Insufficient Bid

[twcho]

North player, 1st seat, open 2NT. 2nd seat pass. South bid 2♣. Director was summoned. Director asked whether West accept the bid and west rejected. He then ruled that South can choose any sufficient bid but North is bar from further bidding. Is the ruling appropriate? Can 2♣ be substituted with 3♣ without further rectification as both is Stayman?

[gordontd]

It depends a bit on your jurisdiction- many, probably most, would allow the change. Some might wish to find out the reason for the insufficiency. Did the player think he was responding to 1NT?

[Vampyr]

He then ruled that South can choose any sufficient bid but North is bar from further bidding. Is the ruling appropriate?

 

A tiny bit of my heart still harbours the hope that this will be mandated in the next version of the Laws...

[blackshoe]

Heh.

 

If the 2♣ bid and its 3♣ were deemed to be "incontrovertibly not artificial," after this substitution the auction would proceed without further rectification (Law 27B1{a}). This law will not apply unless they're playing both 2♣ over 1NT and 3♣ over 2NT as natural.

 

If the IBer can find in his system a legal substitute bid that in the director's opinion has the same or a more precise meaning as the 2♣ bid, the auction proceeds without further rectification, but if the director later determines that the non-offending side were damaged because the OS gained an advantage that would not have been available without the IB, he will adjust the score. This might be a possible ruling, if the hands that might bid 3♣ over 2NT are wholly contained in the set of hands that would bid 2♣ over 1NT. Law 27B1{b} and Law 27D.

 

Otherwise, the offender may correct his IB with any sufficient bid, or a pass, and his partner must pass throughout the remainder of the auction. Law 27B2. This is the law your director applied.

 

Offender may not correct his IB with a double or redouble. If he does, we send him back to one of the above laws, and his partner must pass throughout the remainder of the auction. Law 27B3.

 

As Gordon says, whether a substitution under 27B1{b} is allowed may depend on the jurisdiction. You appear to be in Hong Kong. Not sure of the situation there. In North America, I think the change would be allowed.

[pran]

Heh.

 

If the 2♣ bid and its 3♣ were deemed to be "incontrovertibly not artificial," after this substitution the auction would proceed without further rectification (Law 27B1{a}). This law will not apply unless they're playing both 2♣ over 1NT and 3♣ over 2NT as natural.

 

If the IBer can find in his system a legal substitute bid that in the director's opinion has the same or a more precise meaning as the 2♣ bid, the auction proceeds without further rectification, but if the director later determines that the non-offending side were damaged because the OS gained an advantage that would not have been available without the IB, he will adjust the score. This might be a possible ruling, if the hands that might bid 3♣ over 2NT are wholly contained in the set of hands that would bid 2♣ over 1NT. Law 27B1{b} and Law 27D.

 

Otherwise, the offender may correct his IB with any sufficient bid, or a pass, and his partner must pass throughout the remainder of the auction. Law 27B2. This is the law your director applied.

 

Offender may not correct his IB with a double or redouble. If he does, we send him back to one of the above laws, and his partner must pass throughout the remainder of the auction. Law 27B3.

 

As Gordon says, whether a substitution under 27B1{b} is allowed may depend on the jurisdiction. You appear to be in Hong Kong. Not sure of the situation there. In North America, I think the change would be allowed.

 

Law 27B1{b} has no provision for the jurisdiction to influence the applicability of that Law, it applies world-wide.

 

The precise understanding when either or both bids in question are artificial is that if the substituting call (according to agreements) can show a hand with which the offender would not have made the original bid had it been sufficient then the condition in Law 27B1{b} is not satisfied.

 

There may have been some WBFLC minutes modifying details in this principle, but the original consequence is that if for instance 3♣ over 2NT may show as little as 3 or 4 HCP while 2♣ over 1NT "promises" at least 8HCP then the 3♣ bid is not more precise and therefore does not satisfy the condition in Law 21B1{b}.

 

It is, however, clear that the substitution of 3♣ for (insufficient) 2♣ (both being equivalent Stayman bids) in this situation is OK when there is no such discrepancy in the HCP ranges. (Law 27D might of course still be applicable).

[sanst]

From the he WBFLC minutes of October 10th 2008: "Law 27B – Mr. Endicott’s statement on interpretation was adopted and agreed viz:– The Committee has noted an increasing inclination among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid. 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. At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the Director judges that the outcome could well have been different without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in consequence the non‐offending side has been damaged)."

