Rule Change for Insufficient Bid

[barmar]

A bid (any bid) is not UI because it is not I. It's a bid.

Is it really necessary to bring this up in every discussion of UI and MI? The distinction between the I and the action that transmits the I is practically never significant, so it's not unreasonable to conflate them.

[BudH]

A bid (any bid) is not UI because it is not I. It's a bid.

A bid is UI if it is a withdrawn bid by partner and partner has not yet made a comparable call (or cheapest bid showing same denominations for insufficient cases).

[blackshoe]

Le sigh. Put it bluntly, the difference is significant to me. If you don't think it matters, well, you're entitled to your opinion.

 

Bud: No. Same objection as in my original post.

[BudH]

Le sigh. Put it bluntly, the difference is significant to me. If you don't think it matters, well, you're entitled to your opinion.

 

Bud: No. Same objection as in my original post.

Ed, not sure to what you are objecting. My contention of Laws 30B1(a) and Law 31B1 stating UI law applies to offender’s partner until offender makes his next (legal) call which the Director will judge to be comparable or not?

[fromageGB]

The only players who have information about 1-level responses on their CCs are those who play transfer responses, and they also should alert these bids.

Alerting doesn't help. If it starts 1♣ 1♦ 1♦, opener is not going to alert, so nobody may be aware they are playing transfer responses. Then when offender corrects to 2♦, which therefore after already having shown hearts, carries some additional information such as a diamond suit with four hearts, or an XYZ type GF, nobody other than opener knows. It seems wrong that the rule is assisting the passing of UI.

 

Surely in every instance of such corrections the director MUST check methods, even if the initial thought in this case may be to wave "play on".

[blackshoe]

Ed, not sure to what you are objecting. My contention of Laws 30B1(a) and Law 31B1 stating UI law applies to offender’s partner until offender makes his next (legal) call which the Director will judge to be comparable or not?

No. What you said is "A bid is UI if…" You have, as Barry put it, conflated UI with an action (a bid) that may have conveyed UI. Barry thinks this doesn't matter. I think it does. Sloppy thinking begets bad rulings.

[BudH]

No. What you said is "A bid is UI if…" You have, as Barry put it, conflated UI with an action (a bid) that may have conveyed UI. Barry thinks this doesn't matter. I think it does. Sloppy thinking begets bad rulings.

Yeah, Ed, I know you and I don't agree on this.

 

In my opinion, I think knowledge partner attempted to make a call (which was illegal and withdrawn) all by itself is UI even without knowledge of what the withdrawn call happened to be.

 

And knowing the specific call that was withdrawn is even more information about offender's hand that offender's partner is not entitled to possess.

[barmar]

Yeah, Ed, I know you and I don't agree on this.

 

In my opinion, I think knowledge partner attempted to make a call (which was illegal and withdrawn) all by itself is UI even without knowledge of what the withdrawn call happened to be.

 

And knowing the specific call that was withdrawn is even more information about offender's hand that offender's partner is not entitled to possess.

He's not arguing against that. He's just saying that the withdrawn call transmitted UI, not that it is UI.

 

E.g. when someone is speaking, their words aren't information in themselves, they just transmit information.

[bixby]

The offender's comment "I didn't see the intervening bid" is UI, isn't it? Shouldn't the offender's partner be required to ignore information gained from that comment? I would think that someone who makes an insufficient bid should remain silent as to why it happened, except if asked by the Director away from the table, although spontaneous explanations of the kind given here are common in practice.

 

And once again, I wonder whether it is appropriate for even the Director to ask why the insufficent bid was made. Is the Director required to, or even permitted to, accept the offender's answer to that question? The "meaning" of the insufficient bid could vary greatly depending on why it happened (e.g., offender didn't see the intervening bid; offender saw the intervening bid and thought she was cue-bidding over it), so it is very important information, but it seems a little fishy to let the offender shape the ruling by giving the reason. What is the proper procedure?

[jerdonald]

There may be several reasons for an insufficient bid.

1) pulled the wrong card.

2) didn't see the intervening bid.

3) thought the intervening bid was a diamond not a heart.

4) Partners have an agreement on what an insufficient bid

would show, real UI and illegal but possible under this rule.

5) etc.

 

I would think most offenders would opt for number 1 no matter what

the real reason.

 

If the director can't ask the offender why they made it then he

has to assume he knows why. Seems like the director is not only

making a ruling but in a way is participating in the bidding.

