Insufficient bid

[lamford]

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

If the bidding box is electronic, displaying the call and the auction to date, then it will be several milliseconds resetting it.

[Vampyr]

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.

 

LOL partner will have to pass for penalties!

 

I don't want club directors to deal with UI. Or with this. I would much prefer strict laws.

 

Because the whole thing is a minefield. Suppose it goes 1NT-(2♠-2. If offender bids 3(systemically forcing)♦, opener may pass, since the two diamond bid indicates that partner may have been trying to sign off in ♦. Will the club director know what to change the contract and result to?

 

This is one of the main problems with this law. As is the case with doubles becoming penalty, the offenders get another weapon in their arsenal. I don't think that club directors will even know that in such cases an adjusted score must be applied.

 

Many clubs and privately played matches rely on telephone referees for appeals and initial ruling respectively. I think will need a lot more of them.

[MinorKid]

Indeed, in some situations there does not exist a comparable bid nor a fair lowest sufficient bid, such as,

1♦ (3♠) 4♠ (5♠) 4NT

The lowest sufficient bid cannot be applied here as 5NT should have another purposes in most system.

Nor there is any comparable bid that has the similar purpose of 4NT bid which should be blackwood.

Furthermore, the intention of this behavior is clear that offender is going to slam and checking on key cards solely rely on the convention.

Finally and most importantly, a use of blackwood tells partner a lot of his hand (e.g. at least 2nd round ctrl in every suit), allowing auction to continue will gain a lot of advantage. Therefore, the almost all directors will have no option but to slience the partner.

 

Back in this case, the intention of the 3♣ IBer was not clear, he would use it as stayman, where one alternative will provide after the advance, or he would be thinking of response to the lebonsohl 2NT, in that it had no meaning at all and any sufficient bids would all be comparable bids (see 23A2). Futhermore, the use of stayman does not nessary have either major which may also be the start of some special sequence, while the response of lebonsohl dose not tell anything. So I cant see any advantage gained in both case.

So the rule that forbids partner is all too harsh to be applied here. However as a punishment, maybe designating a specific call for stayman would work. (A wrong for a wrong)

[Vampyr]

Indeed, in some situations there does not exist a comparable bid nor a fair lowest sufficient bid, such as,

1♦ (3♠) 4♠ (5♠) 4NT

The lowest sufficient bid cannot be applied here as 5NT should have another purposes in most system.

Nor there is any comparable bid that has the similar purpose of 4NT bid which should be blackwood.

Furthermore, the intention of this behavior is clear that offender is going to slam and checking on key cards solely rely on the convention.

Finally and most importantly, a use of blackwood tells partner a lot of his hand (e.g. at least 2nd round ctrl in every suit), allowing auction to continue will gain a lot of advantage. Therefore, the almost all directors will have no option but to slience the partner.

 

Yes.

 

Back in this case, the intention of the 3♣ IBer was not clear, he would use it as stayman, where one alternative will provide after the advance, or he would be thinking of response to the lebonsohl 2NT, in that it had no meaning at all and any sufficient bids would all be comparable bids (see 23A2). So the rule that forbids partner is all too harsh to be applied here. However as a punishment, maybe designating a specific call for stayman would work.

 

I am not sure what the last sentence meant, but this does seem to be a situation where we have to find out the bidder's intention.

[nige1]

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.

Thank you, I corrected the latter.

[jallerton]

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.

 

With regard to your second sentence, how would you rule if the 2♦ bidder had intended her call to be "Benji" but her hand lacked wither 16+HCP or 5+ controls?

[jallerton]

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".

 

Not fool-proof. A few players, Zia for example, only remove from the bidding box the bidding card relating to the bid they are making. This leaves some "insufficient" bidding cards in your shared bidding box.

[blackshoe]

Not fool-proof. A few players, Zia for example, only remove from the bidding box the bidding card relating to the bid they are making. This leaves some "insufficient" bidding cards in your shared bidding box.

That's simple enough. Making cherry picking a single bidding card an infraction. I suggest twenty lashes with a wet noodle.

[VixTD]

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.

LOL partner will have to pass for penalties!

 

I don't want club directors to deal with UI. Or with this. I would much prefer strict laws.

I don't understand why "LOL partner" will have to pass for penalties. (Although they could of course choose to do so if they wish.)

 

I agree that these changes to law 27 make life very difficult for club TDs, who generally had a pretty good grasp of the 1997 law. When I taught courses on the 2007 laws I would say to anyone who was struggling that if they could get a good approximation of a 1997 ruling it would be fine in most cases. I feel we've moved too far away from that now.

 

We have to accept, though, that we're going to get a different standard of ruling in a national or regional tournament than we are in a provincial club. Sometimes just making a ruling that will keep the game going is the best they can do. UI rulings shouldn't be such a problem, as they can be made after consultation after the event.

[VixTD]

Indeed, in some situations there does not exist a comparable bid nor a fair lowest sufficient bid, such as,

1♦ (3♠) 4♠ (5♠) 4NT

The lowest sufficient bid cannot be applied here as 5NT should have another purposes in most system.

Nor there is any comparable bid that has the similar purpose of 4NT bid which should be blackwood.

This shouldn't come as a surprise. The new laws don't claim to provide penalty-free replacement calls in every case.

 

Back in this case, the intention of the 3♣ IBer was not clear, he would use it as stayman, where one alternative will provide after the advance, or he would be thinking of response to the lebonsohl 2NT, in that it had no meaning at all and any sufficient bids would all be comparable bids (see 23A2).

