Insufficient bid

[Free]

Both Vul, the auction starts:

3♠ - (4♥) - 3NT

 

What's your ruling? (the bid won't be accepted)

[RMB1]

Both Vul, the auction starts:

3♠ - (4♥) - 3NT

 

Law 27B1a requires the TD consider whether 3NT is incontrovertibly not artificial (YES) and a replacement of 4NT is incontrovertily not artifial (NO). 4NT could be not artificial but I do not think it is incontrovertibly so.

 

Law 27B1b requires the TD to consider if any legal call has the same or more precise meaning than 3NT. Nothing looks likely expect perhaps 4NT: I do not think double shows the same as (or is more precise that) 3NT. I think if the TD is convinced that 4NT is to play then a correction to 4NT will not silence opener (if not under Law 27B1a, then Law 27B1b).

 

Otherwise there would appear to be no (other) calls that will not silence opener.

 

If 4NT is to play then responder can bid that and opener will not be silenced; any other bid and Pass will silence opener; responder can not double.

[RMB1]

Second thoughts ...

 

If 4NT doesn't silence opener then it is to play and opener will pass anyway.

If 4NT isn't "to play" then responder can bid it to play anyway because opener will be silenced.

 

If the TD asks opener and/or responder (separately) what is their understanding of 4NT, it may be in their interests to say (confidently) it is to play, and they may know this.

 

How can the TD tell responder whether 4NT will silence partner, or tell opener if he is silenced when reposnder does bid 4NT, without them both knowing that they both know it is to play.

 

How can the TD apply Law 27D to allow for the fact that if the auction had gone 3♠-(4♥)-4NT, opener may have treated this as artificial. The offending side will say they both knew 4NT was natural.

 

I wish it would all (Law 27) go away!

[iviehoff]

If the TD asks opener and/or responder (separately) what is their understanding of 4NT, it may be in their interests to say (confidently) it is to play, and they may know this.

It might be in responder's interests to "no it is not to play", or at least "it isn't obvious", if he wants to bid 4N without any risk of partner taking it as Blackwood!

[Free]

For an objective meaning of 4NT and 5NT, I already polled:

4NT

5NT

 

The OS weren't experts and haven't played much together, so I think it's safe to believe they would use the standard meaning.

 

So, once the TD considers only 6NT to be the lowest NT bid that carries the same meaning as 3NT (= to play), what is the rest of the ruling?

 

Note: imo 4♠ is also NF obviously, but it doesn't carry the same or more precise meaning as 3NT. In contrary, 3NT shows a ♥ stopper, while 4♠ does not. Does that make a difference?

[RMB1]

It might be in responder's interests to "no it is not to play", or at least "it isn't obvious", if he wants to bid 4N without any risk of partner taking it as Blackwood!

 

Regardless of how we get there, if the TD rules that 4NT will silence partner and responder does bid 4NT then the TD must consider if Law 23 applies (as referenced by Law 27B2). It is likely that Law 23 will apply: bidding 3NT and correcting to 4NT as a way of playing 4NT, when the meaing of bidding 4NT directly "isn't obvious", would appear to meet the reequirements of the law.

[Phil]

This is helpful to me.

 

So I'm clear, if 4N is deemed to be RKC for spades, it is artificial by definition and the 3♠ bidder is barred from bidding over 4N so it seems as though it has the effect of a natural NT call anyway. Right?

 

If the partner of the 4♥ bidder bids 5♥, are there any lead penalties in this situation?

 

Thanks

[RMB1]

If the partner of the 4♥ bidder bids 5♥, are there any lead penalties in this situation?

 

3♠-(4♥)-3NT not accepted, replaced by 4NT silencing partner -(5♥)-end.

 

Then, when/if the opening bidder is on lead, Law 26 applies. 3NT did not specify suit(s), so Law 26B applies: declarer may prohibit opener from leading any one suit at his first turn to lead (such prohibition to continue for as long as opener retains the lead).

[Free]

3♠-(4♥)-3NT not accepted, replaced by 4NT silencing partner -(5♥)-end.

 

Then, when/if the opening bidder is on lead, Law 26 applies. 3NT did not specify suit(s), so Law 26B applies: declarer may prohibit opener from leading any one suit at his first turn to lead (such prohibition to continue for as long as opener retains the lead).

