Insufficient 1C opening

[VixTD]

Of course if your partnership has no agreements on the meanings of insufficient bids (none of my partnerships do) then you can bid anything at al as a replacement call.

Come on and be serious!

Nowhere in Law 27 will you find the word "agreement", that topic just isn't relevant for this Law.

 

It is not so difficult to figure out what was intended with the bid that turned out to be insufficient. In order to have a more precise meaning the meaning of the replacement call must be a subset of the intended meaning of the IB.

I think Vampyr is making a serious point. I recall when I started directing in about 1986 I was troubled about how I should judge whether an insufficient bid was "natural" or not, when the meaning of calls is almost wholly dependent on partnership agreement, and one cannot have an agreement about insufficient bids. I wrote to Grattan Endicott (who was chair of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee at the time) for advice and the response I got was to make a sensible judgement and not speculate too wildly. I think he said I could if necessary take the player away from the table and ask them what they meant, but it was clear he did not expect me to do this routinely.

 

When the 2007 laws came into force with the addition of replacement calls with a similar meaning it became standard practice (in the EBU at least) to ask the offender in private what they intended by the insufficient bid, and use that as the "meaning" in the context of law 27. But unless Vampyr and I are the only ones to have this difficulty I cannot understand why the law doesn't say so explicitly.

[gordontd]

It is not so difficult to figure out what was intended with the bid that turned out to be insufficient.

It's easy to make an assumption as to what was intended, but not necessarily to be right about it. We tend to assume that a player who had responded 2C to an opening 2NT was trying to respond to 1NT, but I think it's just as likely to have been a mispull or a confusion of the mind.

 

In order to have a more precise meaning the meaning of the replacement call must be a subset of the intended meaning of the IB.

 

(And as the subset of nothing is nothing then if the Director cannot figure out any intended meaing for the IB then the only replacement call which is more precise is a call with no meaning at all!)

One might consider that if there is no intended meaning of the IB, it encompasses all possible calls and therefore any replacement call would be more precise and should be allowed.

[pran]

I think Vampyr is making a serious point. I recall when I started directing in about 1986 I was troubled about how I should judge whether an insufficient bid was "natural" or not, when the meaning of calls is almost wholly dependent on partnership agreement, and one cannot have an agreement about insufficient bids. I wrote to Grattan Endicott (who was chair of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee at the time) for advice and the response I got was to make a sensible judgement and not speculate too wildly. I think he said I could if necessary take the player away from the table and ask them what they meant, but it was clear he did not expect me to do this routinely.

 

When the 2007 laws came into force with the addition of replacement calls with a similar meaning it became standard practice (in the EBU at least) to ask the offender in private what they intended by the insufficient bid, and use that as the "meaning" in the context of law 27. But unless Vampyr and I are the only ones to have this difficulty I cannot understand why the law doesn't say so explicitly.

Both Law 27B1a and Law 27B1b include the clause: "in the Director’s opinion".

 

It should not be difficult to understand that this means the Director must make up his own mind as best he can, based on the circumstances and available facts, and judge whether or not the relevant conditions are satisfied.

 

Grattan's advice appears very sensible to me. (Very seldom have I needed to take the player away from the table and ask him what he really meant.)

[Vampyr]

Come on and be serious!

Nowhere in Law 27 will you find the word "agreement", that topic just isn't relevant for this Law.

 

OK, meaning then.

It is not so difficult to figure out what was intended with the bid that turned out to be insufficient. In order to have a more precise meaning the meaning of the replacement call must be a subset of the intended meaning of the IB.

Yes, but the intended meaning should be irrelevant, because the effect on the other players is the same. There should not be different rulings for the exact same insufficient bid. Of course, savvy players will always get themselves a penalty-free correction, while more naive players may not.

(And as the subset of nothing is nothing then if the Director cannot figure out any intended meaing for the IB then the only replacement call which is more precise is a call with no meaning at all!)

So the game grinds to a halt... although as noted above, the opposite conclusion is probably correct.

 

 

Some of this redundant because I have crossed lots of posts.

