Another insufficient bid

[pescetom]

Yesterday I was dealer and the first round went : 1♦ (pass) 1♠ (1♥) :blink:

 

Question 1. If I were to accept the insufficient bid, could I now bid 1♠ myself ? I assume yes, but just to be sure.

 

As it was, I refused the insufficient bid, RHO nodded and substituted it with Double. I decided that this probably did us less damage than substitution with 2♥ and so accepted it.

 

Question 2. In case of substitution of 1♥ with 2♥, I would be obliged to accept the bid, but we would still retain our right to an adjusted score if the Director decides we were damaged? That's how I understand Law 27, just to be sure.

 

Question 3. Was a substition of 1♥ with Double admissable? Law 27 B3 says that "except as provided in B1(b) above, if the offender attempts to substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid the attempted call is cancelled.", and B1(b) says that "if the insufficient bid is corrected with a comparable call (see Law 23A) the auction proceeds without further rectification". So I guess it all comes down to 23 A1, "has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call". In their agreement, Double here promises 4+card ♥ and playability in ♣. That is certainly similar to 1♥, but is also a superset of the possible meanings, which seems contrary to the spirit of 23 A2.

 

Question 4. If the answer to 3 is no, would the Double be admissable had I initially passed instead of opening 1♦ ?

[HardVector]

Yesterday I was dealer and the first round went : 1♦ (pass) 1♠ (1♥) :blink:

 

Question 1. If I were to accept the insufficient bid, could I now bid 1♠ myself ? I assume yes, but just to be sure.

 

As it was, I refused the insufficient bid, RHO nodded and substituted it with Double. I decided that this probably did us less damage than substitution with 2♥ and so accepted it.

 

Question 2. In case of substitution of 1♥ with 2♥, I would be obliged to accept the bid, but we would still retain our right to an adjusted score if the Director decides we were damaged? That's how I understand Law 27, just to be sure.

 

Question 3. Was a substition of 1♥ with Double admissable? Law 27 B3 says that "except as provided in B1(b) above, if the offender attempts to substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid the attempted call is cancelled.", and B1(b) says that "if the insufficient bid is corrected with a comparable call (see Law 23A) the auction proceeds without further rectification". So I guess it all comes down to 23 A1, "has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call". In their agreement, Double here promises 4+card ♥ and playability in ♣. That is certainly similar to 1♥, but is also a superset of the possible meanings, which seems contrary to the spirit of 23 A2.

 

Question 4. If the answer to 3 is no, would the Double be admissable had I initially passed instead of opening 1♦ ?

1. Yes. My partner and I actually have an understanding that 1s here would be 3 card support and 2s with 4.

 

2. No. But you should notify the director as soon as the insufficient bid occurs, because in this instance, their partner is required to bid as if it was 2h and not 1h corrected. If the director feels that the partner of the offender bid inappropriately, they will adjust.

 

3. No. If the offender substitutes the bid for anything but a bid that indicates hearts (most of the time 2h), their partner is barred. At this time double is not allowed and is so stated in the rule governing this.

 

4. Still no. The bid is still insufficient and all the same rules apply.

 

P.S. I've been a director for 15 years now

[sanst]

1: yes.

2: yes to both

3: can’t be answered. You give insufficient information to answer the question of comparability. What was the IB’er thinking when he made the call, does double show both hearts and clubs in their system, if it was an overcall, how many hearts and how many hcp are shown etc. It’s up to the TD to decide whether the double is comparable and therefore admissible or not.

4: the same as 3.

This again makes clear that you need an independent director, who preferably knows his or her business. Directing by the players themselves is a sure way to problems, unless at least one of the players of each pair is a good TD and there is no other director available. But even then it can lead to a seriously unpleasant situation.

[steve2005]

You can see why double isn't even allowed here.

A clever partner could make an insufficient bid and not make it sufficient barring partner.

They instead substitute double ang get a penalty double that cant be pulled which might otherwise be takeout

[ahydra]

You can see why double isn't even allowed here.

A clever partner could make an insufficient bid and not make it sufficient barring partner.

They instead substitute double ang get a penalty double that cant be pulled which might otherwise be takeout

 

Sure, but then the TD just changes the score anyway after the hand, so there's little point.

 

ahydra

[blackshoe]

As the player next to call over RHO's insufficient bid, you have two choices:

 

1. Accept the IB, make a call, and the auction proceeds without further rectification.

2. Call the Director.

 

There is no third choice. If someone has called attention to the IB, you have only one choice: call the Director.

