Insufficient Bid

[gordontd]

2NT is allowable if you play 4-card majors since the definition matches both bids (4+ hearts and an opening hand) - but not if you play 5-card majors as then there are times where you would bid 2NT when you would not bid 1 heart.

I was asked this question a few years ago and said that I would allow a 2NT (GF raise) as a replacement bid if they were playing 4cM and a strong NT. Remarkably, the pair in question at the time were.

[pran]

Are you seriously suggesting that the investigation prescribed in Law 27D should be based on the presumption that the auction absent any irregularity had in this case started 1♥ - 2♥?

If the IBer chooses 2♥ as a replacement call then that is indeed how the auction started.

 

I do agree that the pair can get to 4♥, but are not able to investigate a slam.

The fact that he chose 2♥ as a replacement call is irrelevant when judging if they would reach 4♥ without assistance from the IB.

 

Possible analysis under Law 27D (the scenarios are just examples to illustrate the process):

The partnership reached 4♥ after the auction: 1♥ - 1♥ (IB corrected to 2♥) - 4♥

The raise to 2♥ is (according to partnership understanding) a limit raise after which opener will pass with a minimum opening.

However, the opener "knows" (AI) that responder has an opening hand and jumps directly to 4♥ with his minimum opening.

 

Did they reach game with the assistance of the IB?

No, without the irregularity a likely auction could have been 1♥ - 2NT (GF) - 4♥.

[blackshoe]

I think "assistance from the IB" would kick in when the pair do not have methods to get them to the "right" contract absent the IB. That's not the case here, as Sven points out.

[weejonnie]

I was asked this question a few years ago and said that I would allow a 2NT (GF raise) as a replacement bid if they were playing 4cM and a strong NT. Remarkably, the pair in question at the time were.

 

Is there any reason why it would have to be a strong NT - I suppose it must be that, playing a WNT 1H would either show 5 cards or a strong hand - whereas 2NT shows 4 hearts and (possibly) a weak hand.

 

Would you rule the same these days given the guidance to be more flexible in accepting 'close' matches?

[gordontd]

Is there any reason why it would have to be a strong NT - I suppose it must be that, playing a WNT 1H would either show 5 cards or a strong hand - whereas 2NT shows 4 hearts and (possibly) a weak hand.

Yes, that's right. A weak NT is the most common type of hand for a Jacoby 2NT bid, yet it's ruled out if the attempted call was a 1H opener in any but a 4cM Strong NT system.

 

Would you rule the same these days given the guidance to be more flexible in accepting 'close' matches?

This was after that guidance was given, but England has taken a very conservative view of this liberalism when compared to other countries!

[Vampyr]

This was after that guidance was given, but England has taken a very conservative view of this liberalism when compared to other countries!

 

We who play in England are grateful for this.

 

The "guidance" in any case, is more permission than a recommendation.

[gordontd]

Are you seriously suggesting that the investigation prescribed in Law 27D should be based on the presumption that the auction absent any irregularity had in this case started 1♥ - 2♥?

If so then let me assure you that you have completely misunderstood Law 27D.

 

The investigation shall determine what would be a probable outcome of the auction after the 1♥ start but absent the insufficient bid and also the offender not being bound by his replacement bid. That can easily mean that a different auction would have taken place, and this shall be accepted!

I agree with all this, but I think there's another interesting question to be considered in these cases. L27B1 tells us that L16D does not apply and so the information contained in the insufficient bid is not unauthorised, and when a player makes an insufficient bid of 1H and corrects it to 2H we can allow his partner to guess that he had not noticed that there was an opening bid in front of him and was trying to open himself, rather than that for example he thought his partner had opened 1D and he was trying to respond 1H. Thus we allow opener to raise to 4H with a minimum opener and to keep the result from it as long as we think they would usually have got there in an auction without an insufficient bid.

 

However, what often happens in these cases is that the insufficient bidder makes clear exactly what led to his mistake, perhaps by saying something like "oh, I didn't see that you had opened partner". It seems to me that UI of this sort is still subject to the strictures of L73 and L16, so while in the case under discussion we would allow 1H - 1H 2H - 4H if made without comment, we should not allow it when other UI clarifies the situation for opener.

[Flem72]

I agree with all this, but I think there's another interesting question to be considered in these cases. L27B1 tells us that L16D does not apply and so the information contained in the insufficient bid is not unauthorised, and when a player makes an insufficient bid of 1H and corrects it to 2H we can allow his partner to guess that he had not noticed that there was an opening bid in front of him and was trying to open himself, rather than that for example he thought his partner had opened 1D and he was trying to respond 1H. Thus we allow opener to raise to 4H with a minimum opener and to keep the result from it as long as we think they would usually have got there in an auction without an insufficient bid.

