How do you rule?

[jillybean]

(P) P (1♣) P

(1♥) 2♦ (1N)

 

1N was not unintentional. ACBL land.

[blackshoe]

Allow 1N bidder's LHO the opportunity to accept the call; auction proceeds normally if he does. If not, 1NT may be changed to 2NT under Law 27B1{a}*. and there is no further rectification, though 27D may apply. I cannot think there is a call that would fit the criteria of 27B1{b}, so if not 2NT, any other change would be under 27B2, and partner must pass for the rest of the auction. Law 26 or Law 23 (or both) may apply.

 

*This presumes that both 1NT and 2NT would be natural, which I think is likely, but the TD should investigate to be sure.

[jillybean]

The 1N bid was natural and not accepted.

 

I may not understand the laws correctly but this seems to be a risk free method to signal to partner that you have a minimum hand and that 2N is to play. 1N oops, I mean 2N.

Or, for partner to make an easy pass of the forced 2N.

 

Maybe I'm being too cynical.

[barmar]

Yes, it's easy to signal that. On the other hand, it's also easy for the TD to catch you. If responder passes 2NT with an 8-12 count, he's clearly taking advantage of the UI.

[jhenrikj]

Yes, it's easy to signal that. On the other hand, it's also easy for the TD to catch you. If responder passes 2NT with an 8-12 count, he's clearly taking advantage of the UI.

 

What UI? Law 16D does not apply after a change according to 27B1(a). We still have the possibility to use 27D to adjust the score if we think that the outcome would have been different without the insufficient bid, but the information from the withdrawn 1NT is AI.

[pran]

Yes, it's easy to signal that. On the other hand, it's also easy for the TD to catch you. If responder passes 2NT with an 8-12 count, he's clearly taking advantage of the UI.

What UI? Law 16D does not apply after a change according to 27B1(a). We still have the possibility to use 27D to adjust the score if we think that the outcome would have been different without the insufficient bid, but the information from the withdrawn 1NT is AI.

27D and not 16D is the law in this case.

[jillybean]

What UI? Law 16D does not apply after a change according to 27B1(a). We still have the possibility to use 27D to adjust the score if we think that the outcome would have been different without the insufficient bid, but the information from the withdrawn 1NT is AI.

Please explain how the information from the withdrawn 1NT is AI?

[aguahombre]

It is authorized to the other side, not to partner of the one who made the insufficient bid.

 

No, you are not being (overly) cynical. I have had opponents who bent over backwards to ignore the insufficient bid and assume the sufficient one was intended. But, I have never gotten a favorable ruling when they didn't.

[jillybean]

It is authorized to the other side, not to partner of the one who made the insufficient bid.

 

No, you are not being (overly) cynical. I have had opponents who bent over backwards to ignore the insufficient bid and assume the sufficient one was intended. But, I have never gotten a favorable ruling when they didn't.

 

Ok, I thought he was saying it was AI to all.

 

Partner held KJ94,Q982,83,K52 , and passed his partners 2N/1N

[aguahombre]

Yep, very effective :rolleyes:

[RMB1]

The information from the withdrawn insufficient bid is authorised to all. This is what the words "Law 16D does not apply" at the end of Law 27B1(a) mean.

 

If the opponents are damaged as a result of information from the infraction then we apply Law 27D, not Law 16 (or Law 73).

[jhenrikj]

It is authorized to the other side, not to partner of the one who made the insufficient bid.

 

No, you are not being (overly) cynical. I have had opponents who bent over backwards to ignore the insufficient bid and assume the sufficient one was intended. But, I have never gotten a favorable ruling when they didn't.

 

No it's AI to everyone. Read 16D

 

D. Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays

 

When a call or play has been withdrawn as these laws provide:

 

For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents’.

 

 

For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information.

 

Now 27B1 says that 16D does not apply so the information from the withdraw bid is AI to everyone.

 

We have to use 27D to adjust the score if the non-offending side is damaged by the insufficient bid. In this cas I would probably not use it.

[aguahombre]

So, 16D2 which says it is only authorized to the NOS is wrong?