 

I still think the way they enforced the old rule worked quite well

and am still trying to figure out why they made this change.

[blackshoe]

The offender's comment "I didn't see the intervening bid" is UI, isn't it? Shouldn't the offender's partner be required to ignore information gained from that comment? I would think that someone who makes an insufficient bid should remain silent as to why it happened, except if asked by the Director away from the table, although spontaneous explanations of the kind given here are common in practice.

 

And once again, I wonder whether it is appropriate for even the Director to ask why the insufficent bid was made. Is the Director required to, or even permitted to, accept the offender's answer to that question? The "meaning" of the insufficient bid could vary greatly depending on why it happened (e.g., offender didn't see the intervening bid; offender saw the intervening bid and thought she was cue-bidding over it), so it is very important information, but it seems a little fishy to let the offender shape the ruling by giving the reason. What is the proper procedure?

Yes. Yes. Yes. It is. Required, no; permitted, yes. I'll address proper procedure later.

[blackshoe]

When the director is called to the table (Law 9), his first job is to find out why he was called. After that, he needs to gather all pertinent facts. Once he has the pertinent facts, assuming they are agreed by both sides, he rules according to the law.

 

The procedure for rectifying an insufficient bid is as follows:

 

Was the insufficient bid was out of rotation?

...Yes: Law 31 applies

....No: Explain that offender's LHO may accept the IB, in which case the auction continues with no further rectification, and that otherwise LHO must substitute a legal call, some of which will allow the auction to continue without further rectification and some of which will require offender's partner to pass throughout the auction.

....Does offender's LHO accept the IB?

........Yes. Auction proceeds, no further rectification. Law 27A.

.........No. Explain that if offender substitutes the lowest sufficient bid that specifies the same denomination(s) as the IB the auction proceeds without further rectification (Law 27B1{a}); if he substitutes a comparable call (Law 23) the same (Law 27B1{b}). Otherwise if offender substitutes a sufficient bid or a pass his partner must pass for the remainder of the auction (Law 27B2); if he attempts to substitute a double or a redouble (unless 27B1{b} applies) that call is cancelled, offender must substitute a sufficient bid or a pass, and his partner must pass for the remainder of the auction (Law 27B3). If the offender attempts to substitute another insufficient bid go back to line 3 (...No, explain...) but if the new IB is not accepted Law 27B3 applies (offender must substitute a sufficient bid or a pass; his partner must pass for the remainder of the auction (Law 27B4).

............Apply the appropriate law according to the previous entry and offender's choice of replacement call. If Law 12B1 (either sub-part) was applied, then if the director determines after the play (this means he must look at it, even if no one asks him to do so) that without assistance gained from the infraction the NOS was damaged because the outcome might well have been different, he shall adjust the score.

 

What is a comparable call?

Law 23A. Definition

A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it:

1. has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or

2. defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or

3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call.

So how does the director determine what meaning is attributable to the withdrawn call (in this case the IB)? He should take the offender away from the table and ask him what he was trying to do with the withdrawn call. The ACBL has produced some pretty decent videos on this.

[jerdonald]

Law 23A specifies some guidelines but in my post the bidding went

1D, 1S, 1S and the insufficient bidder was allowed to bid 1NT.

 

I don't see how 1NT is comparable with 1S unless you use the 23A.2 that

says "defines a subset of the possible meanings" which is about as open

ended and vague as it gets.

 

I still have the same question. What was wrong with, as I have always seen,

having the offender make the bid sufficient or passing?

[blackshoe]

I still have the same question. What was wrong with, as I have always seen, having the offender make the bid sufficient or passing?

That has not been the law in the 25 years or so I've been directing. So I'd have to ask where and when you've seen this, what would happen after offender makes the bid sufficient, and what would happen after he passes. If, as I suspect, after he makes it sufficient the auction proceeds without further rectification (the situation under the current laws)there's nothing wrong with that, but if, again as I suspect, after he passes, his partner is required to pass for the remainder of the auction (also the situation under the current laws) that's fine too as far as I'm concerned. But if those are the only two possibilities, well, the current law (and the previous one, and probably the one before that) is an attempt to get a "bridge result" at the table as often as possible, while still protecting the non-offending side. Prior versions of the law didn't do that very well, hence the change. Your version (make it sufficient or pass) hardly does it at all.

 

Yes, Law 23 is a bit complicated. That's why directors get paid the big bucks. :D

[VixTD]

The old law wasn't as simple as you suggest.

