Insufficient bid - allowed call

[BudH]

1♣-1♣-"Director please"

 

The insufficient bid by second seat was not a mechanical bidding box error and his LHO does not accept it. The Director takes offender away from the table to determine a replacement call - and which calls (if any) could be used and keep his partner in the auction (and avoid lead penalties later if on defense).

 

Offender held a hand with 4=3=3=3 and about 13 HCPs. Director informed offender if he substituted (1) the cheapest call which showed clubs, or (2) a comparable call, his partner would not be required to pass for the rest of the auction and later lead penalties would be avoided. 2♣ showed both majors. Assume 3♣ is being played as natural and is the cheapest call which shows clubs. It is determined there is no comparable call and offender decides not to bid 3♣ natural with his 3-card club suit. Offender substitutes a pass, forcing his partner to pass for the rest of the auction and creating a lead penalty the first time his partner is on lead, if they become offenders.

 

QUESTION 1 - if offender had a different type of hand with longer clubs, is offender allowed to bid 2♣, which would normally show the majors, but because he knows his partner must pass it is "safe" (legal?) to show his club suit in this manner?

 

QUESTION 2 - If offender is allowed to bid 2♣ in Question 1, has offender now shown clubs so that later (if on defense) declarer could not bar a club lead the first time offender's partner gains the lead?

 

Note that before 2007, in an auction such as 2NT-Pass-2♦, responder could substitute a 3♥ bid knowing partner is required to pass.

[blackshoe]

1. He can bid 2♣, barring his partner.

2. 2♣, by partnership agreement, shows the majors. The fact that the advancer will have to pass throughout the auction doesn't change their agreement. So declarer could bar a club lead.

[gordontd]

1. He can bid 2♣, barring his partner.

2. 2♣, by partnership agreement, shows the majors. The fact that the advancer will have to pass throughout the auction doesn't change their agreement. So declarer could bar a club lead.

I agree with you about the first point, Ed, but not the second. L26B doesn't talk of partnership agreements but of suits being specified and I think that it is clear to all that when you bid a suit opposite a barred partner you are specifying that suit, not the suits it would show if partner had not been barred.

 

Of course, we might stray into 72C territory here.

[blackshoe]

I agree with you about the first point, Ed, but not the second. L26B doesn't talk of partnership agreements but of suits being specified and I think that it is clear to all that when you bid a suit opposite a barred partner you are specifying that suit, not the suits it would show if partner had not been barred.

I was thinking that the suit specified is the one specified by the agreement, but you're right.

 

Of course, we might stray into 72C territory here.

Possible, but unlikely in this case IMO.

[gordontd]

Possible, but unlikely in this case IMO.

Well it does allow you to make a natural 2C overcall that probably wouldn't be available to you otherwise.

[blackshoe]

Sure — and if it looked to me like somebody did it on purpose I might well invoke 72C. But in general I think it's more likely he just wasn't paying attention.

[BudH]

Sure — and if it looked to me like somebody did it on purpose I might well invoke 72C. But in general I think it's more likely he just wasn't paying attention.

 

If you can substitute 2♣ barring partner and in essence bidding clubs naturally when systemically you could not AND you can get partner to lead clubs early and thereby gain, the laws need changing if 72C can’t prevent a good score for the offender.

[sfi]

Sure — and if it looked to me like somebody did it on purpose I might well invoke 72C. But in general I think it's more likely he just wasn't paying attention.

 

72C doesn't require determining intent, at least the way I read it. The conditions described are:

• could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that it could well damage the non-offending side
  
• the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity
  

 

Simply knowing that bidding 2C bars offender's partner and has a good chance of being the right spot, and then the 2C actually damaging the other side, is enough to adjust.

[blackshoe]

And how does one know 2♣ has a good chance of being the right spot? And that it has a good chance of damaging the other side?

 

If the Rueful Rabbit bid 2♣ here, would you invoke 72C?

[sfi]

And how does one know 2♣ has a good chance of being the right spot? And that it has a good chance of damaging the other side?

 

If the Rueful Rabbit bid 2♣ here, would you invoke 72C?

