Double and "raise"

[VixTD]

I faced this peculiar problem last night at the club as dealer, non-vul. against vul. (MP pairs):

 

...P..........3♦.........X..........P

..3♠..........P....3♠/4♠/3♠....P

....?

 

[hv=pc=n&e=st9752hqj8djck876]133|100[/hv]

 

My partner doubled LHO's pre-empt, then raised my 3♠ bid to 3♠. North said that wasn't a legal call, so she apologised and bid 4♠. The director was called and offered North the option of accepting the insufficient bid, which he did.

 

What restrictions are there on my choice of call now?

[gordontd]

I faced this peculiar problem last night at the club as dealer, non-vul. against vul. (MP pairs):

 

...P..........3♦.........X..........P

..3♠..........P....3♠/4♠/3♠....P

....?

 

[hv=pc=n&e=st9752hqj8djck876]133|100[/hv]

 

My partner doubled LHO's pre-empt, then raised my 3♠ bid to 3♠. North said that wasn't a legal call, so she apologised and bid 4♠. The director was called and offered North the option of accepting the insufficient bid, which he did.

 

What restrictions are there on my choice of call now?

You have the UI that, faced with a Law 27B ruling, your partner would have chosen to bid 4S rather than pass. I think that suggests bidding on rather than passing.

[gnasher]

You have the UI that, faced with a Law 27B ruling, your partner would have chosen to bid 4S rather than pass. I think that suggests bidding on rather than passing.

That's true, but I don't think it matters.

 

We have the authorised information that partner raised 3♠ to 3♠. Presumably that's invitational. We have a fifth spade, a singleton diamond, and three honours outside diamonds. I don't think pass is a logical alternative.

[gordontd]

That's true, but I don't think it matters.

 

We have the authorised information that partner raised 3♠ to 3♠. Presumably that's invitational.

Invitational to what? 2♠?

[pran]

I faced this peculiar problem last night at the club as dealer, non-vul. against vul. (MP pairs):

 

...P..........3♦.........X..........P

..3♠..........P....3♠/4♠/3♠....P

....?

 

[hv=pc=n&e=st9752hqj8djck876]133|100[/hv]

 

My partner doubled LHO's pre-empt, then raised my 3♠ bid to 3♠. North said that wasn't a legal call, so she apologised and bid 4♠. The director was called and offered North the option of accepting the insufficient bid, which he did.

 

What restrictions are there on my choice of call now?

1: North called attention to the irregularity, but did not Call the Director. West then apologized and bid 4♠. At this time her 3♠ bid shows all the characteristics of a mispull to me.

2: North eventually accepted the insufficient 3♠ bid.

 

Frankly I see no reason for any restrictions on your choices from there on. (Some guidances can be inferred from Laws 27B1, 27C and 27D.)

[WellSpyder]

Invitational to what? 2♠?

Just to say that I recommended this post because I loved the comment, not because I thought it offered a counter-argument to gnasher's point. As far as the actual case is concerned, I think those who have already posted have got it spot on. There is UI that partner was happy to correct 3♠ to 4♠. OP is therefore subject to the normal constraints imposed by UI. The UI surely suggests raising (to 4♠ rather than 2♠!), but that is only a problem if passing is a LA, which it may well not be.

[Cyberyeti]

I could have held xxxx, xxx, xxx, xxx I am clearly much better than that, partner didn't pass over 3♠ so I'm bidding again, the only question is whether I bid 4♦ or 4♠.

 

Somebody should have asked whether this was a simple mispull.

[Bbradley62]

My partner doubled LHO's pre-empt, then raised my 3♠ bid to 3♠. North said that wasn't a legal call, so she apologised and bid 4♠.

You have the UI that, faced with a Law 27B ruling, your partner would have chosen to bid 4S rather than pass.

I realize this isn't posted in the N/B Forum, but depending on West's experience level, she might have thought she was required to correct 3♠ to 4♠, in which case there is no UI.

[blackshoe]

There is UI that partner was happy to correct 3♠ to 4♠.

No there isn't. There is the fact that partner attempted to correct 3♠ to 4♠. Whether partner was happy to do so is not in evidence. IAC, it is the inference from the facts that may be UI, not the facts themselves.

 

BTW, partner is in violation of Law 9B. Attention was drawn to an irregularity. Now the director should be summoned at once. "Should" in this law means that failure to do it is an infraction (in this case committed by all four players, but partner compounded his infraction by violating Law 10A. Only the director can assess rectification).

