Insufficient bid

[pran]

There are two basic options in case of an irregularity:

 

1: Determine the offender and "chop his head off". (Generally a principle before say 1975?)

 

2: Determine a likely outcome had no irregularity occurred. The basis for this option is what happened up to, but not including the irregularity, and other circumstances.

 

I see a clear tendency from option 1 towards option 2 over the years. It is of course more demanding on Directors' skills, but personally I believe this is a fair road to follow.

 

Where may this road end?

 

What if we as a main rule allow the withdrawal of unintended calls (including calls out of rotation) but more strictly enforce Law 16 (unauthorized information) in all such cases.

 

Extreme? Maybe.

Worth considering? I think so.

[lamford]

What if we as a main rule allow the withdrawal of unintended calls (including calls out of rotation) but more strictly enforce Law 16 (unauthorized information) in all such cases.

David Burn advocated this approach several years ago, but any such change will now have to wait until 2027. It does achieve a "normal" result.

[MinorKid]

Dup

[MinorKid]

How about x replacing the 3C as comparable call, and that partner is not allow to convert it to penalty? (Puntative Retification)

 

How about a pass replacing the 3C and the TD tell offenders partner he has no intention to use stayman? (Neutral Retification)

 

So that auction can continue for both parties.

[pran]

How about x replacing the 3C as comparable call, and that partner is not allow to convert it to penalty? (Puntative Retification)

 

How about a pass replacing the 3C and the TD tell offenders partner he has no intention to use stayman? (Neutral Retification)

 

So that auction can continue for both parties.

The Director has a much simpler approach available already now with the 2017 laws:

He may allow (almost) any replacement call as "comparable" and let the auction continue without any restriction.

But he must warn the players about

If following the substitution of a comparable call [see Laws 27B1(b), 30B1(b)(i), 31A2(a) and 32A2(a)] the Director judges at the end of the play that without the assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged, he shall award an adjusted score [see Law 12C1(b)].

and apply this law when play is completed.

[WellSpyder]

Perhaps, but of this small number the director has to pick one. If he gets it wrong, partner is silenced.

I'm not sure this is true at all. If a replacement call is comparable to ANY of the potential meanings of the IB, then partner does not need to be silenced. This seems logical to me (albeit generous), since arguably you don't get any extra information from the IB than you get from the replacement in this case.

[barmar]

I'm not sure this is true at all. If a replacement call is comparable to ANY of the potential meanings of the IB, then partner does not need to be silenced. This seems logical to me (albeit generous), since arguably you don't get any extra information from the IB than you get from the replacement in this case.

Right, I think that's the point Gordon was making in the other thread.

 

Basically, if the IBer makes the call they would have made if they hadn't misread the auction, and his partner interprets it as its normally meaning, it's "no harm, no foul".

[Vampyr]

Right, I think that's the point Gordon was making in the other thread.

 

Basically, if the IBer makes the call they would have made if they hadn't misread the auction, and his partner interprets it as its normally meaning, it's "no harm, no foul".

 

How are these things determined?

[barmar]

How are these things determined?

You check whether the replacement bid is consistent with their agreements. E.g. if they made an insufficient 2♦ bid after 2NT, replace it with 3♦, they have 5+ hearts, and opener accepts the transfer, then everything is presumably fine. They simply misread the original action as being a level lower.

[Vampyr]

You check whether the replacement bid is consistent with their agreements. E.g. if they made an insufficient 2♦ bid after 2NT, replace it with 3♦, they have 5+ hearts, and opener accepts the transfer, then everything is presumably fine. They simply misread the original action as being a level lower.

 

Then there is, in practice, no real change from the previous version. You still have to determine the bidder's intention.

[barmar]

Then there is, in practice, no real change from the previous version. You still have to determine the bidder's intention.

The point is which do you do first: determine the intent of the IB, then decide whether the replacement has the same meaning, or determine the intent of the legal bid, and decide if the IB could have had the same meaning.

 

In practice it should come out the same. You often determined the intent of the IB by taking the player away from the table and asking them. It would presumably be the meaning we assume in the second method.

[gordontd]

Then there is, in practice, no real change from the previous version. You still have to determine the bidder's intention.

Not in many cases, including this. It should be sufficient to check that they play transfer bids and then say that any call that shows diamonds or hearts would be considered comparable, since the meanings attributable to the insufficient 2D are those where 2D shows diamond or those where it shows hearts, but adding that if they want to give you more, relevant information they can do so away from the table. I doubt that would often be necessary.

[lamford]

Not in many cases, including this. It should be sufficient to check that they play transfer bids and then say that any call that shows diamonds or hearts would be considered comparable, since the meanings attributable to the insufficient 2D are those where 2D shows diamond or those where it shows hearts, but adding that if they want to give you more, relevant information they can do so away from the table. I doubt that would often be necessary.

Assuming that we are talking about the auction 2NT-Pass-2D, some other possibilities arise and give further attributable meanings. The player may have opened 2D as a multi, or as a Benji 2D, or as an Ekron 2D, so all might be attributable meanings, depending on what an opening 2D means and replacement calls will be varied and numerous. He might, if he needed to go to Specsavers, have been bidding 2D (Multi-Landy) over an opposing 1NT. All these are much more likely than the actual thread where the player was responding to Lebensohl with an insufficient 3C. The TD DOES need to know what went through the player's mind before he can guess at an attributable meaning. In practice, of course, the player says something like "Sorry, I didn't see the 2NT bid.", and the TD does little about the UI created.