Based on that the replacement of 2♣ with 3♣ should be allowed, even if the HCP range is different. The extra information it conveys is minimal and there is still Law 27D.

As far as I know 27B1b was specifically written to make these corrections possible.

[pran]

From the he WBFLC minutes of October 10th 2008: "Law 27B – Mr. Endicott’s statement on interpretation was adopted and agreed viz:– The Committee has noted an increasing inclination among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid. 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. At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the Director judges that the outcome could well have been different without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in consequence the non‐offending side has been damaged)."

Based on that the replacement of 2♣ with 3♣ should be allowed, even if the HCP range is different. The extra information it conveys is minimal and there is still Law 27D.

As far as I know 27B1b was specifically written to make these corrections possible.

Quite true about L27B1b.

 

And yes, I thought I remembered something like this.

 

Those who remember the original introduction of the new laws in 2007 probably still remember that Law 27 had to be rewritten. I (for one) had called attention to the fact that the first version expressed directly the opposite of what apparently was intended. We avoided confusion because "everybody" understood the actual intention, but for instance in Norway the laws as a consequence didn't take effect until late summer 2008.

[weejonnie]

I had an interesting case recently.

 

1NT : P : 2D (announced as transfer to Hearts) : 2S

2H (Insufficient bid)

 

This is a conventional bid that may (or may not) say absolutely nothing about the hand.

 

If it is a forced bid then any response may be allowed without penalty.*

However if the side played a form of maximal acceptance e.g. played that another bid showed maximum support and a working doubleton then there would be a requirement that any response denied such a feature.

 

Which shows that the decision whether to allow a restitution call without penalty (other than the possibility of awarding an adjusted score if the bidding has changed substantially) is not always obvious.

 

 

In the EBU then the following is guidance. (White Book 2014 page 122) (Other RAs may have different guidance)

 

(d)

W N E

2NT pass 2♣

 

East thought that they were responding to 1NT (in which case 2 ♣would be Stayman). East has a replacement bid of 3 ♣available which is also Stayman. An extremely liberal approach might allow this change. However there are many hands which would use 3♣ Stayman but wouldn’t have used 2♣ Stayman. Because of the possible difference in point ranges, the change IS NOT ALLOWED

[pran]

I had an interesting case recently.

 

1NT : P : 2D (announced as transfer to Hearts) : 2S

2H (Insufficient bid)

 

This is a conventional bid that may (or may not) say absolutely nothing about the hand.

 

If it is a forced bid then any response may be allowed without penalty.*

However if the side played a form of maximal acceptance e.g. played that another bid showed maximum support and a working doubleton then there would be a requirement that any response denied such a feature.

 

Which shows that the decision whether to allow a restitution call without penalty (other than the possibility of awarding an adjusted score if the bidding has changed substantially) is not always obvious.

In order to rule here the Director must know the partnership understandings of the following alternative calls by the 1NT opener:

1NT : P : 2D (announced as transfer to Hearts) : PASS

2H

 

1NT : P : 2D (announced as transfer to Hearts) : PASS

3H (Super-Accept?)

 

1NT : P : 2D (announced as transfer to Hearts) : 2S

PASS

 

1NT : P : 2D (announced as transfer to Hearts) : 2S

X

 

1NT : P : 2D (announced as transfer to Hearts) : 2S

3H

 

Only with such knowledge can he make reasonable judgements on substituting calls available without barring partner.

[campboy]

In the EBU then the following is guidance. (White Book 2014 page 122) (Other RAs may have different guidance)

 

(d)

W N E

2NT pass 2♣

 

East thought that they were responding to 1NT (in which case 2 ♣would be Stayman). East has a replacement bid of 3 ♣available which is also Stayman. An extremely liberal approach might allow this change. However there are many hands which would use 3♣ Stayman but wouldn’t have used 2♣ Stayman. Because of the possible difference in point ranges, the change IS NOT ALLOWED

However, this only applies if the player did actually think they were responding to 1NT. If the player knew partner had opened 2NT, decided to bid Stayman, but got confused and bid 2♣, then the change would be allowed. In the EBU, announcements normally make it clear which of these has happened. My experience is that the latter case is much more common than the former.

