the offender (now away from the table) why in case he thinks his call should not bar partner.

[jallerton]

Now (after in case excluding a Law 25A ruling and having had a refusal from LHO to accept the IB), what I usually do is to read to the offender (and in fact the table) the words in Laws 27B1a and 27B1b making sure that the offender understands these two laws and the possible consequences from his choice of a replacement call.

Sven, you are a genius!

 

Most tournament directors have difficulty knowing what Law 27B1 really means and yet you are able to make a player who had just had a problem complying with the more basic Law 18B/C gain a perfect understanding of Law 27B1.

[mjj29]

So far I see no reason to take any player away from the table, and it is definitely not any of the Director's business to counsel the offender on his replacement call.

The offender certainly should be aware which calls will silence partner before making a call - obviously the director shouldn't give any advice as to which is best, but it's not reasonable to have players guess whether you think a call qualifies. If I can avoid silencing partener I will almost certainly make that call, whatever it is - but if I'm going to silence partner I want to take my best stab at a contract, not my best stab at a call which might not silence partner

[pran]

So far I see no reason to take any player away from the table, and it is definitely not any of the Director's business to counsel the offender on his replacement call.

The offender certainly should be aware which calls will silence partner before making a call - obviously the director shouldn't give any advice as to which is best, but it's not reasonable to have players guess whether you think a call qualifies. If I can avoid silencing partener I will almost certainly make that call, whatever it is - but if I'm going to silence partner I want to take my best stab at a contract, not my best stab at a call which might not silence partner

My experience is that once the offender understands (my explanation of) Laws 27B1a and 27B1b he doesn't need to be told which calls will eventually satisfy the condition in either of them.

 

And if I should be unable to make him understand (I have never been!) then the only way of not having him silencing his partner is for me as Director to select his replacement call, something I shall never do.

[mjj29]

The offender certainly should be aware which calls will silence partner before making a call - obviously the director shouldn't give any advice as to which is best, but it's not reasonable to have players guess whether you think a call qualifies. If I can avoid silencing partener I will almost certainly make that call, whatever it is - but if I'm going to silence partner I want to take my best stab at a contract, not my best stab at a call which might not silence partner

My experience is that once the offender understands (my explanation of) Laws 27B1a and 27B1b he doesn't need to be told which calls will eventually satisfy the condition in either of them.

 

And if I should be unable to make him understand (I have never been!) then the only way of not having him silencing his partner is for me as Director to select his replacement call, something I shall never do.

I'm not saying you should select his call, I'm saying he should be able to say "would X silence partner" and have you answer before he commits to bidding X.

 

And I'm either very impressed by your players, or by the simplicity of your problems, if they always get that right. Do they never try and correct 2N-2C (stayman) to 3C (not allowed)? Replace (1S)-1H with an X (is that allowed? When playing 5 card majors? When X could be 1345?)

 

I wouldn't expect to agree with any other given director 100% of the time without some consultation, so I'm not about to risk silencing partner without checking!

[bluejak]

It is extremely complicated which calls are permitted under law 27B1B and which not, especially since the WBFLC has relaxed its requirements. I do not believe that we can leave the players to decide this and believe we have to tell the player making the choice which call is a Law 27B1B one, which a 27B1A choice, and which neither. True, this means we are making judgement decisions without consultation and consideration but the whole of the new Law 27B is against the general principles of the rest of the Law book.

 

I still think it more interesting what we should tell the table. When a player has a major penalty card and the TD is called he and his partner are told the effects of their actions, so they can try to avoid a penalty that causes trouble, eg playing that suit to avoid the card being a forced discard. In the same way, what would you expect to be told before you decide whether to accept an IB?

[gnasher]

In the same way, what would you expect to be told before you decide whether to accept an IB?

I'd *want* to be told what RHO would be allowed to correct it to without penalty. I don't know whether I can expect that, though.

[pran]

It is extremely complicated which calls are permitted under law 27B1B and which not, especially since the WBFLC has relaxed its requirements.  I do not believe that we can leave the players to decide this and believe we have to tell the player making the choice which call is a Law 27B1B one, which a 27B1A choice, and which neither.  True, this means we are making judgement decisions without consultation and consideration but the whole of the new Law 27B is against the general principles of the rest of the Law book.

 

I still think it more interesting what we should tell the table.  When a player has a major penalty card and the TD is called he and his partner are told the effects of their actions, so they can try to avoid a penalty that causes trouble, eg playing that suit to avoid the card being a forced discard.  In the same way, what would you expect to be told before you decide whether to accept an IB?

That if I accept the IB then the auction continues with no further rectification, as if the IB had been sufficient (as made).

 

That if offender's first bid was incontrovertibly not artificial and he chooses to replace it with the lowest legal bid in the same denomination and this replacement bid is also incontrovertibly not artificial then the auction continues with no further rectification.

 

That if this condition is not met and he replaces his IB with a call has the same or a more precise meaning than the IB apparently would have, i.e. that his replacement call could not have been made on any hand that would not have made the IB had this been sufficient (legal), then again the auction continues with no further rectification.

 

That if the Director after the replacement call has been made rules that these conditions were not satisfied then his partner will be silenced for the rest of the auction.

