Meaning of insufficient bid?

[bluejak]

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.)

There was no consensus when I asked four leading members of the WBFLC at San Remo, so I think we can safely say there is no consensus.

[pran]

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.)

There was no consensus when I asked four leading members of the WBFLC at San Remo, so I think we can safely say there is no consensus.

Surprising.

Honestly I would expect that after a correction of an insufficient bid has been granted under Law 27B1 (partner not forced to pass for the rest of the auction), by inference from the law both the insufficient bid and the replacing call must have meanings according to agreement or partnership understandings.

 

I don't understand how Law 20F1 can be read in any other way than that opponents are entitled to full explanations on both the insufficient bid and the replacement call.

 

If such correction is denied so that offender's partner is forced to pass during the rest of the auction the reason can be that no meaning could be assigned to the insufficient bid; then there is no explanation of this bid available. However, in this situation opponents still have their right to request explanation about relevant alternative calls available that were not made

[bluejak]

Your comment suggests you have misunderstood mine. Of course they have a right to know meanings - Bavin said so, no-one I know has disagreed. But that does not mean they have a right to know which meanings the TD will rule are under Law 27B1B [or even 27B1A] before they decide to accept/reject the insufficient bid. Ok, some of the four did think they had a right to know, but not all four. When the player has decided which bid to make if the insufficient bid was not accepted, again it may/may not be told to opponents whether he had alternatives under Law 27B1A/B.

[gordontd]

Surprising.

Honestly I would expect that after a correction of an insufficient bid has been granted under Law 27B1 (partner not forced to pass for the rest of the auction), by inference from the law both the insufficient bid and the replacing call must have meanings according to agreement or partnership understandings.

If the insufficient bid had no meaning, then any replacement bid would have a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid.

[pran]

Your comment suggests you have misunderstood mine. Of course they have a right to know meanings - Bavin said so, no-one I know has disagreed. But that does not mean they have a right to know which meanings the TD will rule are under Law 27B1B [or even 27B1A] before they decide to accept/reject the insufficient bid. Ok, some of the four did think they had a right to know, but not all four. When the player has decided which bid to make if the insufficient bid was not accepted, again it may/may not be told to opponents whether he had alternatives under Law 27B1A/B.

Yes, then I misunderstood.

 

But I still am of the opinion that the opponent who has the choice whether or not to accept the IB is entitled to know what understanding will be applied on this bid for a possible Law 27B1 ruling before he decides if he will accept the IB.

 

It is his turn to call once the IB has been made unless the offender is granted a Law 25A1 correction.

[bluejak]

Fine. That is your view. But it is not the view of some very eminent members of the WBFLC.

[pran]

If the insufficient bid had no meaning, then any replacement bid would have a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid.

"More precise" requires that the insufficient bid, in a situation where it had been legal, would have been used for any and every hand with which the replacement call can be used.

[gordontd]

"More precise" requires that the insufficient bid, in a situation where it had been legal, would have been used for any and every hand with which the replacement call can be used.

The wording used in the original EBL & EBU advice was:

 

“Would all hands which might make the new call (the replacement bid) have also made the old call (the insufficient bid)?”

 

In the situation where the insufficient bid has no meaning at all (because, for example, the player is thinking of another hand altogether and simply pulls out a bidding card without thought), then any hand which might make the new call might also have made the old call - which adds no information to the auction.

[pran]

The wording used in the original EBL & EBU advice was:

 

“Would all hands which might make the new call (the replacement bid) have also made the old call (the insufficient bid)?”

 

In the situation where the insufficient bid has no meaning at all (because, for example, the player is thinking of another hand altogether and simply pulls out a bidding card without thought), then any hand which might make the new call might also have made the old call - which adds no information to the auction.

There is a significant difference between the words "might" and "would".

 

The advice says "might make the new call" and "would [...] have also made the old call".

[gordontd]

There is a significant difference between the words "might" and "would".

 

The advice says "might make the new call" and "would [...] have also made the old call".

The point is whether there is any more information contained in the Replacement Bid + Insufficient Bid than in the Replacement Bid without the Insufficient Bid.