 

However, what often happens in these cases is that the insufficient bidder makes clear exactly what led to his mistake, perhaps by saying something like "oh, I didn't see that you had opened partner". It seems to me that UI of this sort is still subject to the strictures of L73 and L16, so while in the case under discussion we would allow 1H-1H2H-4H if made without comment, we should not allow it when other UI clarifies the situation for opener.

 

This. The OP does not mention any behavior other than the IB. If there was none, how do you distinguish the case from that of simply pulling the wrong bidding card? Answer: From the IBer's behavior following the director call: Doesn't any huddle convey UI?

[campboy]

This. The OP does not mention any behavior other than the IB. If there was none, how do you distinguish the case from that of simply pulling the wrong bidding card?

Answer: from the TD's ruling that Law 27, not Law 25A, applied.

[pran]

I agree with all this, but I think there's another interesting question to be considered in these cases. L27B1 tells us that L16D does not apply and so the information contained in the insufficient bid is not unauthorised, and when a player makes an insufficient bid of 1H and corrects it to 2H we can allow his partner to guess that he had not noticed that there was an opening bid in front of him and was trying to open himself, rather than that for example he thought his partner had opened 1D and he was trying to respond 1H. Thus we allow opener to raise to 4H with a minimum opener and to keep the result from it as long as we think they would usually have got there in an auction without an insufficient bid.

 

However, what often happens in these cases is that the insufficient bidder makes clear exactly what led to his mistake, perhaps by saying something like "oh, I didn't see that you had opened partner". It seems to me that UI of this sort is still subject to the strictures of L73 and L16, so while in the case under discussion we would allow 1H-1H2H-4H if made without comment, we should not allow it when other UI clarifies the situation for opener.

 

I understand your view, but I cannot agree with your suggestion.

 

Ignoring true mispulls (which are rectified under Law 25A) there will always be some extraneous information associated with insufficient bids.

 

Rather than distinguishing between such information that is "purely" a result of the IB (and therefore AI) and such information that is a result of the offender's behaviour in the situation (and therefore could be questionable), Law 27B1 dictates that no restriction due to alleged UI in connection with the IB shall apply. Instead the Director shall afterwards judge if the final contract reached could well have been reached also without assistance from the IB.

 

I think that this is a wise decision by WBFLC and that your suggestion would cause far more problems than it might solve.

[campboy]

Rather than distinguishing between such information that is "purely" a result of the IB (and therefore AI) and such information that is a result of the offender's behaviour in the situation (and therefore could be questionable), Law 27B1 dictates that no restriction due to alleged UI in connection with the IB shall apply.

No, it doesn't. It simply says that Law 16D does not apply. As a consequence the withdrawn bid is not UI. It says nothing about other sources of UI (indeed, UI is never mentioned in Law 27).

[gordontd]

Law 27B1 dictates that no restriction due to alleged UI in connection with the IB shall apply.

Except that's not what it says.

 

L27B1a includes:

Law 16D does not apply but see D following.

 

And L16D says:

For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action

and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized.

A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical

alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested

over another by the unauthorized information.

 

So we are told not to treat information from withdrawn actions as UI in these cases, but we are not told to disregard all other UI that may have arisen.

[gordontd]

We who play in England are grateful for this.

 

The "guidance" in any case, is more permission than a recommendation.

The wording included:

The Committee favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue.

That sounds to me at least as much recommendation as permission.

[aguahombre]

Where Law 27 says that Law 16D does not apply, this is absolute. The "but, see D below" thing refers to 27D, not 16D. 27D is the one which allows adjustment if the pair couldn't have gotten to the end result in a legitimate way. They don't address UI in 27D, merely the path to the result.

[gordontd]

Where Law 27 says that Law 16D does not apply, this is absolute. The "but, see D below" thing refers to 27D, not 16D. 27D is the one which allows adjustment if the pair couldn't have gotten to the end result in a legitimate way. They don't address UI in 27D, merely the path to the result.

There's no confusion on my part about which "D" is referred to. But Law 27 does not say that Law 16B1 doesn't apply.

[barmar]

That sounds to me at least as much recommendation as permission.

I suppose "insofar as they wish" makes it permission.

[gordontd]

I suppose "insofar as they wish" makes it permission.

And "recommends" makes it recommendation :)

[barmar]

And "recommends" makes it recommendation :)

"I recommend that you go to the party if you want to." Is that a recommendation or permission?

[aguahombre]

"I recommend that you go to the party if you want to." Is that a recommendation or permission?

both.

[Vampyr]

"I recommend that you go to the party if you want to." Is that a recommendation or permission?

 

It seems to me that a recommendation would apply if the person is undecided. The above sentence seems to say just "follow your own inclination".

[blackshoe]

Gordon is exactly right: Law 27's reference to Law 16D not applying to information from the IB does not apply to information from other sources. Such information is subject to the provisions of Law 16.