 

If RHO opens 1C, I have a club suit and no real reason to get to the 3-level, that's a pretty good indication that 2C may work out for our side. I deprive the opponents of the one-level and a normal constructive auction while giving myself an extra level of safety without risk of partner hanging me. That's enough for me to consider adjusting.

 

And yes, I would make the same ruling with the Rueful Rabbit at the table. Just because he wasn't aware of it doesn't mean he couldn't have been aware of it. My point is that I think the test is much less strict than you suggested.

[BudH]

And how does one know 2♣ has a good chance of being the right spot? And that it has a good chance of damaging the other side?

 

If the Rueful Rabbit bid 2♣ here, would you invoke 72C?

Yes, under “the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.”

 

If the “psuedo-natural” 2C replacement call really is to be considered natural thereby preventing declarer from barring that suit on a lead penalty, 72C is definitely to be used to restore equity.

[sanst]

I would allow double as a comparable call, in accordance with the explanation given by the Dutch bridge union of Law 23A. It doesn't add much to the meaning of the withdrawn call - yes, partner knows that the offender doesn't have a long club suit - and award an adjusted score if necessary (Law 23C).

Why doesn't the WBFLC come with the promised commentary to the Laws, makng clear how 23A should be read?

[BudH]

I would allow double as a comparable call, in accordance with the explanation given by the Dutch bridge union of Law 23A. It doesn't add much to the meaning of the withdrawn call - yes, partner knows that the offender doesn't have a long club suit - and award an adjusted score if necessary (Law 23C).

Why doesn't the WBFLC come with the promised commentary to the Laws, makng clear how 23A should be read?

Offender’s partner will have information he’s not supposed to have if a takeout double is judged to be comparable (he knows offender likely has a balanced hand with exactly three clubs and there is a higher chance offender will hold only two diamonds).

 

I’m not horribly against letting double be comparable, but we’d be starting to get to the “allow anything and let the UI law deal with the aftermath” that some players have touted ever since the new comparable call Law 23 was announced.

[sanst]

I’m not horribly against letting double be comparable, but we’d be starting to get to the “allow anything and let the UI law deal with the aftermath” that some players have touted ever since the new comparable call Law 23 was announced.

It's not 'some players', it's the laws and regulations committee of the Dutch bridge union, that has direct contact with the chairman of the WBFLC. I didn't write for nothing that I'm anxious to read that promised official commentary.

[gordontd]

It's not 'some players', it's the laws and regulations committee of the Dutch bridge union, that has direct contact with the chairman of the WBFLC. I didn't write for nothing that I'm anxious to read that promised official commentary.

I'd be happier with clarification in the commentary too.

 

It is important to note that it's only the first part of 23A that has the word "similar", so the other two parts of the law are precise.

 

When I open 1C (I know others have different requirements) I will either have clubs as my longest suit, or any 4333 hand, or a 4432 hand.

 

When I double 1C I will never have clubs as my longest suit, will archetypally have a shortage in clubs and may well have strong hands with one or more long major suit, including those that are too strong to open at the one level.

 

That doesn't sound "similar" to me!

[barmar]

When I open 1C (I know others have different requirements) I will either have clubs as my longest suit, or any 4333 hand, or a 4432 hand.

 

When I double 1C I will never have clubs as my longest suit, will archetypally have a shortage in clubs and may well have strong hands with one or more long major suit, including those that are too strong to open at the one level.

 

That doesn't sound "similar" to me!

Yeah, that sounds right.

 

I guess the Dutch justification may be that the balanced shape for opening 1♣ is most common (unless you play weak NT, I suspect), and the auction tends to continue similarly in both cases. Whether you open 1♣ or double 1♣, partner bids their longest suit. However, this is where the similarity ends. Partner's passes and jumps have very different strength requirements, and the meanings of opener's continuations are very different.

[sanst]

I'd be happier with clarification in the commentary too.

 

It is important to note that it's only the first part of 23A that has the word "similar", so the other two parts of the law are precise.

 

When I open 1C (I know others have different requirements) I will either have clubs as my longest suit, or any 4333 hand, or a 4432 hand.

