Insufficient Bids

[lenze]

It's a slow day here, so i was just wondering

Suppose you open the bidding 1 Heart and your LHO overcalls 1

Diamond (Insufficient). After a slight pause to allow a correction if the bid was a slip of the hand (using bidding boxes), you summon the director. Partner has some options.

 

What would it mean if he

1) Accepted the bid and passed?

2) Did not accept it and then passed over 2 Diamonds?

3) Accepted the 1 Diamond bid and then bid 2 Hearts?

4) Did not accept the bid and then bid 2 Hearts over the correction?

5) Accepted the bid and bid 1 Spade or 1 NT?

6) Did not accept the bid and then bid 2 Spades over the correction?

7) etc.

[Rado]

Hi Lenze,

 

Thinking in this direction one has to invent new sistem for bidding after opps eventual insufficient bid LOL.

Also in standart CC forms must be added colums for: "what are your partnership agreements in case Opponents overcall with unsufficient bid" - real fun.

 

In my opinion it's upto player's personal view of life whether to try to get profit of opps insufficient bid or to act as in normal auction.

 

Regards, Rado

[hrothgar]

I'm not sure if this is specific to the ACBL or a world wide interpretation, however, in these parts of the woods, it is forbidden to have partnership agreements over the opponents insufficient bid.

[lenze]

Hi Guys: Thanks for the replies to my somewhat “tongue-in-cheek” question. I agree that it feels wrong to take advantage of an opponent’s infraction, but we do so in many situations, such as “lead out of turn”, ‘bid out of turn”, “revokes”, etc. In the case of an insufficient bid, it might well be improper to have “understandings”, although I know of no regulation in that regard as far as the ACBL is concerned. The point to make, however, is that there are tactical considerations after an insufficient bid. One now has more options to help describe one’s holdings. It seems perfectly normal to make use of these options. Suppose you hold S-K43 H-T6 D-KJT8 C-QT62 when the above auction occurs. It must certainly be right to accept the 1 Diamond bid and then bid 1NT. The insufficient bid has allowed you to describe this hand perfectly and placed partner in a great position to make the correct decision in this competitive auction. For instance, if partner passes and RHO re-bids 2 Diamonds, partner will know your double is for penalties and not negative or competitive.

 

Just some random thoughts of mine.

[JRG]

This issue came up at a local club, one of the biggest in North America, when I was living in Canada. It struck me, after we'd had an insufficient bid, that we could ALTER our agreements to take advantage of the extra bidding space. Discussion with the (knowledgeable) director indicated that this is illegal under ACBL rules (as pointed out by another poster).

 

However, you are allowed to try things and hope partner catches on. I remember one time this happening when I was playing with my wife and there was an insufficient bid. I suggested she should have "raised" my suit (i.e. accepted the insufficient bid and raised my suit by making the same bid I had just made), this would have allowed us another level of bidding for cuebids.

 

However, my regular bridge partner raised the old question: at what point do these "make it up on the fly" auctions become, in fact, agreements. Probably sufficiently quickly that doing anything that is not a normal part of your bidding system (i.e. applies without insufficient bids) is essentially illegal.

 

One of the nice things about BBO is that one cannot make an insufficient bid. I never did know how to make the best choice and settled on ALWAYS rejecting the insufficient bid - if I can't take advantage of it, I'm damned if I'm going to allow the opponent to.

 

There is another catch though: The laws get tricky when it comes to unauthorized information and insufficient bids OFTEN (maybe most of the time), convey unauthorized information. This is the part that upsets me. There are some clear cut instances that the director usually makes an appropriate ruling on. For example, suppose the insufficient bid were 1C over partner's 1NT opening. Then the correction to 2C is Stayman!!! (And, of course, there is incredible UA as the 1NT bidder now knows partner would have opened the bidding).

 

But suppose an opponent makes an insufficient bid when overcalling? There is still UA when it is corrected to the appropriate level - or at least I believe there is. I've never actually asked for "protection", but I'm positive I've been damaged by it. Oh well, good thing I play this game for the enjoyment.

[luis]

At my club the director was called once after the following sequence

 

1d 1c p p

1d 1c p p

1d 1c p p

 

He was asked to rule something because the bidding went into an infinite loop, each player decided they don't have a reason to change his previous bid....

 

How would you rule? :-)

[JRG]

At my club the director was called once after the following sequence

 

1d 1c p p

1d 1c p p

1d 1c p p

 

He was asked to rule something because the bidding went into an infinite loop, each player decided they don't have a reason to change his previous bid....

 

How would you rule? :-)

 

 

It seems funny (maybe you are making this up to pull our legs?), but seriously:

 

I'm not a director and haven't looked this up in the Laws, but it seems clear that the person who bid 1C for the second time is, at a minimum, in breach of the proprieties. If allowed under the Laws, I'd give the offenders an average minus and a procedural penalty. The second time 1C was bid it was not an accident, but deliberate.

 

Oh, by the way, presumably they were not using bidding boxes. If they were, then there is proof that the second 1C bid was deliberate. I'd warn the players (offenders) that this time I considered it a joke, but a future occurence would cause me to bar them from the club.