[lamford]

However, this only applies if the player did actually think they were responding to 1NT. If the player knew partner had opened 2NT, decided to bid Stayman, but got confused and bid 2♣, then the change would be allowed. In the EBU, announcements normally make it clear which of these has happened. My experience is that the latter case is much more common than the former.

I agree that by far the most common IB is "missing a level", with the second most common IB being "not noticing an opponent's bid". As blackshoe clarifies, "If the IBer can find in his system a legal substitute bid that in the director's opinion has the same or a more precise meaning as the [iB]" he will allow the substitute. However, the "missed level" IB has no meaning, nor for that matter does the auction 1C-(1S)-1H. If the opponents asked about the meaning before deciding whether to accept the IB, they would be told "no partnership understanding". However, we all know that the latter conveys the assumed meaning that the person has 4+ hearts, 5+ points (in simple systems). And we all know that 2NT-(Pass)-2C is going to be interpreted as Stayman. The way this Law is currently applied is wrong, in my view. The TD is allowing a substitution which has the same meaning as the IB in an alternative auction, not the same meaning as the IB in the actual auction. This seems to be the only way to handle this poor Law, and I share Vampyr's hope that it will be revamped (no pun intended) in the next edition.

[RMB1]

In the EBU then the following is guidance. (White Book 2014 page 122) (Other RAs may have different guidance)

 

The EBU guidance has changed - or changes on 1 August 2015 - as campboy suggested.

 

If East thought that they were responding to 1NT (in which case 2♣ would be Stayman) then East has a replacement bid of 3♣ available which is also Stayman. An extremely liberal approach might allow this change. However there are many hands which would use 3♣ Stayman but wouldn’t have used 2♣ Stayman. Because of the possible difference in point ranges, the change is not allowed.

 

But there may be other reasons for East’s insufficient 2♣, in which case the change may be allowed, unless it had been clarified by unauthorised information that the player intended the 2♣ to be a response to 1NT.

[blackshoe]

Law 27B1{b} has no provision for the jurisdiction to influence the applicability of that Law, it applies world-wide.

No specific provision in the body of that law, no. But RAs are authorized to interpret the Laws (Law 80, Law 81). As for the rest, you pretty much repeated what I said, except for the reliance on specific HCP, to which I say "points, schmoints". The ranges are invitational or better in the context of the strength of the opening bid. I think that's good enough. I'm pretty sure the ACBL does too. The EBU, apparently, does not.

[Vampyr]

In order to rule here the Director must know the partnership understandings of the following alternative calls by the 1NT opener:

1NT : P : 2D (announced as transfer to Hearts) : PASS

2H

 

1NT : P : 2D (announced as transfer to Hearts) : PASS

3H (Super-Accept?)

 

1NT : P : 2D (announced as transfer to Hearts) : 2S

PASS

 

1NT : P : 2D (announced as transfer to Hearts) : 2S

X

 

1NT : P : 2D (announced as transfer to Hearts) : 2S

3H

 

Only with such knowledge can he make reasonable judgements on substituting calls available without barring partner.

 

Yes, and a volunteer playing director can not only obtain this knowledge, but has the expertise in both directing and bridge to apply it...

 

It would make sense if the EBU and other RAs issued a regulation such that SOs may decide that there is never a similar meaning in the director's opinion. (This is in fact always true anyway, unless there is a RA that allows pairs to assign meanings to insufficient bids.)

[blackshoe]

Yes, and a volunteer playing director can not only obtain this knowledge, but has the expertise in both directing and bridge to apply it...

 

It would make sense if the EBU and other RAs issued a regulation such that SOs may decide that there is never a similar meaning in the director's opinion. (This is in fact always true anyway, unless there is a RA that allows pairs to assign meanings to insufficient bids.)

Are you suggesting that my RA might issue a regulation telling me what my opinion is? Sorry, no, uh-uh, not happening.

[pran]

Yes, and a volunteer playing director can not only obtain this knowledge, but has the expertise in both directing and bridge to apply it...

 

It would make sense if the EBU and other RAs issued a regulation such that SOs may decide that there is never a similar meaning in the director's opinion. (This is in fact always true anyway, unless there is a RA that allows pairs to assign meanings to insufficient bids.)

The "meaning" of an insufficient bid for the purpose of applying Law 27 is the meaning the bid would have had in an auction where that bid would have been sufficient and otherwise matching the actual auction as much as possible.