 

They've simply replaced "same meaning as or a more precise meaning" with the "comparable call" criteria. Both require the TD to determine the meaning of the insufficient bid, and compare that with the replacement.

The old laws required the TD to determine the intended meaning of the insufficient bid, the new laws require them to consider "attributable meanings". These are not necessarily the same thing.

 

The offender's comment "I didn't see the intervening bid" is UI, isn't it? Shouldn't the offender's partner be required to ignore information gained from that comment? I would think that someone who makes an insufficient bid should remain silent as to why it happened, except if asked by the Director away from the table, although spontaneous explanations of the kind given here are common in practice.

I don't think the director should allow such comments to restrict the set of meanings attributable to the insufficient bid. The TD should establish what meanings are attributable from the auction alone, and then tell the players the comments are UI to offender's partner, AI to the opponents.

 

And once again, I wonder whether it is appropriate for even the Director to ask why the insufficent bid was made. Is the Director required to, or even permitted to, accept the offender's answer to that question? The "meaning" of the insufficient bid could vary greatly depending on why it happened (e.g., offender didn't see the intervening bid; offender saw the intervening bid and thought she was cue-bidding over it), so it is very important information, but it seems a little fishy to let the offender shape the ruling by giving the reason. What is the proper procedure?

I would imagine this could sometimes help the director establish which meanings are attributable to the insufficient bid, perhaps by revealing something about their agreements that might otherwise have been unclear, but I don't think the intended meaning should be given any more weight than other attributable meanings.

[Vampyr]

In the auction 1NT-(2♦)-2♦, suppose the IB is accepted. If the original 2♦ bid was artificial, must the offender’s partner assume that the bid means diamonds? What if the original 2♦ bid had been natural? This matter does not seem to be addressed, and is pretty important.

 

There are serious problems, as others have noted, with the concept of the “meaning” of an insufficient bid. In the past such a bid could have “meaning” only if it were natural, and could be replaced without penalty only when the lowest bid to make it sufficient is also natural. As problems arise with each iteration of relaxing the Laws concerning insufficient bids, I wonder how long it will take for the DC to come full circle and realise that they should never have fixed what wasn’t broken.

 

In the meantime, I think that most of these occurrences will end up scored by a volunteer director who may of may not know what he is doing.

 

Why are the lawmakers so obsessed, anyway? Barring problems with vision or mobility, has anyone made more than one insufficient bid in the past, I don’t know, three years?

 

Bids out of rotation are also fairly rare, the most common being making the first call when you are not the dealer. And this call is most commonly pass.

[barmar]

Why are the lawmakers so obsessed, anyway? Barring problems with vision or mobility, has anyone made more than one insufficient bid in the past, I don’t know, three years?

 

Bids out of rotation are also retry rare, the most common being making the first call when you are not the other. And this call is most commonly pass.

We have a tiny club, about 6 tables these days. Yet I think our TD has to deal with an insufficient bid or bid out of rotation at least once every session or two. In a good sized tournament I'll bet there are quite a few of these rulings.

 

There are also quite a few occasions where the offender immediately claims that it was just a mispull and makes it sufficient. I know we should technically call the TD, but we usually don't bother.

[WellSpyder]

In the auction 1NT-(2♦)-2♦, suppose the IB is accepted. If the original 2♦ bid was artificial, must the offender’s partner assume that the bid means diamonds? What if the original 2♦ bid had been natural? This matter does not seem to be addressed, and is pretty important.

This seems rather a good question to me. I assume that in the absence of UI opener can attribute whatever meaning he thinks is appropriate to the IB. But suppose responder said something along the lines of "oops, I didn't see the 2♦ overcall". Now do we need a poll to decide what the LAs for opener are? Without the UI opener might wonder whether partner thought the overcall was 2♣, or perhaps they had an aberration and thought they were opening the bidding, or......

[Vampyr]

We have a tiny club, about 6 tables these days. Yet I think our TD has to deal with an insufficient bid or bid out of rotation at least once every session or two. In a good sized tournament I'll bet there are quite a few of these rulings.

 

Another reason to go back to a simpler and easier-to-apply policy.

[fromageGB]

Barring problems with vision or mobility, has anyone made more than one insufficient bid in the past, I don’t know, three years?

Yes. But no more than one a week!

[weejonnie]

If the 2 ♦ call COULD have meant diamonds or COULD have meant hearts then a call showing either of these would be OK - I think.