 

(I think it is worth noting that the default rectification in Law 27B includes silencing the offender's partner for the rest of the auction. The provisions in Law 27B1 must be seen as exceptions from this default rectification on very specific conditions).

[RMB1]

I'd *want* to be told what RHO would be allowed to correct it to without penalty. I don't know whether I can expect that, though.

You have my sympathy. At the moment we (EBU TDs) don't "know" whether you are allowed to know whether there are calls the offender can correct to without penalty.

 

It would be good if the "meaning" of the insufficient bid was available to the non-offenders, then they would be able to deduce if there were calls the offender can correct to without penalty.

[pran]

I'd *want* to be told what RHO would be allowed to correct it to without penalty.  I don't know whether I can expect that, though.

You have my sympathy. At the moment we (EBU TDs) don't "know" whether you are allowed to know whether there are calls the offender can correct to without penalty.

 

It would be good if the "meaning" of the insufficient bid was available to the non-offenders, then they would be able to deduce if there were calls the offender can correct to without penalty.

How shall the offender's LHO "know" if his side will gain from not accepting the IB?

 

I have no count of the times LHO "knew" that the offender's partner would be silenced whatever replacement call the offender selected and therefore refused to accept the IB only to end up with a bottom score because the offender made a direct game bid that he guessed would have a fair chance either for play or as a sacrifice, and shut out not only his partner but also his opponents.

 

LHO will have to make his choice from what he "knows" (and expects).

[blackshoe]

Bridge is not a game of perfect knowledge. Nor should it be. I see no reason to expect the TD to help me attain that unattainable goal.

[jallerton]

I agree with Robin that the present recommended approach to Law 27 is unsatisfactory and is in need of urgent review. This is underlined by Bluejak's report that three different members of the WBFLC gave him three different answers to a fairly fundamental question on what the LHO is or is not allowed to know.

 

Maybe it is time for regulatory authorities to appreciate that there is no obligation to follow any "recommended practice" and review their approach entirely; that review should start by considering the wording of the Law itself, rather than that of a contradictory WBLFC minute.

 

 

]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.

 

[footnote: * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ]

 

If, as Law 27 seems to assume, it is possible for an insufficient bid to have a meaning at all, then presumably that meaning is known to the insufficient bidder's partner; hence there is an implicit partnership agreement and their opponents have a right to know that "meaning". Thus one possible procedure would be for the TD to send the insufficient bidder's partner away from the table to allow the insufficient bidder to explain the "meaning" of his bid to the opponents as well as to the TD. The TD could then advise these three players which calls, if any, would not silence the insufficient bidder's partner. When the partner returns to the table and a legal substitution is made, the TD will of course advise him whether or not he has been silenced!

[bluejak]

It is extremely complicated which calls are permitted under law 27B1B and which not, especially since the WBFLC has relaxed its requirements.  I do not believe that we can leave the players to decide this and believe we have to tell the player making the choice which call is a Law 27B1B one, which a 27B1A choice, and which neither.  True, this means we are making judgement decisions without consultation and consideration but the whole of the new Law 27B is against the general principles of the rest of the Law book.

 

I still think it more interesting what we should tell the table.  When a player has a major penalty card and the TD is called he and his partner are told the effects of their actions, so they can try to avoid a penalty that causes trouble, eg playing that suit to avoid the card being a forced discard.  In the same way, what would you expect to be told before you decide whether to accept an IB?

That if I accept the IB then the auction continues with no further rectification, as if the IB had been sufficient (as made).

 

That if offender's first bid was incontrovertibly not artificial and he chooses to replace it with the lowest legal bid in the same denomination and this replacement bid is also incontrovertibly not artificial then the auction continues with no further rectification.

 

That if this condition is not met and he replaces his IB with a call has the same or a more precise meaning than the IB apparently would have, i.e. that his replacement call could not have been made on any hand that would not have made the IB had this been sufficient (legal), then again the auction continues with no further rectification.

 

That if the Director after the replacement call has been made rules that these conditions were not satisfied then his partner will be silenced for the rest of the auction.

 

(I think it is worth noting that the default rectification in Law 27B includes silencing the offender's partner for the rest of the auction. The provisions in Law 27B1 must be seen as exceptions from this default rectification on very specific conditions).

Let me be absolutely serious: if I was an ordinary player who did not know the Laws and you said that to me I would assume you were being deliberately unhelpful.

[bluejak]

In the same way, what would you expect to be told before you decide whether to accept an IB?

I'd *want* to be told what RHO would be allowed to correct it to without penalty. I don't know whether I can expect that, though.

That is not unreasonable. However, I also do not feel that it is unreasonable to think that is too helpful. The compromise that I would like as a player is to know whether there exists a Law 27B1A correction, and whether there exists a Law 27B1B correction. Even without being told what calls they are I feel this might be adequate to get a feel for what is going on.

[pran]

Let me be absolutely serious: if I was an ordinary player who did not know the Laws and you said that to me I would assume you were being deliberately unhelpful.

I deal with all kinds of tournaments and all kinds of players. Probably the majority of players are those who do not know the laws.

 

And I have an unanimous feedback of being very helpful as Director. (Not just telling them the rules but making them understand.)