 

So in the auction 2NT - pass - 2♣ the 2♣ bid will normally be considered having the meaning of 2♣ in the auction 1NT - pass - 2♣

 

Law 27 relies upon the ability of the Director to establish the actual "meaning" of an insufficient bid.

[barmar]

Offender may not correct his IB with a double or redouble. If he does, we send him back to one of the above laws, and his partner must pass throughout the remainder of the auction. Law 27B3.

I'd send him back to the law that says you're not allowed to double your partner's bid.

[sanst]

This seems to be the only way to handle this poor Law, and I share Vampyr's hope that it will be revamped (no pun intended) in the next edition.

It certainly is a badly worded law, but it was made with the idea that it was undesirable that the IB'er gambled some bid in a situation like 2NT-(p)-2♣, because his partner was barred during the rest of the auction. Not only was it quite often a lucky gamble, but it also forced the IB'er to bid game or even slam, and doing so barring the opps from bidding too. There's always Law 23 to take away any undue advantage, but in all the whole process has little to do with bridge as a mind sport.

[blackshoe]

I'd send him back to the law that says you're not allowed to double your partner's bid.

This is what I get for trying to address the general case. :blink:

[weejonnie]

However, this only applies if the player did actually think they were responding to 1NT. If the player knew partner had opened 2NT, decided to bid Stayman, but got confused and bid 2♣, then the change would be allowed. In the EBU, announcements normally make it clear which of these has happened. My experience is that the latter case is much more common than the former.

Certainly - otherwise we allow the change - providing the player can persuade me that it was a mechanical error - such as a 4♥ response to Blackwood. Many players may not realise that the option is available and if we get a "... 4NT - 4♥ - Director" call quickly then there is probably a natural tendency not to try and correct the call. Just one more thing to check on.

[campboy]

Certainly - otherwise we allow the change - providing the player can persuade me that it was a mechanical error - such as a 4♥ response to Blackwood. Many players may not realise that the option is available and if we get a "... 4NT - 4♥ - Director" call quickly then there is probably a natural tendency not to try and correct the call. Just one more thing to check on.

I don't think you get my point. There are three different cases.

1. The player thinks he is responding to 1NT. Now the insufficient bid requires more strength or distribution than a 3♣ replacement call, so there is no 27B1b replacement available.
   
2. The player realises partner opened 2NT, and intended to bid 3♣, but pulled the wrong card. This is a 25A case and opponents do not have the opportunity to accept 2♣.
   
3. The player realises partner opened 2NT, and intended to bid Stayman, but something in his brain said "Stayman=2♣". This is not a 25A case, and opponents do have the opportunity to accept the IB. If they don't, a 3♣ replacement shows exactly the same hands (because he was always trying to bid Stayman over 2NT) and so is a 27B1b replacement.
   

In my experience, 3 is much more common than 1. In the case where another player draws attention to the 2♣, it is also much more common than 2, since in case 2 the player normally realises before the 2♣ card hits the table. I think the main advantage of the new rule over the old rule is that it has become much less crucial to work out whether 2 or 3 actually applies. (As I said earlier, in the EBU there is no difficulty distinguishing between 1 and 2/3, since announcements will make it clear what he thought the opening bid was.)

[blackshoe]

… in the EBU there is no difficulty distinguishing between 1 and 2/3, since announcements will make it clear what he thought the opening bid was.

True. Had the case occurred in the ACBL though, there would still be a problem, since the range of only 1NT openings is announced. Now the director will have to try to determine whether a failure to announce was because responder thought the opening bid was 2NT or because he thought the opening was 1NT but forgot he was supposed to announce the range — or got distracted.

[barmar]

This is what I get for trying to address the general case. :blink:

Sorry, it looked to me like you might have misread the auction. I didn't think you would need to repeat everything that's clearly stated in the law book but irrelevant to this case.

[blackshoe]

Sorry, it looked to me like you might have misread the auction. I didn't think you would need to repeat everything that's clearly stated in the law book but irrelevant to this case.

I suppose I went a little overboard. :)

[Zelandakh]

(As I said earlier, in the EBU there is no difficulty distinguishing between 1 and 2/3, since announcements will make it clear what he thought the opening bid was.)

Not sure I agree with this. A person can very easily make the correct announcement of the opening bid, then mentally forget this and think the opening bid is different. Have you really never correctly observed a bid or card and then mixed it up with another line of thinking before making your next decision?