[barmar]

OK, meaning then.

 

Yes, but the intended meaning should be irrelevant, because the effect on the other players is the same.

But what else are you going to use? There can't be an agreed meaning. What you really care about is how the other players (both the partner and opponents) interpret it, but these could be different for each of them.

 

They were trying to come up with an improvement over the old law, which totally screwed you if you inadvertently made an insufficient Stayman or transfer bid, because you couldn't make any artificial bids sufficient. Unfortunately, they opened a new can of worms with the way they described this.

[jeffford76]

They were trying to come up with an improvement over the old law, which totally screwed you if you inadvertently made an insufficient Stayman or transfer bid, because you couldn't make any artificial bids sufficient. Unfortunately, they opened a new can of worms with the way they described this.

 

I've probably said this before, but I think the law should be one of these two things, and I don't actually care which:

 

1. If you make an insufficient bid, you may correct it to any sufficient bid or a pass (but not a double) and your partner is barred from the auction.

 

2. If you make an insufficient bid, you may correct it to any sufficient call. There is no penalty, but the insufficient bid is AI to opponents and UI to partner.

 

Trying to get somewhere in between these two hasn't been particularly successful.

[Vampyr]

But what else are you going to use? There can't be an agreed meaning. What you really care about is how the other players (both the partner and opponents) interpret it, but these could be different for each of them.

 

The question you ask is perhaps easier to answer from the player's perspective. You can't have an agreed meaning, but you are forced to give one. Therefore you must be sure to give an answer that will allow a penalty-free correction.

I've probably said this before, but I think the law should be one of these two things, and I don't actually care which:

 

1. If you make an insufficient bid, you may correct it to any sufficient bid or a pass (but not a double) and your partner is barred from the auction.

 

2. If you make an insufficient bid, you may correct it to any sufficient call. There is no penalty, but the insufficient bid is AI to opponents and UI to partner.

 

Trying to get somewhere in between these two hasn't been particularly successful.

 

Well, 27B1(a) has similar problems, but somehow seemed to work reasonably well. Mainly it was just seen as a sort of extension to 27A.

 

Anyway 27B in its present form will undoubtably soon join its brother, good old "playing for 30%" in the dustbin of Bridge Law history.

[gordontd]

I've probably said this before, but I think the law should be one of these two things, and I don't actually care which:

 

1. If you make an insufficient bid, you may correct it to any sufficient bid or a pass (but not a double) and your partner is barred from the auction.

 

2. If you make an insufficient bid, you may correct it to any sufficient call. There is no penalty, but the insufficient bid is AI to opponents and UI to partner.

 

Trying to get somewhere in between these two hasn't been particularly successful.

I doubt you'll get your wish: all laws have been moving away from simple, punitive corrections towards restitution that aims to restore matters as closely as possible to where they would have been without the infraction, so the first suggestion would not fit into that general trend. As to the second one, I think UI cases take up more TD time, create more appeals and engender more ill-will than any other group of rulings, so I don't think it would be desirable to increase their application in this way.

[gordontd]

Anyway 27B in its present form will undoubtably soon join its brother, good old "playing for 30%" in the dustbin of Bridge Law history.

Actually 40%. I must be almost the only person who didn't dislike that law! It removed the undeserved windfall from the NOS without giving the benefit to the OS.

[barmar]

2. If you make an insufficient bid, you may correct it to any sufficient call. There is no penalty, but the insufficient bid is AI to opponents and UI to partner.

Then you have to figure out what the I is from an IB, so you can figure out whether partner took advantage of it. Which is essentially the same problem as figuring out whether the replacement bid has the same or more specific meaning.

[aguahombre]

I don't see or try to conjure any problems with the wording and intent of the law when it comes to an insufficient 1♣ bid. It is clear the offender intended to open 1♣, whatever that means in their system. From there, the TD only need decide if the replacement call (not a PASS) is a subset of hands which would open 1♣ and the combination of the IB + replacement do not provide additional usable information to partner.

 

The real problems, IMO, come when we have to determine what the offender thought he was bidding over when he makes the insufficient bid.