[blackshoe]

Somebody should have asked whether this was a simple mispull.

"Somebody" being the director, who should have been called as soon as the IB was pointed out.

[WellSpyder]

No there isn't. There is the fact that partner attempted to correct 3♠ to 4♠. Whether partner was happy to do so is not in evidence.

Good point! I'm happy (or at least willing) to accept your correction.

IAC, it is the inference from the facts that may be UI, not the facts themselves.

But that, I think, is an eminently quibble-able point. (Or, to be more precise, I think you are wrong here. But since the distinction is unlikely to matter in practice I'm not actually planning to quibble....)

[ArtK78]

Why didn't the TD address this issue at the point that the opponent accepted the 3♠ insufficient bid?

[VixTD]

I expect in club bridge most cases of insufficient bids are dealt with without recourse to the director. The notion that the offending bid, if not accepted, must be "made good" (i.e. must be corrected to the lowest legal call in the same denomination) is widespread, and it's possible that West thought that it was her duty to do this, or that North was inviting her to. However, all players at the table were experienced enough to know that's not the case.

 

It's pretty pointless to speculate on why the director was not called as soon as attention was drawn to the irregularity. I think it's generally accepted that to scream for the director as soon as an irregularity occurs without some kind of mollifying comment is bad manners, and really we didn't have a chance before West attempted a correction.

 

The TD didn't get all of the ruling right; he gave North the opportunity to accept the call, and said if he didn't it could be corrected to any call, but that if it was corrected to anything other than 4♠ I would have to pass for the rest of the auction. (Actually, West had already chosen her substitute call when she tried 4♠.) He didn't try to find out if 3♠ was an unintended call, presumably because West had not attempted to change it without pause for thought. He didn't mention authorized and unauthorized information, but then the other three players (two EBU TDs and a player who misses no opportunity to invoke the laws to his advantage) were fully aware what was and wasn't authorized.

 

I thought it was an interesting situation: partner's withdrawn call of 4♠ was unauthorized, but that partner wanted to double and raise spades was authorized. (To what level is unclear, at least I knew her intention was not to double and then pass a minimum spade response from me). I bid 4♠, and thought I was justified in doing so, although I wouldn't have been surprised if NS had challenged this.

 

Partner tabled ♠AKQ3♥AK976♦7♣AQ3, and at the other tables that didn't bid slam the diamond winner was not cashed, so our NS were quite happy.

[Trinidad]

He [the TD] didn't try to find out if 3♠ was an unintended call, presumably because West had not attempted to change it without pause for thought.

That seems odd, given what you wrote right above that:

 

It's pretty pointless to speculate on why the director was not called as soon as attention was drawn to the irregularity. I think it's generally accepted that to scream for the director as soon as an irregularity occurs without some kind of mollifying comment is bad manners, and really we didn't have a chance before West attempted a correction.

If none of you managed to get in a TD call then it is hard to believe that West changed the bid after a pause for thought. (Note that the pause for thought only starts when West becomes aware of the fact that she made an insufficient bid.)

 

Are all three other players really that slow that they couldn't have initiated a TD call when West was thinking or is West such an incredibly quick thinker?

 

Rik

[pran]

He didn't try to find out if 3♠ was an unintended call, presumably because West had not attempted to change it without pause for thought.

 

That seems odd, given what you wrote right above that:

It's pretty pointless to speculate on why the director was not called as soon as attention was drawn to the irregularity. I think it's generally accepted that to scream for the director as soon as an irregularity occurs without some kind of mollifying comment is bad manners, and really we didn't have a chance before West attempted a correction.

If none of you managed to get in a TD call then it is hard to believe that West changed the bid after a pause for thought. (Note that the pause for thought only starts when West becomes aware of the fact that she made an insufficient bid.)

 

Are all three other players really that slow that they couldn't have initiated a TD call when West was thinking or is West such an incredibly quick thinker?

 

Rik

It is my impression that far too little attention has been paid to Law 25A in this thread.

 

Rik sums it up pretty well above, particularly the point that "pause for thought" never begins before the offender becomes aware of his errror. In addition pause apparently caused by confusion (only) when offender becomes aware of his error does not count as pause for thought.

