Meaning of insufficient bid?

[jcrosa]

There's something in Law 27B1(b) that has been puzzling me for some time.

 

When the law states that "if (...) 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 (...), the auction proceeds without further rectification (...)", it assumes that the meaning of the insufficient bid is something that is clear and incontrovertible.

 

This puzzles me, because in some situations it may not be clear at all what that meaning is, and how to assess it correctly.

 

Consider for instance this auction:

 

W - N - E - S

1♣ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 1♦(=IB)

 

Just by looking at the auction, it isn't clear at all what S had in mind when he placed the 1♦ card on the table. Some possibilities are:

(1) - He was thinking of bidding 2♦ and simply pulled out the wrong card. (The most likely explanation).

(2) - He didn't see anything of the previous bidding and thought he was opening 1♦.

(3) - He didn't see any of the North and East bids, and thought he was overcalling 1♦ in balancing position after 1♣ - pass - pass. (Odd but possible).

(4) - More oddly yet, he thought he was overcalling in 2nd position over his LHO opening bid of 1♣, thinking he was next in turn.

 

Since the meaning of the insufficient 1♦ bid is different in these different scenarios, the Law should, IMHO, prescribe how that meaning should be assessed by the TD. Of course, he will get some idea just by looking at the player's hand, but in some cases that may not be sufficient. Should he ask the player (away from the table) what he had in mind? Or should he follow a more strict (and, in any case, unwritten) rule of assuming that the meaning of the insufficient bid is the meaning that bid would have replacing by passes all bids subsequent to the first bid in relation to which it was insufficient as a bid? (Which, in the example above, would lead to the 3rd possibility listed).

 

(Note that in this example the most likely turn of events, in any of the scenarios, is that there will be a correction by a 2♦ bid, and we will then be in 27B1(a) territory, end of story; but, conceivably, in some cases the player might now have at his disposal a bid - a double, say - that might have a meaning "more precise than" that of the insufficient bid).

 

Clarification of this issue would be most welcome. (Being quite new to the forum, I don't know if this question or similar has already been raised, but I have looked for it and didn't find anything).

[Vampyr]

it assumes that the meaning of the insufficient bid is something that is clear and incontrovertible.

 

This puzzles me, because in some situations it may not be clear at all what that meaning is, and how to assess it correctly.

 

And in fact, it is illegal, of course, for the bid to have any meaning at all.

 

 

Should he ask the player (away from the table) what he had in mind?

 

This is the guidance from the EBU (and, I believe, the EBL). I do not know about other jurisdictions. Naturally, this will lead to the same bid in the same auction being subject to different rectification, which cannot be right in terms of justice or morality, but it is apparently what the Law requires. Yes it is ludicrous, but there you are.

 

I think that insufficient bids are generally caused by momentary distraction, so that it is not clear to a player why exactly he made the bid. So he will have to guess, and if he guesses a meaning that will allow him to bid sufficiently without barring partner, he is very lucky.

[barmar]

I think that's the procedure generally followed in the ACBL as well.

[blackshoe]

It's a game. If you think it's unjust or immoral, don't play it.

[nige1]

It's a game. If you think it's unjust or immoral, don't play it.

Bridge is great fun but it would be even more enjoyable with better rules :)

[blackshoe]

Well, Nigel, when you can convince the WBFLC and the ACBLLC to adopt your ideas, I guess we'll have a perfect game. In the meantime I suppose we'll just have to muddle along as best we can.

 

FWIW I don't think the current rules are either unjust or immoral. I do agree they could be improved a bit.

[alphatango]

Consider the following auction:

 

1♣-(2♥)-2♥

 

Player: Oops. Director!

 

Having established (perhaps in private) that L25A is not applicable, the director takes the player away from the table...

 

Director: What happened?

 

Player: I thought my opponent bid 1♥, so I bid 2♥, 5+ spades with a strong hand.

 

Director: OK. If the opponents choose not to accept your 2♥ bid, I can let you replace it with any call that has the same or a more precise meaning, and the auction will continue without penalty. If 2♠ would also show 5+ spades and a strong hand, for example, you could do that. If you choose any other call, partner will be barred for the remainder of the auction. Any questions before we return to the table?

 

Player: Well, as it happens, I have this nice 5=1=2=5 hand. In the uncontested auction 1♣-(Pass), we would play 2♥ as a splinter with club support and GF values. Could I replace 2♥ with 4♥ to show that hand? After all, partner doesn't know whether I saw 1♥ or whether I just missed the 2♥ bid entirely.

 

The player, of course, gave no indication at the table about either his actual hand or his reason for making an insufficient bid. How should the director rule?