[barmar]

2. Call the Director.

Maybe I'm giving too much benefit of the doubt, but I interpreted the question as asking what the Director should rule when called, not about players making their own rulings.

[pescetom]

Maybe I'm giving too much benefit of the doubt, but I interpreted the question as asking what the Director should rule when called, not about players making their own rulings.

No, you're quite right.

Although the information below is useful too.

 

As the player next to call over RHO's insufficient bid, you have two choices:

 

1. Accept the IB, make a call, and the auction proceeds without further rectification.

2. Call the Director.

 

There is no third choice. If someone has called attention to the IB, you have only one choice: call the Director.

So if another player has called attention to the IB you can no longer simply accept the IB without calling the Director?

[pescetom]

3: can’t be answered. You give insufficient information to answer the question of comparability. What was the IB’er thinking when he made the call, does double show both hearts and clubs in their system, if it was an overcall, how many hearts and how many hcp are shown etc. It’s up to the TD to decide whether the double is comparable and therefore admissible or not.

4: the same as 3.

I did clarify what the double showed, and the rest of their agreements are fairly standard.

But let me hypothesise the entire information:

- 1♥ overcall shows 5+card, 8-17 HCP

- 2♥ non-jump overcall shows 6-card or good 5-card, 11-17 HCP

- double of 1♦ + 1♠ shows 4+card hearts and 3+card clubs, 8-17 HCP

- both sides NV

- IB'er was thinking that he needed to show his good 5-card hearts and that he was just strong enough to do so at the 1-level, forgetting that this would not be possible if his RHO did not pass.

 

What would you now decide about comparability, as TD?

[pran]

So if another player has called attention to the IB you can no longer simply accept the IB without calling the Director?

Correct.

[sanst]

I did clarify what the double showed, and the rest of their agreements are fairly standard.

But let me hypothesise the entire information:

- 1♥ overcall shows 5+card, 8-17 HCP

- 2♥ non-jump overcall shows 6-card or good 5-card, 11-17 HCP

- double of 1♦ + 1♠ shows 4+card hearts and 3+card clubs, 8-17 HCP

- both sides NV

- IB'er was thinking that he needed to show his good 5-card hearts and that he was just strong enough to do so at the 1-level, forgetting that this would not be possible if his RHO did not pass.

 

What would you now decide about comparability, as TD?

2♥ show the same suit as the IB and doesn’t restrict the partner, who might use the information from the IB. The TD awards an AS afterwards if this leads to damage for the NOS. Double is not comparable - 4+card hearts and 3+card clubs, 8-17 HCP is not a subset of 5+card, 8-17 HCP - nor has it the same meaning or purpose and is therefore inadmissible. Any other sufficient call is allowed, as is pass, but silences partner.

[pescetom]

2♥ show the same suit as the IB and doesn’t restrict the partner, who might use the information from the IB. The TD awards an AS afterwards if this leads to damage for the NOS. Double is not comparable - 4+card hearts and 3+card clubs, 8-17 HCP is not a subset of 5+card, 8-17 HCP - nor has it the same meaning or purpose and is therefore inadmissible. Any other sufficient call is allowed, as is pass, but silences partner.

 

Thanks, that's clear.

So what about question 4: if the bidding had gone P (P) 1♠ (1♥), would Double now be comparable? In this case, Double would be 4+card hearts 8-17 HCP without guaranteeing playability in the minors.

[gordontd]

Thanks, that's clear.

So what about question 4: if the bidding had gone P (P) 1♠ (1♥), would Double now be comparable? In this case, Double would be 4+card hearts 8-17 HCP without guaranteeing playability in the minors.

I don't think I know anyone who plays double like that.

[pescetom]

I don't think I know anyone who plays double like that.

Then you might not like to be my partner B-)

Our CC says that double over a major guarantees 4-card in the other major and suggests but does not promise playability in the remaining suits.

That's a masochistically honest version of how we and may others play it, although some profess otherwise and then claim that holding 4-card in the opponents' suit plus 3-2 in the minors was just an occasional deviation.

[gordontd]

Then you might not like to be my partner B-)

Our CC says that double over a major guarantees 4-card in the other major and suggests but does not promise playability in the remaining suits.

That's a masochistically honest version of how we and may others play it, although some profess otherwise and then claim that holding 4-card in the opponents' suit plus 3-2 in the minors was just an occasional deviation.

