That's insufficient! ... OOPS

[kvar]

[hv=pc=n&w=saj6ha5dt532ckq94&e=s432hkq74dkj98ca3&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1c1s(*)2cp2np3nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

When South bids 1♠, East says "That's insufficient." There's then a pause while everyone tries to figure out if East is joking, during which East looks down at his own bidding card and says "Oops. I, uh, meant to, uh ....". The director is called. He determines that the 1♣ call was not unintended, so a Law 25A correction is not available. The auction continues as shown.

 

East-West are playing Standard American with a 12-14 notrump. 1♣ is natural. They have been playing together for a couple of years and are not very high-caliber players.

 

Has there been any damage?

[aguahombre]

Too many things are wrong.

 

First, if it went as described, any competent director would have called the 1C opening unintended.

 

Everything after that is different, of course. but the unalerted 2C raise with a G.F. hand makes no sense.

 

There must be more to it than stated.

[ggwhiz]

Seems to be UI but definitely no damage.

 

They even managed to wrong side the game in case North had a double ♠ honour.

[bluejak]

It could be a correct conclusion that it is not unintended. Consider the following scenario.

 

East picks up his hand, counts his points, notes he has a 1NT opening, and waits while everyone else gets ready. He then thinks what to open, decides on 1♣ which would be correct with another partner, bids 1♣, makes the comment, and then realises that while he originally meant to bid 1NT, he then had a mental glitch and bid 1♣.

 

But he meant to bid 1♣ at the moment his hand went to the bidding box! So 1♣ was not unintended. This scenario may not be likely, but it is certainly possible.

 

:ph34r:

 

As to whether there was damage, the only infraction is if West used UI from East's waffling. Now it depends what 2NT shows. Unless it shows a hand too strong for a strong no-trump opening, which seems unlikely, and assuming they are playing inverted minors, I cannot see any bid by West that is not obvious. East has gambled 2NT without a stopper, but since he has no UI he can do what he likes.

[wyman]

Seems to be UI but definitely no damage.

 

This was my inclination as well, but I'd still like to know EW agreements wrt 2C and 2N.

 

If EW (can demonstrate that they) play inverted minors in competition (I guess it's *an* agreement), then this auction makes some sense, and there's definitely no damage.

 

If 2N shows an 18-19 NT, though, then the UI is an issue.

[blackshoe]

On the (erroneous, on the evidence) assumption that the director was not wrong to disallow a law 25A change of call, the answer is no, there was no damage, because according to the OP, no result has yet been obtained and the definition of damage requires that there has been a table result. Presume 3NT makes. Still no damage. What was the infraction?

[aguahombre]

Maybe no damage. More than one infraction.

[kvar]

Yes, the auction went completely off the rails after the director call. East-West don't play inverted minors in competition or non-competition. I don't know why West bid a NF 2♣ or why East bid 2NT (showing a strong notrump, presumably) after a NF 2♣ response. Seems like the the director call completely rattled them into making ridiculous bids and then they landed on their feet. But did either of them illegally use UI?

[wyman]

Yes, the auction went completely off the rails after the director call. East-West don't play inverted minors in competition or non-competition. I don't know why West bid a NF 2♣ or why East bid 2NT (showing a strong notrump, presumably) after a NF 2♣ response. Seems like the the director call completely rattled them into making ridiculous bids and then they landed on their feet. But did either of them illegally use UI?

 

If 2N shows 15-17, then I think this auction is fine from a UI standpoint. If it shows 18-19, I'm calling shenanigans.

[RMB1]

But did either of them illegally use UI?

 

I don't think East has got UI.

 

2♣ appears to be based on the UI but I don't know why the UI suggested a non-forcing bud. Perhaps West thought 2♣ was a logical alternative and chose it because it was not suggested. (Was the TD re-called at the end of the auction/play. Did anyone ask West why he bid 2♣?)

 

It is difficult to judge 3NT in the context of the earlier auction, but taken on its own, it is the only logical alternative.

[billw55]

Indeed, it is difficult to find any damage here. I can hardly imagine any pair of any skill level failing to reach 3NT.

 

I suppose we could concoct a theory that west used UI when he bid only 2♣ - realizing that his partner misbid and thinking that he would try to fix it. But even in this highly unlikely scenario, the only thing they have accomplished is wrongsiding the contract.

 

I would say just carry on, table score will stand.

[aguahombre]

I suppose we could concoct a theory that west used UI when he bid only 2♣ - realizing that his partner misbid and thinking that he would try to fix it. But even in this highly unlikely scenario, the only thing they have accomplished is wrongsiding the contract.

I don't think that theory would be far-fetched at all. West seems to have done something very strange and somehow knew the auction would not die.

 

There wasn't damage, if we merely observe that they got to the right contract from the wrong side. What I don't know is if there is any basis in the rules to adjust because THIS PAIR got to the right spot via infractions, even though other pairs would have gotten to it without infractions.

[iviehoff]

First, if it went as described, any competent director would have called the 1C opening unintended.

To clarify that, the player clearly thought he had bid 1N, which is pretty much the definition of unintended. Normally it would be quite difficult plausibly to argue that you bid 1C unintendedly for 1N, but here there is quite considerably evidence/plausibility for it.

[olegru]

I believe there are no doubts about UI. Question if there were any LA for West?

Partner shown strong (15-17) NT. Player hold balanced 14. If invitational 4NT is an option for him? Don think so, but probably better make a poll.

[Zelandakh]

Is it possible that West suspected their partner had meant to open 2C or perhaps even a weak 2 and was making the low bid in order to find out? If their partner jumped to game or made some force then they can reasonably go slamming; if partner makes the weakest noise available then they can stay low.

[blackshoe]

What I don't know is if there is any basis in the rules to adjust because THIS PAIR got to the right spot via infractions, even though other pairs would have gotten to it without infractions.

 

No.

[jules101]

QUESTION - Who is permitted to say "insufficient"?

 

 

Some people tell me that only the LHO of the bidder may say this (cos it's their turn to call).

 

Others say anyone may say, including RHO and pard of the "insufficient bidder".

 

 

Which para in the rule book clarifies?

 

Many thanks!

[blackshoe]

Law 9A: Drawing Attention To An Irregularity

1. Unless prohibited by law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

2. Unless prohibited by law, declarer or either defender may draw attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period. For incorrectly pointed card see Law 65B3.

3. When an irregularity has occurred, dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. Any player, however, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

4. There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partner’s apparently mistaken explanation).