[bluejak]

I was wandering along, half-reading this thread, which seemed correct when suddenly .....

 

If the bidding goes 2♣ {2♠} 2♦ and responder had not noticed the 2♠ bid, and a 2♦ response to 2♣ is mandatory [as I have played] then any replacement call is acceptable under Law 27B1B. No problem.

 

But suppose the bidding went 2♣ {2♠} 2♥ with the same agreements [and when he has not seen the 2♠ bid]? Now 2♥ has no meaning but are you sure Law 27B1B applies? No replacement call exists that would have bid 2♥ in the first place, surely?

[gordontd]

But suppose the bidding went 2♣ {2♠} 2♥ with the same agreements [and when he has not seen the 2♠ bid]? Now 2♥ has no meaning but are you sure Law 27B1B applies? No replacement call exists that would have bid 2♥ in the first place, surely?

It certainly seems to satisfy the requirements of the Law itself: a call with a meaning has a more precise meaning than a call with no meaning.

 

But I would want to investigate a bit further as to why responder chose to make this meaningless bid, and check that it really did have no meaning at all.

[barmar]

This is why you have to find out what the IBer thought was going on.

 

If he thought the auction was 1♣ (1♠) 2♥, it's presumably natural, with strength that depends on whether they play negative free bids. If their 2♣ agreement doesn't have a bid that shows such a hand then there is no call that satisfies 27B1B. For example, a common agreement is that pass is the only strength-showing bid when they interfere over your strong 2♣; double is a weak takeout and suits are natural and very weak. In this case, whatever he does will bar partner: Pass shows the strength, but isn't specific about a suit, and suit bids show the suit but imply different strength.

[bluejak]

It certainly seems to satisfy the requirements of the Law itself: a call with a meaning has a more precise meaning than a call with no meaning.

 

But I would want to investigate a bit further as to why responder chose to make this meaningless bid, and check that it really did have no meaning at all.

Are you sure? We generally say that a call is allowed if any hand that would make the call would also make the original call. If the original call has no meaning then this is certainly not the case.

[gordontd]

Are you sure? We generally say that a call is allowed if any hand that would make the call would also make the original call.

We do generally say that, and it's a helpful aid in most circumstances. But it's not what the Law itself says, and in this unusual circumstance (where people make calls with no meaning at all) I think we need to go back to the original text.

[alphatango]

We do generally say that, and it's a helpful aid in most circumstances. But it's not what the Law itself says, and in this unusual circumstance (where people make calls with no meaning at all) I think we need to go back to the original text.

 

Indeed. But then I read:

 

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

 

and it is not clear to me what this implies in the case of "bids with no meaning". (Actually, perhaps it shows that the player does not know his system, and he may thus replace the insufficient bid with any other legal call which shows that he does not know his system...) :lol:

 

And, now that I have been reminded, a further question came up in a recent session for those who advocate discovering the player's intention: where the two do not coincide, are you trying to find out the auction the player intended, or the meaning the player intended to convey? For example, consider a case where the player has forgotten some bit of system in making his call, but has now remembered it during his conversation with the director (without the assistance of UI, of course).

[Vampyr]

And, now that I have been reminded, a further question came up in a recent session for those who advocate discovering the player's intention: where the two do not coincide, are you trying to find out the auction the player intended, or the meaning the player intended to convey? For example, consider a case where the player has forgotten some bit of system in making his call, but has now remembered it during his conversation with the director (without the assistance of UI, of course).

 

It seems that in this case, the player is able to choose the meaning that gives him a correction without penalty.

[bluejak]

We do generally say that, and it's a helpful aid in most circumstances. But it's not what the Law itself says, and in this unusual circumstance (where people make calls with no meaning at all) I think we need to go back to the original text.

So you think that a meaning of a certain subset of hands is "more precise" than a null set? Suppose the insufficient bid was a nearly null set [only used with 13 card suits, for example]. Then is it more precise?