What if he replaces his 3NT call with 4♠?

- is that allowed?

- if we raise 4♠ to 5♥, are there still lead penalties?

[RMB1]

What if he replaces his 3NT call with 4♠?

- is that allowed?

- if we raise 4♠ to 5♥, are there still lead penalties?

 

Any sufficient bid is allowed: after 4♠, opener is silenced.

 

The same lead penalties apply if opening side become defenders: the penalty relates to the withdrawn 3NT call, not how it is corrected. So if 3♠ bidder get the lead he can be prohibited by declarer from leading any one suit.

[Finch]

This is helpful to me.

 

So I'm clear, if 4N is deemed to be RKC for spades, it is artificial by definition and the 3♠ bidder is barred from bidding over 4N so it seems as though it has the effect of a natural NT call anyway. Right?

 

 

I'm not sure if you spotted RMB's comment on this point.

Yes, BUT if 4NT makes, and it's the only way they can get to a making contract, then the TD will not permit the result to stand anyway (otherwise it's a great way to cheat).

[Finch]

For an objective meaning of 4NT and 5NT, I already polled:

4NT

5NT

 

The OS weren't experts and haven't played much together, so I think it's safe to believe they would use the standard meaning.

 

So, once the TD considers only 6NT to be the lowest NT bid that carries the same meaning as 3NT (= to play), what is the rest of the ruling?

 

Note: imo 4♠ is also NF obviously, but it doesn't carry the same or more precise meaning as 3NT. In contrary, 3NT shows a ♥ stopper, while 4♠ does not. Does that make a difference?

 

I think you've slightly misunderstood the point about the meanings of 4NT, 5NT (and 6NT).

 

First, the TD has to compare the meanings of the actual insufficient bid and the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination (3NT and 4NT). If they are both natural*, 4NT can be bid with no penalty. Nothing about whether they have the same (or a more precise) meaning or not, simply both natural.

 

Next, the TD has to compare the meaning of the insufficient bid with any suggested replacement call, in NT or not. If the replacement has the same, or a more precise meaning, than the 3NT call then it's permitted without any further penalty. One can argue about what is meant by "meaning", but 6NT does not carry the same meaning as 3NT. You can't just say they are both "to play", or that they have the same meaning if they are both "non-forcing". 3NT shows a hand with a heart stop or two and enough values to have a chance of 3NT; opener is certainly allowed to bid over it. 6NT shows a much stronger hand.

 

 

("incontrovertibly not artificial" in fact)

[gordontd]

I'm not sure if you spotted RMB's comment on this point.

Yes, BUT if 4NT makes, and it's the only way they can get to a making contract, then the TD will not permit the result to stand anyway (otherwise it's a great way to cheat).

I had a ruling a few years ago when the auction included:

 

4NT-5S

5H replaced by 5NT - enforced pass

 

I adjusted to 6NT-1 because there was no other way they could have got to play in 5NT. I don't think the player was doing it deliberately - he just realised they were missing two key cards, and knew that bidding an unbid suit at the 5-level was the way to get partner to bid 5NT to play.

 

I had got all the information at the end of the auction and consulted during the play, so I went back to the table to give the ruling, only to discover that in 5NT they had been allowed to make an overtrick in 5NT when one of the defenders didn't take his ace! However, it did seem to me they would have defended differently against 6NT.

[Phil]

I'm not sure if you spotted RMB's comment on this point.

Yes, BUT if 4NT makes, and it's the only way they can get to a making contract, then the TD will not permit the result to stand anyway (otherwise it's a great way to cheat).

 

Quite perceptive of you. I didn't recognize the Alcatraz Coup here :)

 

What isn't clear to me is what the adjustment should be. Under L. 27C2 I see that the TD awards an artificial adjusted score of at most 40%. The term 'at most' implies there is discretion on my part, doesn't it? What score would I assign?

[blackshoe]

There's no Law 27C2 in my law book. Did you mean 12C2?

 

It would be logical, I suppose, to read 12C2{a} as allowing discretion, but I don't think it's generally interpreted that way. However, 12C2{c} does allow for avg- to be less than 40% when the pair's average on the other boards of the session is less than 40% — except in the ACBL.

