Law 27B1 (Insufficient Bid)

[BudH]

Law 27B1(a) - "If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call, the auction proceeds without further rectification...."

 

Looking at the hypothetical insufficient bid example below:

 

1NT-(2♥)-2♥ (intended as a transfer to spades, but didn't see the overcall)

 

Unfortunately, due to the words "lowest sufficient BID", a stolen bid double is not allowed under 27B1(a) because it must be a BID. Unfortunate, and I suspect being able to use a double or redouble as a transfer should have been considered as acceptable. (Perhaps there were concerns about a pass for penalty by partner?)

 

If they are playing stolen bid doubles, 2♠ is likely artificial, meaning the lowest sufficient BID is 3♠.

 

Yes, it is possible the stolen bid double may be considered a comparable call under Law 27B1(b).

[Vampyr]

I thought a stolen-bid double was a double of a club overcall used as Stayman. Surely this extension of the concept is highly unusual?

[gordontd]

Law 27B1(a) - "If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call, the auction proceeds without further rectification...."

 

Looking at the hypothetical insufficient bid example below:

 

1NT-(2♥)-2♥ (intended as a transfer to spades, but didn't see the overcall)

 

Unfortunately, due to the words "lowest sufficient BID", a stolen bid double is not allowed under 27B1(a) because it must be a BID. Unfortunate, and I suspect being able to use a double or redouble as a transfer should have been considered as acceptable. (Perhaps there were concerns about a pass for penalty by partner?)

 

If they are playing stolen bid doubles, 2♠ is likely artificial, meaning the lowest sufficient BID is 3♠.

 

Yes, it is possible the stolen bid double may be considered a comparable call under Law 27B1(b).

Is this a problem? You get to make the call you want with the meaning you want it to have. Does it matter to the player whether this is allowed by 27B1a or 27B1b?

[RMB1]

I thought a stolen-bid double was a double of a club overcall used as Stayman. Surely this extension of the concept is highly unusual?

 

I think that your usage is highly restrictive.

 

Many posters (mainly North American?) use "stolen-bid double" to refer to any double which means "I would have bid that".

[Vampyr]

I think that your usage is highly restrictive.

 

Many posters (mainly North American?) use "stolen-bid double" to refer to any double which means "I would have bid that".

 

I see. I have not come across this.

[steve2005]

I see. I have not come across this.

Yes. Stolen bid is horrible

so after 1N-(2H)

normally you can bid 2S to play then X is either takeout or penalty , system choice. and ways to bid S higher

 

stolen X

X=spades

to show 4S you have to bid 3H

and no way to penalize

 

 

[Vampyr]

Yes. Stolen bid is horrible

so after 1N-(2H)

normally you can bid 2S to play then X is either takeout or penalty , system choice. and ways to bid S higher

 

stolen X

X=spades

to show 4S you have to bid 3H

and no way to penalize

 

What is the rationale for this? Losing the takeout double seems a high price to pay.

[BudH]

Is this a problem? You get to make the call you want with the meaning you want it to have. Does it matter to the player whether this is allowed by 27B1a or 27B1b?

It's not a problem for this particular auction, but in other auctions it could matter.

 

It seems to me if double and redouble can be used under Law 27B1(b) using a comparable call (27B1a, that the same should be true for Law 27B1(a) using the option of showing the same denomination(s) with the cheapest sufficient call (instead of bid).

[gordontd]

It's not a problem for this particular auction, but in other auctions it could matter.

Do you have an example where it could?

[BudH]

I thought a stolen-bid double was a double of a club overcall used as Stayman. Surely this extension of the concept is highly unusual?

This is one of those things you won't see in high level bridge (where insufficient bids and calls out of rotation are also rare.)

 

But in a local club game, at least in the USA, I have seen several cases where stolen bid doubles are played throughout the 2-level and sometimes the 3-level. And that is where the large majority of insufficient bids and calls out of rotation will occur.

 

Your local club director is going to have far more practice and experience using the new comparable call law and the changes to the insufficient bid, call out of rotation, and lead penalty laws than a high level tournament director will have.

[weejonnie]

If 2♠ shows spades then it is allowable under 27B1a

Surely, if the stolen bid double shows 5 spades then it qualifies under 27B1b. It does not matter if it shows a non-minimum, or even a minimum hand with spades since a non-minimum hand is a subset of a minimum - > anything hand.

 

(b) except as in (a), if the insufficient bid is corrected with a comparable call (see Law 23A)

the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16C does not apply but see D

following.

[blackshoe]

I see. I have not come across this.

I sometimes wish I hadn't, as I have a couple of partners who insist on it. "Lebensohl is too hard".

[barmar]

I see. I have not come across this.

It's the standard meaning of the term on this side of the pond.

 

We had a discussion of the term just a couple of weeks ago:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76710-weak-nt-openings/page__st__40__p__929637__hl__%2Bstolen+%2Bdouble__fromsearch__1#entry929637

What is the rationale for this? Losing the takeout double seems a high price to pay.

Or the penalty double. Stolen bid double is often considered one of the worst conventions. It's something that's mostly played by LOLs, who like things simple.

[barmar]

Yes, it is possible the stolen bid double may be considered a comparable call under Law 27B1(b).

Not just possible, I think it's practically certain.