So you would double with an 8-count with four hearts but not with a 1345 hand of opening strength , or a very strong balanced hand, or a very strong one-suited minor hand?

[pescetom]

So you would double with an 8-count with four hearts but not with a 1345 hand of opening strength , or a very strong balanced hand, or a very strong one-suited minor hand?

Correct on the first two hands. I would also double 1H to show precisely 4-card spades. With the third and fourth I would double then bid, as you probably would (being beyond range to guarantee distribution).

 

The 3-card opening+ strength hands make for some heavy passes, difficult for both sides.

[sanst]

Thanks, that's clear.

So what about question 4: if the bidding had gone P (P) 1♠ (1♥), would Double now be comparable? In this case, Double would be 4+card hearts 8-17 HCP without guaranteeing playability in the minors.

This is answered by Ton Kooijman, WBFLC president, in his commentary to the 2017 Laws.

A take-out double normally does not show specified suits. When West opens 1♠ and North follows with 1♥, not accepted, we would not allow a change to double. We would allow a change to 2♥ with no further rectification. (If the convention card shows that such a double promises 4 hearts it is acceptable if the 1♥ opening bid - which North thought he was making – can be made with a 4-card suit, not if it promises a 5-card suit)

[pescetom]

This is answered by Ton Kooijman, WBFLC president, in his commentary to the 2017 Laws.

So double would be equivalent only if it shows 4-card and they were playing 4-card majors and player thought he was opening, not interfering. Thanks.

That's clear too, although one could argue that the difference in strength between 1♥ and 2♥ interference is more significant than the difference in length between 4+card and 5+card.

[sanst]

... one could argue that the difference in strength between 1♥ and 2♥ interference is more significant than the difference in length between 4+card and 5+card.

That’s irrelevant. The Laws allow the lowest sufficient bid in the specified suit. The information from the withdrawn call is AI to partner, but the TD has award an AS is the NOS is damaged.

[pescetom]

That’s irrelevant. The Laws allow the lowest sufficient bid in the specified suit. The information from the withdrawn call is AI to partner, but the TD has award an AS is the NOS is damaged.

 

Do you mean AI to partner of offender? He can use the knowledge that partner wished to bid at 1-level?

[sanst]

Do you mean AI to partner of offender? He can use the knowledge that partner wished to bid at 1-level?

That’s right. Law 27B1(a) says that Law 16C, whch makes the information from a withdrawn call UI to the partner of the offender, doesn’t apply. But if it damages the NOS, the TD should award an AS (Law 27D).

[pescetom]

That’s right. Law 27B1(a) says that Law 16C, whch makes the information from a withdrawn call UI to the partner of the offender, doesn’t apply. But if it damages the NOS, the TD should award an AS (Law 27D).

 

Thanks, I missed that. I guess the lawmakers thought that this was less disruptive than disallowing the replacement and less problematic than expecting offender's partner to treat the withdrawn call as AI, which would however seem to be more coherent with other laws.

[weejonnie]

Do you mean AI to partner of offender? He can use the knowledge that partner wished to bid at 1-level?

 

Law 27B1

 

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.

 

Law 26B is lead restrictions and law 16C is 'information from a withdrawn call' so the information is indeed AI. 'D' is shown below (There is limited additional information anyway since the same suit(s) are shown.)

 

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.

 

One example would be if a player overcalls 1NT (e.g. 1H - 2D - 1NT which may only show 6-9 points: he can replace the call with 2NT even though that may show 10-12 points (assuming the bid is natural and not showing a heart raise) and partner is allowed to carry on with the knowledge that the call only showed 6-9. e.g. not bid game with 15 points.

 

HOWEVER: suppose that 2NT makes exactly and there was no other bid that the offender could make. Now there could be damage and the TD will rule the contract back to 2C (or however he thinks the auction would progress afterwards if the 1NT bid hadn't been made - if that is better for the NOS.

 

(I may need advice here - the law says "had the insufficient bid not occurred" - I assume it does allow the offender to make a different call at this point.

[pescetom]

(I may need advice here - the law says "had the insufficient bid not occurred" - I assume it does allow the offender to make a different call at this point.

I imagine that as meaning "had the insufficient bid not occurred and a systemically consistent call been made" - where that call might be a bid in a different denomination from the insufficient bid and the replacement bid, or just pass if no such bid exists.

[blackshoe]

If responder had not made an insufficient bid, he might have made any legal call. So I suppose you have to look at what legal calls he might have made. Whether these calls would have to be consistent with their system I don't think the law says.