[iviehoff]

The whole point of this particular rule is (or at least ought to be) that you are being permitted to change your insufficient call to a different call without penalty, provided that your partner obtains no information about the different call from having heard the first insufficient call. So the director is ruling if we are ruling on the basis of some information obtained in private from the insufficient bidder, that was never available to his partner, then that rather defeats the object of the rule. It would make more sense to ask the insufficient bidder's partner what he thinks the insufficient bid means! Though I realise of course that is an impractical way of doing it.

[Vampyr]

In the uncontested auction 1♣-(Pass), we would play 2♥ as a splinter with club support and GF values. Could I replace 2♥ with 4♥ to show that hand? After all, partner doesn't know whether I saw 1♥ or whether I just missed the 2♥ bid entirely.

 

The player, of course, gave no indication at the table about either his actual hand or his reason for making an insufficient bid. How should the director rule?

 

How indeed? This is the real problem with the new Law. The average volunteer playing director cannot realistically be expected to apply it.

[helene_t]

Since the meaning of the insufficient 1♦ bid is different in these different scenarios, the Law should, IMHO, prescribe how that meaning should be assessed by the TD.

I think it's ok that the law leaves it to the td to decide how to make the assessment. Often, the td should take the player aside to try to find out if the player's partner would have any ui from the insufficient bid if it is susbstituted.

 

Btw, if it was a mechanical error (he meant to bid 2♦) then he can substitute his bid regardless of what it would have meant.

[iviehoff]

Btw, if it was a mechanical error (he meant to bid 2♦) then he can substitute his bid regardless of what it would have meant.

But only if you comply with the other criteria of the relevant law. Hesitate and you are insufficient.

[Vampyr]

But only if you comply with the other criteria of the relevant law. Hesitate and you are insufficient.

 

Well, sort of. But some people really don't know what to do -- if someone points out that a player has made an insufficient bid, the player may be unsure of the procedure; so there may be a bit of confused hesitation before someone calls the director.

[bluejak]

There may be, sure: but if the player makes no effort to change it, Law 25A does not apply.

[jcrosa]

The idea behind 27B1(b) revolves around what (unauthorized) information was transmitted by the insufficient bid, and to what extent a possible substitute (sufficient) bid may, by providing at least the same information, "cancel out" the infraction by transmitting it through a legitimate bid - therefore precluding the need to penalize the infraction.

 

When the meaning of the insufficient bid is unclear to the TD, obviously the information trasmitted by it is also unclear to the infractor's partner. And asking him what he thinks that insufficient bid "showed" doesn't help much - unless, from partnership experience, he might have some clue about what was going on his partner's mind. (For example, his partner might have shown in the past a tendency to assume he is the dealer...).

[bluejak]

The recommended method is to ask what he meant by the insufficient bid. Despite what you say, we have a Law many of us think dreadful but whether we do or not we have to apply it. If the WBFLC has decided that an insufficient bid has a meaning we have to live with that. So we have to find out the meaning and use it as part of our ruling.

 

You don't like it? Neither do I, but liking the Laws is not relevant to applying them correctly.

[aguahombre]

 

1♣-(2♥)-2♥

 

Player: I thought my opponent bid 1♥, so I bid 2♥, 5+ spades with a strong hand.

 

Player: Well, as it happens, I have this nice 5=1=2=5 hand. In the uncontested auction 1♣-(Pass), we would play 2♥ as a splinter with club support and GF values. Could I replace 2♥ with 4♥ to show that hand? After all, partner doesn't know whether I saw 1♥ or whether I just missed the 2♥ bid entirely.

 

The player, of course, gave no indication at the table about either his actual hand or his reason for making an insufficient bid. How should the director rule?

Is the IB person's intended meaning for the IB what is important? Or is the fact that partner doesn't know what the IB'r "thought" the auction had been the key? Opener should be able to guess that pard thought it was a 1H overcall, since a pass card is green and a bid card is not.

 

How indeed? This is the real problem with the new Law. The average volunteer playing director cannot realistically be expected to apply it.

Maybe true, but let's try with:

 

The recommended method is to ask what he meant by the insufficient bid. Despite what you say, we have a Law many of us think dreadful but whether we do or not we have to apply it. If the WBFLC has decided that an insufficient bid has a meaning we have to live with that. So we have to find out the meaning and use it as part of our ruling.

 

Find out the meaning to whom? It would seem that if opener guesses correctly which mistake the IB was based upon, substituting 4H as a club splinter provides opener with additional UI about the 5-card spade suit ---so the substituted bid itself is not more exact, but rather the combination of both bids is what is more exact.

 

So, that brings us back to the question. Is the TD's determination of the meaning of the IB based on the intention at the time, or on his partner's possible interpretation?