The process of offender's intention, which is not and never has been mentioned in any law, is going to be a hard one to shift. The attributable meanings are independent of offender's intention. Lebensohl is not a naturally attributable meaning to 3♣ in this sequence.

[barmar]

This is one of the main problems with this law. As is the case with doubles becoming penalty, the offenders get another weapon in their arsenal. I don't think that club directors will even know that in such cases an adjusted score must be applied.

So we should tailor the laws to be more friendly to less competent directors? This is precisely the case that the clause that says they should adjust if the infraction allowed them to get an otherwise impossible result was intended for.

[Vampyr]

I don't understand why "LOL partner" will have to pass for penalties. (Although they could of course choose to do so if they wish.)

 

It has something to do with being barred.

[Vampyr]

I agree that these changes to law 27 make life very difficult for club TDs, who generally had a pretty good grasp of the 1997 law. When I taught courses on the 2007 laws I would say to anyone who was struggling that if they could get a good approximation of a 1997 ruling it would be fine in most cases. I feel we've moved too far away from that now.

 

I think that in practice it should be the same. And in any case, who gets so many insufficient bids that it would become an unfair game if they erred on the side of the NOS?

 

Perhaps it is the Drafting Committee who are so old and so addled that they have trouble making sufficient bids. That is probably why they are so keen to see that the player suffers no consequences from the infraction.

[VixTD]

It has something to do with being barred.

But if partner is barred, double was not a comparable call and so wouldn't have been permitted as a replacement call.

[Vampyr]

But if partner is barred, double was not a comparable call and so wouldn't have been permitted as a replacement call.

 

I do not think that there is any situation in which double could be a comparable call.

[VixTD]

I do not think that there is any situation in which double could be a comparable call.

I may or may not agree with you there, but if you think that you must not allow them to double, so it won't happen.

[pran]

I do not think that there is any situation in which double could be a comparable call.

What about the simple case:

1♦ - 1♠ - 1♥

 

Wouldn't you here (of course dependent upon actual agreements) in most cases accept double as a call that is comparable to 1♥?

 

In my world this is known as a negative double and most often shows that the doubler would have bid 1♥ had this call been legal.

[MinorKid]

If the double is substituted from an insufficient bid as comparable call, then auction proceed as normal.

If it is not comparable call, then offender must replace it with a final sufficient bid or pass that offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. (2007 Laws)

[blackshoe]

I've already forgotten the 2007 laws. B-)

[Vampyr]

What about the simple case:

1♦ - 1♠ - 1♥

 

Wouldn't you here (of course dependent upon actual agreements) in most cases accept double as a call that is comparable to 1♥?

 

In my world this is known as a negative double and most often shows that the doubler would have bid 1♥ had this call been legal.

Hilarious.

[Vampyr]

So we should tailor the laws to be more friendly to less competent directors? This is precisely the case that the clause that says they should adjust if the infraction allowed them to get an otherwise impossible result was intended for.

 

Well. The vast majority of bridge is played with less competent directors, who might not continue to volunteer if the laws are incomprehensible .

 

EDIT and hugely difficult for these directors to apply.

[Flem72]

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?

 

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.

 

There would seem to be a requirement for a lot of layering. 2N-2D:

 

Suppose a 2D opening would be Flannery. If the 2D bidder says anything that conveys the information that s/he holds opening values -- thus desolving the possibility that s/he meant to call 3D, for instance -- 2D is a problem: Flannery claims opening values and, therefore, creates significant UI.

 

Suppose a 2D opener would be multi. The same problem exists, but to a lesser degree, as it would normally exclude hands -- for example -- in the 0-5 and 10+ ranges.

 

The UI has to do with who makes any eventual slam try; the Laws would seem strongly to encourage only CCs that would keep opener in the dark about responder's values until the slam try occurs. On other forums, I have seen the suggestion that the "values" aspect of a comparable call might reasonably be kept within a Q or so until there are enough rulings on this aspect of CC to engender a more solid approach. What is your opinion ?

[Vampyr]

Suppose a 2D opening would be Flannery. If the 2D bidder says anything that conveys the information that s/he holds opening values -- thus desolving the possibility that s/he meant to call 3D, for instance -- 2D is a problem: Flannery claims opening values and, therefore, creates significant UI.

Yes, comments are a problem and will largely make comparable calls impossible. I think that you are supposed to say something along the lines of "if you mean to show hearts you may make a call that shows hearts. If you mean to show diamonds you may make a call that shows diamonds." Of course this assumes the pair play transfers.

Suppose a 2D opener would be multi. The same problem exists, but to a lesser degree, as it would normally exclude hands -- for example -- in the 0-5 and 10+ ranges.

 

If you made no comments you are in luck if your weak two was in hearts!

[Flem72]

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_images/BridgeBase_Ehren_v1/snapback.pngbarmar, on 2017-October-10, 10:04, said: 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.

 

I'm confused. Are you saying that a call that initiates a sequence that shows the same hand as shown by a single call -- e.g., Flannery -- should not be allowed? So that, if the partnership had a call directly over 2N that showed 4=5, it would be OK, but a series of calls that showed the same hand would not? I'd tend to want allow the sequence, but then the Laws do say "comparable call."

[Flem72]

Yes, comments are a problem and will largely make comparable calls impossible. I think that you are supposed to say something along the lines of "if you mean to show hearts you may make a call that shows hearts. If you mean to show diamonds you may make a call that shows diamonds." Of course this assumes the pair play transfers.

 

 

If you made no comments you are in luck if your weak two was in hearts!

 

The more interesting question is: Comment or none, would you be allowed to transfer to spades? I think so....