 

When it goes (2D) 2C..was our dolt bidding over 1D? Did he think he was opening 2C? Even then, if only the TD knows the answer to this, the replacement call if a subset of the IB as intended can probably be allowed. Partner of the offender should just not strain himself to figure out why the IB occurred and proceed.

[jeffford76]

I doubt you'll get your wish: all laws have been moving away from simple, punitive corrections towards restitution that aims to restore matters as closely as possible to where they would have been without the infraction, so the first suggestion would not fit into that general trend. As to the second one, I think UI cases take up more TD time, create more appeals and engender more ill-will than any other group of rulings, so I don't think it would be desirable to increase their application in this way.

 

Yes, I know about the trend. I didn't like the changes to the revoke law either. :)

[gordontd]

Yes, I know about the trend. I didn't like the changes to the revoke law either. :)

I didn't like them either when they were first announced, because I thought they would produce a lot more Law 64C cases. In practice that doesn't seem to have happened, which suggests to me that the law-makers got it about right.

[jallerton]

I think the way to interpret the LC minute is that they're admitting that the wording of the Law isn't what was actually meant when it was written, i.e. they screwed up. They don't want us to be stuck with the literal reading of it for a decade, waiting for the next revision.

 

Not for this LC minute. To remind you, the Law in question says:

 

(b) if, except as in (a), 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 (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following.

 

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

 

If there had been any intention to permit the so-called 'liberal interpretation' then the people who wrote the original Law would not have written "the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning*", nor would they have followed this up with the clarification "(such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid)".

[jallerton]

I think Vampyr is making a serious point. I recall when I started directing in about 1986 I was troubled about how I should judge whether an insufficient bid was "natural" or not, when the meaning of calls is almost wholly dependent on partnership agreement, and one cannot have an agreement about insufficient bids. I wrote to Grattan Endicott (who was chair of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee at the time) for advice and the response I got was to make a sensible judgement and not speculate too wildly. I think he said I could if necessary take the player away from the table and ask them what they meant, but it was clear he did not expect me to do this routinely.

 

When the 2007 laws came into force with the addition of replacement calls with a similar meaning it became standard practice (in the EBU at least) to ask the offender in private what they intended by the insufficient bid, and use that as the "meaning" in the context of law 27. But unless Vampyr and I are the only ones to have this difficulty I cannot understand why the law doesn't say so explicitly.

 

Havings read these forums over the last few years, I can confirm that Vampyr and you are certaintly not the only ones having this difficulty.

 

If the Law had actually said:

 

"has the same intended meaning* as, or a more precise intended meaning*

 

then the practice of asking the IBer what (s)he had intended would make sense.

 

As the Law is actually written, it would make more sense to ask the IBer's partner how (s)he had interpreted the IB in order to ascertain the information conveyed by (i.e. the meaning of) the IB.

[pran]

Yes, I know about the trend. I didn't like the changes to the revoke law either. :)

When you wrote "changes" (plural) does that mean that you would prefer the original revoke Law as of 1932: Two tricks for the first revoke, one more trick for each subsequent revoke by the same side?

 

Note that there was no provision for compensation to NOS in case OS gained on the revoke(s) in spite of the penalty.

 

There are stories of (deliberate) revokes in order to establish a stopper in opponents' suit after which declarer won his 3NT contract with sufficient overtricks to pay the penalty and still have his 9 tricks. Culbertson shall have been asked if this could be correct, and answered: "Yes, that is the Law".

[pran]

Havings read these forums over the last few years, I can confirm that Vampyr and you are certaintly not the only ones having this difficulty.

 

If the Law had actually said:

 

"has the same intended meaning* as, or a more precise intended meaning*

 

then the practice of asking the IBer what (s)he had intended would make sense.

 

As the Law is actually written, it would make more sense to ask the IBer's partner how (s)he had interpreted the IB in order to ascertain the information conveyed by (i.e. the meaning of) the IB.

The Director is not supposed to be a mind-reader, he cannot tell what was the intended meaning of an insufficient bid.