 

The other point that I believe several posters here have overlooked is that once the Director accepts an insufficient bid as inadvertent then the offender's LHO shall not be given the option to accept the insufficient bid!

 

So as I have understood the facts in this situation the correct ruling should have been that West's correction to 4♠ stands and the auction continues from there on without any restriction to either side.

[gordontd]

The other point that I believe several posters here have overlooked is that once the Director accepts an insufficient bid as inadvertent

When did that happen?

 

 

then the offender's LHO shall not be given the option to accept the insufficient bid!

 

So as I have understood the facts in this situation the correct ruling should have been that West's correction to 4♠ stands and the auction continues from there on without any restriction to either side.

Not so much how you have understood the facts - more how you have imagined them to be, without any basis in what was presented to us.

[Bbradley62]

... once the Director accepts an insufficient bid as inadvertent...

Aren't all insufficient bids inadvertent, or do some people make them on purpose to see what they can get away with?

[gordontd]

Aren't all insufficient bids inadvertent

The insufficiency may be inadvertent, the bid itself not.

[Bbradley62]

<<retracted>>

[WellSpyder]

(Note that the pause for thought only starts when West becomes aware of the fact that she made an insufficient bid.)

No it doesn't. It starts when West becomes aware of the fact that she has pulled the wrong (bidding) card - if, indeed, she has.

[pran]

No it doesn't. It starts when West becomes aware of the fact that she has pulled the wrong (bidding) card - if, indeed, she has.

Splitting hairs, are we?

[Trinidad]

No it doesn't. It starts when West becomes aware of the fact that she has pulled the wrong (bidding) card - if, indeed, she has.

Which, in this case, is at the same point in time.

 

And, for the record, I never claimed that this was a law 25 case. I only claimed that it seemed odd that the TD seemed to have ruled out law 25 because there was a pause for thought when the other three players claimed they didn't have time to call the TD.

 

If the TD would have asked West why she bid 3♠ and the answer was (e.g.) "I never realized it was insufficicient" then the TD is entirely correct to rule out law 25. But enough pause for thought and not enough time to call the TD seem to be contradictory.

 

Rik

[campboy]

Which, in this case, is at the same point in time.

 

And, for the record, I never claimed that this was a law 25 case. I only claimed that it seemed odd that the TD seemed to have ruled out law 25 because there was a pause for thought when the other three players claimed they didn't have time to call the TD.

 

If the TD would have asked West why she bid 3♠ and the answer was (e.g.) "I never realized it was insufficicient" then the TD is entirely correct to rule out law 25. But enough pause for thought and not enough time to call the TD seem to be contradictory.

 

Rik

The point is that there was a pause between the 3♠ card being put on the table and someone pointing out that it was insufficient. If, during that time, West saw that the card said "3♠", there was a pause for thought -- had she really intended something different, she could have corrected it at that point, whether or not she also realised that 3♠ was insufficient.

 

Of course it is possible that West didn't see the bidding card until someone else said it was insufficient. But if that's the case, I would be asking why she didn't see it. Players normally do look at the bidding cards as they make bids.

[lamford]

I expect in club bridge most cases of insufficient bids are dealt with without recourse to the director.

Herein lies the rub. In addition, the non-offender could have known that advising the second 3S bidder that her call was insufficient, without calling the TD, would lead to her changing it to 4S. The correct action was to call the director at that point. Why did North say that it was not a legal call? It was not his or her turn to bid. He should have called the TD then, and it appears that Law 11A applies. I don't think the offenders should be any worse off than if the TD had been called immediately. And what UI does raising 3S to 3S (instead of 4S) convey? The IB is AI to the partner of the offender; the attempt to correct it is not. I do not think there is an alternative to 4S here. Surely 3S-3S is stronger than 3S-4S on the principle of fast arrival? :)

 

And I do not agree with campboy that players look at their bids as they make them. None of my partners ever seems to do!

[campboy]

Herein lies the rub. In addition, the non-offender could have known that advising the second 3S bidder that her call was insufficient, without calling the TD, would lead to her changing it to 4S. The correct action was to call the director at that point. Why did North say that it was not a legal call? It was not his or her turn to bid. He should have called the TD then, and it appears that Law 11A applies.

I disagree. North has a right to draw attention to the irregularity (Law 9A1). Once he has done so (but only then) the TD should be summoned at once (Law 9B1a). But any player may do this (Law 9A1b) and North is no more responsible for doing so than anyone else is.