[gordontd]

There's no Law 27C2 in my law book. Did you mean 12C2?

 

I think he meant L27D:

 

Non-offending Side Damaged

If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play

that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the

board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending

side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his

adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable

outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred.

[gordontd]

Having read the early part of this thread a little more carefully I now see we're considering a L27B2 correction, not L27B1, so it's L23 that applies:

 

AWARENESS OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware

at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side,

he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the

play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers

the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

 

Either way we can award an assigned adjusted score.

[Finch]

I think he meant L27D:

 

 

{sigh} this is another pair of absurd laws.

 

In one circumstance after an insufficient bid (partner's enforced pass) Law 23 applies if they gain an advantage.

In one other circumstance (the bid is replaced by a sufficient bid with no direct further penalty) a different law, 27D, applies if they gain advantage.

 

The consequences of these two laws are different and treat the OS differently.

 

OK, rant over.

[blackshoe]

"at most 40%" does not appear in any part of Law 27.

[Phil]

I'm going off the 2008 ACBL version on the website. Can't provide a link now sorry.

[blackshoe]

The version of the laws I'm using is a pdf downloaded off a link on the "Charts, Rules, and Regulations" page.

[jallerton]

Interesting. Aside from the translation of certain English words into the related language of American, the document referred to in the link provided by Ed seems to differ somewhat from The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 as promulgated by the World Bridge Federation.

 

Without looking too hard, I find that:

 

The introduction is different (even though in both versions "this Introduction and the Definitions that follow form part of these Laws").

ACBL has added a Contents section (which the WBF had decided to omit from the 2007 Laws for some bizarre reason).

Several extra words have been added to Law 12C1(e)(ii).

 

There may well be other differences.

 

As the original poster on this thread comes from Belgium, it's safer to use the WBF's own website when confirming the exact wording of the applicable Law.

[blackshoe]

As I understand it, the ACBL maintains that it, and not the WBF, is the final arbiter of the laws in its jurisdiction. So as far as the ACBL is concerned, it can publish whatever it likes in its version of the laws. So yes, I suppose it's safer to use the WBF laws in cases where the jurisdiction is not ACBL. OTOH, IME there aren't that many differences*. And there is no Law 27C2 in the WBF laws, either.

 

* I believe the most significant difference is the ACBL's footnote to Law 12C2{c}, which says

In ACBL sanctioned events, when there is a non-offending and an offending contestant, the non-offending contestant receives the score specified by 12C2{c} above. Their opponents shall receive the difference between that score and 100%, regardless of their score on the other boards of that session. For example, if the non-offending contestant receives 64% on the adjusted deal, the offending contestant receives 36%.

[bluejak]

What isn't clear to me is what the adjustment should be. Under L. 27C2 I see that the TD awards an artificial adjusted score of at most 40%. The term 'at most' implies there is discretion on my part, doesn't it? What score would I assign?

While the Law book may not be clear, it is understood that the term "at most 40%" which appears in Law 12C2A refers solely to the adjustments prescribed by Law 12C2C, namely that Ave- means 40% unless the contestant gets less than 40% in the session, in which case they get their session average.

 

This is modified in the ACBL by the footnote to Law 12C2C, in the specific case where Ave+/Ave- has been given, that Ave- means the complement of Ave+: Ave+ means 60% or the pair's session score whichever is greater.

 

No other discretion is allowed.

 

On a matter of nomenclature, when a TD awards an adjusted score, it is either an assigned score or an artificial score. So you only refer to a TD "assigning" a score when he is awarding an assigned score, where he does have discretion.

[mycroft]

Originally there were three Law Makers, each for their own locations: the ACBL, the Portland Club, and the WBF. Each of them published their own version of the Laws, valid in their jurisdiction.

 

They decided at some point to co-ordinate their efforts, through the WBF Laws Committee; and the Portland Club has ceded their rights to the WBF; but the Laws are still published by two publishers, with the copyright in the relevant areas still belonging to each organization.

 

As the ACBL is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, this, and the several other uniquities in/with the ACBL, isn't likely to go away soon.