[WellSpyder]

In practice, of course, the player says something like "Sorry, I didn't see the 2NT bid.", and the TD does little about the UI created.

Supposing that the player does indeed say something like this. Under the new laws, should the TD treat that as limiting the comparable bids? Or should the TD treat the issue of comparable bids in the same way that they would have done without the comment, but also take into account the UI?

[gordontd]

Supposing that the player does indeed say something like this. Under the new laws, should the TD treat that as limiting the comparable bids? Or should the TD treat the issue of comparable bids in the say way that they would have done without the comment, but also take into account the UI?

My view is that we should treat it as limiting the comparable calls, but I don't think we've had enough cases or discussion to establish a consensus about this. In practice, it's unlikely to cause a problem though, since the information from any such comment will usually match the information given by the replacement call if it has been deemed to be comparable.

[barmar]

Assuming that we are talking about the auction 2NT-Pass-2D, some other possibilities arise and give further attributable meanings. The player may have opened 2D as a multi, or as a Benji 2D, or as an Ekron 2D, so all might be attributable meanings, depending on what an opening 2D means and replacement calls will be varied and numerous. He might, if he needed to go to Specsavers, have been bidding 2D (Multi-Landy) over an opposing 1NT. All these are much more likely than the actual thread where the player was responding to Lebensohl with an insufficient 3C. The TD DOES need to know what went through the player's mind before he can guess at an attributable meaning. In practice, of course, the player says something like "Sorry, I didn't see the 2NT bid.", and the TD does little about the UI created.

I don't think the TD needs to know what went through his mind before allowing the call. He just needs to know if the meaning of the replacement is consistent with what the original call could have meant in some other auction.

 

Suppose he thought he was opening 2D as multi, showing a weak 2 in an unspecified major. He replaces it with a transfer to the major he actually has, and everything proceeds normally.

 

If he meant it as Flannery, and they play Smolen over 2NT, he can replace it with that.

 

He might have a hand that they don't have a method to show over 2NT (e.g. a Flannery hand when they don't play Smolen); in that case there might not be a comparable call.

 

I'm a little unsure about the Flannery->Smolen replacement, though, because it's not a single call but a series of calls. It starts with Stayman, which doesn't show anything in particular. The CC definition says that a call is comparable if it asks the same question, but Flannery doesn't ask anything.

[gordontd]

I'm a little unsure about the Flannery->Smolen replacement, though, because it's not a single call but a series of calls.

I was just about to pick you up on this point before I saw you had done it yourself. I don't think it should be allowed as it's the sequence that is needed to have the same meaning, not just a single call.

[MinorKid]

Please have a look on

 

"LAW 27

B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted

If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (but see 3 following). Then:

1. (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. Laws 26B and 16C do not apply but see D following.

(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."

 

2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26B may apply, and see Law 72C.

 

...

 

D. Non-offending Side Damaged

If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred.

 

 

 

Although the 4♣ may not be a comparable call for the artificial 3♣, but in any circumstances it does not bar partner from bidding.

[gordontd]

Although the 4♣ may not be a comparable call for the artificial 3♣, but in any circumstances it does not bar partner from bidding.

Unless we think that 3♣ specifies clubs, which you clearly do not since you have described it as artificial, then L27B1a does not apply to this situation and 4♣ would bar partner.

[nige1]

What if we as a main rule allow the withdrawal of unintended calls (including calls out of rotation) but more strictly enforce Law 16 (unauthorized information) in all such cases.

Extreme? Maybe. Worth considering? I think so.

A great suggestion by Sven Pran and David Burn. Although, the director will often have to sort out UI implications, later. Their change is a also a drastic simplification but more acceptable to "equity" advocates than mine.

 

An unfortunate consequence of such reforms is that there would be fewer controversial decisions for us to discuss.

[gordontd]

A great suggestion by Sven Pran and David Burns. Although, the director will often have to sort out UI implications, later. Their change is a also a drastic simplification but more acceptable to "equity" advocates than mine.

 

An unfortunate consequence of such reforms is that there would be fewer controversial decisions for us to discuss.

On the contrary: UI cases produce more controversial decisions, more acrimony and more appeals than any other group of cases. That's why I'm opposed to the idea of simply treating these sorts of infractions as UI.

 

btw, it's Burn not Burns.

[lamford]

There is one simple answer to insufficient bids and bids out of turn. One bidding box, placed by North next to the dealer, and passed on after each call. And it should be referred to as a "calling box" not a "bidding box".

 

Homer Simpson: I guess some people never change. Or, they quickly change and then quickly change back.

[VixTD]

The takeout double of 3S also says that partner should pass unless he has four hearts, and partner will rarely bid 4m, so it needs some defence.

 

How about x replacing the 3C as comparable call, and that partner is not allow to convert it to penalty? (Puntative Retification)

Do we need to be worried about partner passing a takeout double for penalties here? If offender didn't have the defensive values required for a takeout double of 3♠ they presumably wouldn't try using double as a replacement call. If they did have those values they would have doubled if they'd been paying proper attention at their turn to call, so we're back on track for a normal result.

[StevenG]

There is one simple answer to insufficient bids and bids out of turn. One bidding box, placed by North next to the dealer, and passed on after each call.

... and several minutes getting the cards back in the box in the right order

[barmar]

The basic principle behind the "comparable call" idea is that there generally won't be any UI to sort out.