 

When I double 1C I will never have clubs as my longest suit, will archetypally have a shortage in clubs and may well have strong hands with one or more long major suit, including those that are too strong to open at the one level.

 

That doesn't sound "similar" to me!

According to the OP, it was a 4333, with 3 clubs and about 13HCP. It's not unheard of to double with a hand like that, although not everybody's choice.

[gordontd]

According to the OP, it was a 4333, with 3 clubs and about 13HCP. It's not unheard of to double with a hand like that, although not everybody's choice.

Sure, but it's not about the specifics of the hand held but about the meanings attributable to the calls.

[blackshoe]

It sounds like folks are saying the test is "you did it, there are no circumstances in which you could not have known it would benefit you, so if it does benefit you, you lose". I don't buy that. In what circumstances would 72C not apply?

[gordontd]

It sounds like folks are saying the test is "you did it, there are no circumstances in which you could not have known it would benefit you, so if it does benefit you, you lose". I don't buy that. In what circumstances would 72C not apply?

I don't think I'm saying that. What I'm saying is that by making an insufficient bid I have created a natural 2C overcall where one didn't exist before. It wouldn't surprise me if this worked to my advantage, even more so if partner had been a passed hand (which I know is not the case here).

 

By contrast, if I tried to open 1C and then found my RHO had already opened 1D, if I now chose to overcall 2C with a 3334 hand in order to avoid barring partner and it turned out very well, I don't think I could have expected that. Generally Insufficient Bids are likely to work out badly, but when it could be anticipated that barring partner would be to our advantage then I think we should be considering 72C.

 

One time I did use it (under the old laws) was when a Blackwood sequence proceeded:

 

4NT-5S

5H

 

corrected to 5NT, silencing partner when they were missing two aces.

[Vampyr]

I don't think I'm saying that. What I'm saying is that by making an insufficient bid I have created a natur 72C.

 

One time I did use it (under the old laws) was when a Blackwood sequence proceeded:

 

4NT-5S

5H

 

corrected to 5NT, silencing partner when they were missing two aces.

 

How old were these laws? I think you would fall foul of L23, whatever it is called now, under the previous two versions of the laws at least.

[gordontd]

How old were these laws? I think you would fall foul of L23, whatever it is called now, under the previous two versions of the laws at least.

Sure, but under the current laws there might have been other non-barring options (though not any that would get you to 5NT).

[blackshoe]

I don't think I'm saying that. What I'm saying is that by making an insufficient bid I have created a natural 2C overcall where one didn't exist before. It wouldn't surprise me if this worked to my advantage, even more so if partner had been a passed hand (which I know is not the case here).

It wouldn't surprise you because you've thought about it as a director, I suspect. And if you pointed it out to a player after the fact he would probably acknowledge that he now would not be surprised about it working to his advantage if he did it again. But I'd bet he'd be very surprised if you told him you were ruling on the basis that the thought might (should?) already have occurred to him.

 

It seems like after 1♣-1♣ a player must be aware (or be made aware) that choosing a 2♣ correction might very well subject him to score adjustment under 72C. In such a case it would seem incumbent on the director to tell him that, or at least to read him the law, before he chooses his correction. I've never seen a director do that.

[Vampyr]

It wouldn't surprise you because you've thought about it as a director, I suspect. And if you pointed it out to a player after the fact he would probably acknowledge that he now would not be surprised about it working to his advantage if he did it again. But I'd bet he'd be very surprised if you told him you were ruling on the basis that the thought might (should?) already have occurred to him.

 

It seems like after 1♣-1♣ a player must be aware (or be made aware) that choosing a 2♣ correction might very well subject him to score adjustment under 72C. In such a case it would seem incumbent on the director to tell him that, or at least to read him the law, before he chooses his correction. I've never seen a director do that.

 

Any player could have been aware. And in this case, why did the player choose to bid 2♣? He thought it might be to his advantage to do so. Thus even with the ludicrously high bar you set, 72C has been satisfied.

[gordontd]

Any player could have been aware. And in this case, why did the player choose to bid 2♣? He thought it might be to his advantage to do so. Thus even with the ludicrously high bar you set, 72C has been satisfied.

Choosing 2C is not the infraction. Bidding 1C is.