[Bbradley62]

1N was not unintentional.

This is the part I find the most interesting. How do you know this?

[jhenrikj]

So, 16D2 which says it is only authorized to the NOS is wrong?

 

 

But please....why can't you understand the words 16D does not apply, when using 27B1 16D does not exist at all.

 

B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted.

 

If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (but see 3 following). Then

1. a. if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director’s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply but see D following.

[aguahombre]

But please....why can't you understand the words 16D2 does not apply, when using 27B1 16D does not exist at all.

 

Technically true, but "see D below" when stating that 16D doesn't apply gives the director the power to rule as if there was unauthorized information. And, IMO they should when partner of the insufficient bidder uses the information from the withdrawn call to not accept what would have been a game-invite bid if it hadn't been preceeded by a withdrawn weak bid.

 

Unfortunately they don't do this very often; and they also don't apply the fact that the offender might have known his action would damage the opponents. Shining it on seems more normal.

[jillybean]

This is the part I find the most interesting. How do you know this?

Because the player was surprised when we brought his attention to the 2♦ bid, he had overlooked the bid.

[Bbradley62]

Because the player was surprised when we brought his attention to the 2♦ bid, he had overlooked the bid.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting that he had deliberately made an insufficient bid.

[jhenrikj]

Technically true, but "see D below" when stating that 16D doesn't apply gives the director the power to rule as if there was unauthorized information. And, IMO they should when partner of the insufficient bidder uses the information from the withdrawn call to not accept what would have been a game-invite bid if it hadn't been preceeded by a withdrawn weak bid.

 

Unfortunately they don't do this very often; and they also don't apply the fact that the offender might have known his action would damage the opponents. Shining it on seems more normal.

 

No it does not give the director that power. It gives the director the power to adjust the score if the result would have been different without the IB.

 

Let's say south does not bid 1NT but passes instead (he would not bid 2NT if that shows a stronger hand), now it's very possible for the bidding to continue 2♦ pass pass X pass 2NT all pass. This means that we could end up in the same contract even without the IB and because of that we do not adjust. There is no UI and there can be no ruling concerning UI.

[jhenrikj]

Read this text by Ton Kooijman

 

Law 27 D

If the infraction has demonstrably helped the offending side to get into the advantageous contract the

TD should award an adjusted score. But in considering such cases, the TD needs to realise that information

gained through the insufficient bid is authorized and may be used.

 

West has ♠AJ1052 ♥AJ ♦Q87 ♣Q64 and the auction develops like:

West North East South

 

1♠ 2♥ 1NT

 

• East had not noticed the overcall. After intervention from the TD, East bids 2NT. With 1NT

showing 6-9 HCP, West decides to pass 2NT, though with a partner bidding 2NT at once he

would have bid 3NT. Taking this decision he does not infringe the laws in any manner.

[aguahombre]

All I can say about that is, shame on Tom Kooijman and on the player who would pass 2NT.

[jhenrikj]

All I can say about that is, shame on Tom Kooijman and on the player who would pass 2NT.

 

You do know who Ton Kooijman is I hope....

[aguahombre]

You do know who Ton Kooijman is I hope....

 

My error. I forgot that who a person is makes him right or wrong.

[jeffford76]

All I can say about that is, shame on Tom Kooijman and on the player who would pass 2NT.

 

There is no shame in following the laws as they are rather than as you wish they were.

 

If partner was required to treat 2NT as a "real" 2NT bid, then there would be no way to get to a reasonable spot on the hand - passing would bar partner, and bidding 2NT would get you too high. Now maybe you think that's just tough luck from making an insufficient bid, but that isn't what the laws intend to happen. You're allowed to have a chance at recovering.

 

That said, with competent directing I wish most of the laws on illegal calls were changed to "Do whatever you want and your partner has UI (that they must deal with appropriately)."

[jhenrikj]

My error. I forgot that who a person is makes him right or wrong.

 

You actually think that the official guide on how to interpret the laws from the WBF LC is wrong? Why don't you just give up and admit you are wrong. This is the law and doing anything else as director is absolutely wrong.