 

But the Law instructs the Director to establish what in his opinion was the meaning of the insufficient bid, and that is obviously within his capabilities.

[RMB1]

Then you have to figure out what the I is from an IB, so you can figure out whether partner took advantage of it. Which is essentially the same problem as figuring out whether the replacement bid has the same or more specific meaning.

 

No. Because to judge the (unauthorised) information from the insufficient bid we have to judge what is suggested to (peers of) the offender's partner, which can be judged without having to address the nebulous concept of "meaning" of an insufficient bid, which current practice is equating with intended meaning.

[jeffford76]

I didn't like them either when they were first announced, because I thought they would produce a lot more Law 64C cases. In practice that doesn't seem to have happened, which suggests to me that the law-makers got it about right.

 

I have had very few cases where I had to apply 64C, but a lot*more cases where I had to study the hand to make sure it didn't apply.

 

To me following suit is so fundamental that it doesn't bother me if there is an automatic penalty if you don't do it (perhaps not accruing to the other side). I understand the lawmakers felt differently.

[jeffford76]

When you wrote "changes" (plural) does that mean that you would prefer the original revoke Law as of 1932: Two tricks for the first revoke, one more trick for each subsequent revoke by the same side?

 

Note that there was no provision for compensation to NOS in case OS gained on the revoke(s) in spite of the penalty.

 

There are stories of (deliberate) revokes in order to establish a stopper in opponents' suit after which declarer won his 3NT contract with sufficient overtricks to pay the penalty and still have his 9 tricks. Culbertson shall have been asked if this could be correct, and answered: "Yes, that is the Law".

 

I think this is quite an odd statement of what I might think merely because of the inclusion of an "s".

[pran]

When you wrote "changes" (plural) does that mean that you would prefer the original revoke Law as of 1932: Two tricks for the first revoke, one more trick for each subsequent revoke by the same side?

 

Note that there was no provision for compensation to NOS in case OS gained on the revoke(s) in spite of the penalty.

 

There are stories of (deliberate) revokes in order to establish a stopper in opponents' suit after which declarer won his 3NT contract with sufficient overtricks to pay the penalty and still have his 9 tricks. Culbertson shall have been asked if this could be correct, and answered: "Yes, that is the Law".

 

I think this is quite an odd statement of what I might think merely because of the inclusion of an "s".

Well, there has been many changes in the revoke laws over the years, and the original laws had the advantage of being consistent and easy to apply.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if those were your favourites.

 

Each later version has included some kind of complication in order to seem more reasonable for both sides.

[VixTD]

Both Law 27B1a and Law 27B1b include the clause: "in the Director’s opinion".

 

It should not be difficult to understand that this means the Director must make up his own mind as best he can, based on the circumstances and available facts, and judge whether or not the relevant conditions are satisfied.

 

Grattan's advice appears very sensible to me. (Very seldom have I needed to take the player away from the table and ask him what he really meant.)

This does not address the problem of how an insufficient bid can have a "meaning".

 

If the intention of the law is to use the offender's intended meaning, then the best way to find this out is to ask the player (away from the table, to avoid transmitting UI). If not, then on what basis should the director ascribe a meaning to it?

[jeffford76]

Well, there has been many changes in the revoke laws over the years, and the original laws had the advantage of being consistent and easy to apply.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if those were your favourites.

 

Each later version has included some kind of complication in order to seem more reasonable for both sides.

 

OK, to be clear, I think it is obvious that there always should be a return to equity for a revoke that gains more than the penalty. My preference is to have the default penalty be substantial enough that it hardly ever matters.

[RMB1]

I have attempted to move the thread-creep re meaning of insufficient bids to Changing Laws & Regulations.

 

Moderator: perhaps the thread-creep re revoke penalties/rectification can be carried on somewhere else as well.

[pran]

OK, to be clear, I think it is obvious that there always should be a return to equity for a revoke that gains more than the penalty. My preference is to have the default penalty be substantial enough that it hardly ever matters.

 

And as far as I can guess that was the first amendment made to the revoke laws.