Edited June 17, 2011 by aguahombre

[bluejak]

Find out the meaning in the bidder's mind. That's the recommendation.

[aguahombre]

Find out the meaning in the bidder's mind. That's the recommendation.

O.k., so for this simple soul does that mean Alphatango's substitution of 4H for 2H should not be allowed because of the UI that he also has 5+ spades?

[pran]

O.k., so for this simple soul does that mean Alphatango's substitution of 4H for 2H should not be allowed because of the UI that he also has 5+ spades?

That is correct.

 

There is a simple test for simple souls to determine if Law 27B1{b} may apply:

 

If the director can find a hand with which (according to agreements) the suggested correcting call can be made, but with which the insufficient bid would not have been made had it been sufficient as apparently intended, then he shall deny a Law 27B1{b} correction of the insufficient bid.

 

Example 1: In the auction 1♦ - 1♠ - 1♥ a correction of the insufficient 1♥ bid to a double is allowed when with any hand with which the player would double (showing 4 hearts) he would have bid 1♥ absent the intervening 1♠ bid.

 

(Note that in this case a correction of 1♥ to 2♥ where both bids are incontrovertibly not artificial would be allowed under Law 27B1{a}.)

 

Example 2: In the auction 2NT - pass - 2♣ a correction of the insufficient 2♣ bid (Stayman over 1NT) to 3♣ (Stayman over 2NT) is not allowed if according to agreements Stayman over 1NT shows at least say 6HCP while Stayman over 2NT can be made with as little as 3HCP.

[blackshoe]

It took me three readings and some thought to figure out what you were getting at with your "simple" test, Sven. :o :blink:

[pran]

It took me three readings and some thought to figure out what you were getting at with your "simple" test, Sven. :o :blink:

Right,

and it took an alert from me while we translated the new laws (and probably the same also from others) to warn WBFLC that the first issue of L27 seemed meaningless, resulting in a complete rewrite of this law after its first version had been in force for a month or two.

 

The intention with L27 is very simple, but writing it down in easy to read legal terms is certainly not simple.

[alphatango]

The recommended method is to ask what he meant by the insufficient bid. (snip)

 

FWIW, my (current and very shaky) viewpoint is that so long as offender has not restricted the possible intended meanings by some extraneous remark or gesture, he may choose a call whose meaning is fully contained within that set. In my example above, the player would be allowed to replace 2H with 4H. (Had he said something at the table like, "Oops, thought you bid 1H", or similar, that would restrict the set of possible intended meanings and thus restrict the allowable 27B1b replacements.)

 

So, I suppose, that means one should offer the following: "When we return to the table, (LHO) will have the opportunity to accept your insufficient bid. If not, you can replace it with (27B1a) without penalty. If not, you may choose to replace it with a call with a meaning at least as precise as the insufficient bid, and there will be no penalty. If you want to do that, you must tell me now so I can rule on whether or not your proposed call meets the criteria. Otherwise, you may choose any call and partner will be barred." Which, of course, is too complicated for club level, but it might be a sensible way to proceed with more experienced competition.

 

I'm not sure I can find solid textual support in laws for this viewpoint, although I do think the parenthetical clause of 27B1b points that way. That is, I read

 

"(such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid)"

 

as

 

"(such meaning being fully contained within the possible intended meanings of the insufficient bid)".

 

 

(Postscript: I know the issue of what knowledge LHO is entitled to before he chooses to accept/reject has come up before, but I don't remember if there was consensus. IIRC, there seemed to be support for the view that LHO is entitled to know which calls will be allowed under 27B1b (and 27B1a, if applicable) -- and presumably the meanings of those calls.)

[pran]

[...]

I'm not sure I can find solid textual support in laws for this viewpoint, although I do think the parenthetical clause of 27B1b points that way. That is, I read

 

"(such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid)"

 

as

 

"(such meaning being fully contained within the possible intended meanings of the insufficient bid)".

[...]

Fair enough.

 

The "easy" rule is that partner must not have any reason from hearing (or seeing) the replacement call only, to be prepared for a hand that would not also be contained within the agreements for the insufficient bid had the situation been such that this bid had been legal. (It doesn't matter at all if the insufficient bid "contains" hands that are not "contained" within the replacement call)

[Vampyr]

There may be, sure: but if the player makes no effort to change it, Law 25A does not apply.

 

Yes, I am just pointing out for people who may not know that there will be a delay if the director is called, and that attempting to change the call may consist of asking the director if he (the player) has any options.

[barmar]

As I understand it, the purpose of the law as written is to try to get an auction that's as close as possible to the auction we'd have had without the IB mistake. That's why it's appropriate to ask the IB'er what he intended, and allow him to replace it with a valid bid that shows the same thing or more specific.