 

It does not feel right that we have explained the rule as the replacement call is allowed if the set of hands described is included in the original set, and you say that the rule should now be the replacement call is allowed if the set of hands described is included in the original set or if the original set is a null set. It feels completely wrong to me, and I do not think the wording is clear enough to say that is what it means.

[gordontd]

It does not feel right that we have explained the rule as the replacement call is allowed if the set of hands described is included in the original set, and you say that the rule should now be the replacement call is allowed if the set of hands described is included in the original set or if the original set is a null set. It feels completely wrong to me, and I do not think the wording is clear enough to say that is what it means.

Then we should have further debate about it, though I don't think the possibility of calls with absolutely no meaning had been considered when the original debate took place in advance of the laws coming into force. I've certainly asked a couple of our senior colleagues (though I'm not completely certain which ones) whether they think we should allow any replacement if we really are convinced the insufficient bid is without meaning, and I thought they both agreed.

 

To my mind, if the Insufficient Bid + Replacement Bid provides no more information than would the Replacement Bid by itself, then it seems to fulfil the requirements of the law, and I remember a point like this being made at the original EBU TD weekend on the new laws back in 2008(?)

 

Maybe RMB1 and mamos would like to continue this discussion?

[WellSpyder]

We do generally say that, and it's a helpful aid in most circumstances. But it's not what the Law itself says, and in this unusual circumstance (where people make calls with no meaning at all) I think we need to go back to the original text.

Bluejak has argued strongly in the past that there is no such thing as an "impossible" bid. This has typically been in the context of partner's bidding not providing confirmation that he must have got the system wrong and thereby negating the effects of UI. But I think a similar argument could apply here. The fact that the system does not allow a 2♥ response to a 2♣ opening bid does not mean that such a bid has no meaning, even if I can't work out what on earth partner was trying to tell me....

[RMB1]

If the auction is 2♣-(2♠)-2♥ and the agreement is that 2♣-(P)-2♥ has no meaning then we can assume that the 2♥ bidder was not intending to bid on the auction 2♣-(P)- . (It is implicit in our approach to Law 27 that there is an intended meaning for the insufficient bid.)

 

I am sure that if we speak to offender away from the table, he will not say both that he intended to bid 2♥ on the auction 2♣-(P)-2♥ and that their agreement is that all hands bid 2♣-(P)-2♦.

[gordontd]

Bluejak has argued strongly in the past that there is no such thing as an "impossible" bid. This has typically been in the context of partner's bidding not providing confirmation that he must have got the system wrong and thereby negating the effects of UI. But I think a similar argument could apply here. The fact that the system does not allow a 2♥ response to a 2♣ opening bid does not mean that such a bid has no meaning, even if I can't work out what on earth partner was trying to tell me....

And yet he was the one who introduced the most recent auction and said "Now 2♥ has no meaning..."

[gordontd]

Are you sure? We generally say that a call is allowed if any hand that would make the call would also make the original call. If the original call has no meaning then this is certainly not the case.

The other thing that occurs to me is that since that guidance was given we have been told to take a more liberal approach to allowing replacement calls, and Max has been reported as saying that the original document is out of date and no longer valid.

[alphatango]

I am sure that if we speak to offender away from the table, he will not say both that he intended to bid 2♥ on the auction 2♣-(P)-2♥ and that their agreement is that all hands bid 2♣-(P)-2♦.

 

Director: What relevant agreements do you have?

Player: We had five minutes to discuss system before the session, so our only agreement is that all hands have to bid 2♦ over 2♣.

Director: So why did you try to have the auction 2♣-(Pass)-2♥?

Player: Well, I found seven solid hearts and nothing else, and I thought I might have a better chance of convincing partner to play hearts if I got my first heart bid in before he bid spades (2♣-2♥-2♠-3♥-3♠-4♥, for example).

Director: But your agreement is that 2♥ has no meaning.

Player: True, but I was hoping he'd catch on eventually.

 

I hope no one will suggest that they have an implicit agreement to bid 2♥ on a hand with seven solid hearts...yet. :)

[blackshoe]

David, by "null set" do you mean "empty set"? (The empty set is a null set, but not all null sets are empty).