Replacement for insufficient bid
North opens 1♣ (2+ cards in a 5-card major system), East interferes 1♦ (natural) and South responds 1♦ (natural 4+ cards) thinking that East has passed. South holds 10 HCP with 4 diamonds and 4 hearts. NS agreements after 1♣ (1♦) are that 1NT and 2NT are natural with a diamonds stop, a 2♦ cue is an invitational raise of clubs, a 3♦ cue is undiscussed.
West does not accept the insufficient bid.
Which (if any) replacement calls should TD consider acceptable under 27B1a and under 27B1b?
Thanks in advance.
Comments
They can accept any replacement bid that has the same (or more specific) meaning as could be understood by the insufficient bid.
For example, S may have seen the overcall of 1D and wanted to overcall 2, but pulled out the wrong card.
They may have been in a total snooze and wanted to open 1D
So they could now bid 2D (as the cue bid agreeing Cs)
1 and 2NT may also be accepted, as a 1D response would show 6+ points where 1NT would show a more specific point range (perhaps 8-10 say) so as the replacement bid is more specific about the point range it would be allowed. The only sticking point for that might be number of Ds shown - 1NT might be 3+ Ds say, where a 1D response might be 4+ as the replacement bid is less specific than the insufficient bid. However, I believe that the advice is to be lenient to allow a 'proper' bridge result to be obtained.
For what it is worth, I would accept 2D or 1 or 2NT. I am not sure about 3D, it might be depending on their agreements/understandings about cue bids generally.
Thanks.
Do you consider TD is not under an obligation to discover what S thought his bid meant?
He told the TD that he missed the interference thought he was responding to 1C after a pass.
Are you sure that 2D showing clubs is now admissable?
A 1D response would show 4+ cards of diamonds under their agreement. Are you sure that 1NT showing a diamonds stop of undefined length is comparable?
The point is that you can't give your partner any less information than the 1!d bid showed. 1!d is ambiguous as to whether it was 2!d bid at the wrong level, or 1!d bid on the wrong auction – replacing it with 2!d would presumably narrow this down to the former possibility, thus is allowed as comparable (even though this wasn't actually South's intent with the 1!d bid, North doesn't know that).
I agree that 1NT is borderline – 1!d without the interference shows length in diamonds, whereas 1NT shows strength in diamonds, which is not the same thing, but may be close enough to make the calls comparable.
Thanks.
If I understand correctly, you are effectively saying that the meaning of the bid is "one of the set of agreed meanings corresponding to 1D in each possible incomprehension by South" rather than the meaning which corresponds to the actual incomprehension by South. And that the TD has no duty to discover that incomprehension.
Is that an official EBU position? I ask because it is quite different from how the Law is interpreted by some other commentators, and does not seem in line with the WBF 2017 Laws Commentary which seems to assume that the meaning corresponds to the actual incomprehension. When they cite an example such as "1♣ - 1♠ - 1♥ (showing 4 or more hearts and 6+ high card points)" it seems clear that the meaning of the call has been limited by questioning the offender about his intention.
I also find it difficult to reconcile your position with the declared purpose of this Law, to allow the auction to continue normally if the insufficient bid does not carry disturbing unauthorized information: in this particular case North can and probably will guess that South's intent was to respond 1D after pass, thus gaining illicit but authorised information if 2D is now authorised (more often that not, the truth about South's intentions will emerge at the table before TD arrives anyway).
I agree with you that the commentary disagrees with my view here (e.g. 2017 Commentary 27B30 implies that (2NT), 2!s should be interpreted as having the same meaning as (1NT), 2!s, and we should look for a call comparable to that, rather than interpreting the call as showing spades – this seems strange to me as it seems entirely plausible that the 2!s bidder may have missed the 2NT bid entirely and is attempting to open a weak 2).
The fundamental issue, though, is determining what the meaning is of a call that isn't (and can't be) in the players' system. Perhaps the best option is to determine what the insufficient bidder's partner thought the insufficient bid was trying to show, and require the replacement to be comparable to that.
I know that I've seen insufficient bids alerted – the insufficient bidder's partner had figured out what the bid was meant to mean and let me know that it wouldn't be natural. (The bidding sequence in question was (2!s), 2!d, with the 2!d alerted as reverse Benji.) Perhaps that's a good way to get an idea of what information the partner understood from the comparable call.
Note that Law 27D allows an adjustment if the replacement of a call with a comparable call provides an advantage to the non-offending side.
As for your question about the "official EBU position", as opposed to my interpretation, you should look at WB 8.27.1 for the official EBU guidance on the matter. It doesn't have a firm opinion on the subject, but does say "Try to stop the offending player from saying anything – giving away less information sometimes increases the options open to them.", which seems to disagree with the Laws Commentary (if the offender's intentions were the only thing that mattered, giving away more information would have no effect on what calls were comparable).
I recall being shown some notes on the use of the phrase "meaning attributable to the withdrawn call" in 23 A1, which supported Martin's position. The Law doesn't actually reference the intent of the bidder, so if you can match a replacement call to a possible meaning it can be considered comparable.
Of course, players tend to give the game away, and it's going to be rare to see a player find a call comparable to a meaning other than the one he intended. the 1C (1D) 1D auction is probably a good example, if responder happens to have decent clubs they may well decide to cue despite having intended to show diamonds.
One related issue: even when a call is obviously comparable, it surprisingly often turns out to be a "psyche" (i.e. the bidder makes a comparable call even though it doesn't fit their hand). Presumably there's some implication that corrections of an insufficient bid might not be taken as seriously as the call normally would be.
Law 40B2a(iv) allows the Regulating Authority to decide whether partnerships can vary the meanings of their calls based on irregularities by the opponents. It strikes me that "psyching" a comparable call is, in effect, varying the meanings of your calls based on irregularities by your own partnership, and I can't find a specific Law banning that (normally Law 16 would work, but Law 27B1 overrides that, and Law 27D doesn't prevent gaining an advantage from the irregularity, it merely adjusts the score if the pairs reaches a result that's better than the result they would have reached without it). So it seems as though a pair can use knowledge gained from the comparable call mechanism to try to avoid a disaster and get back to the point they would have reached without the irregularity, which is at odds with how we handle pretty much every other bidding irregularity. Am I missing something here? (I hope I am!)
Going back to the original subject, I'm wondering whether 1!c, (1!d), 1!d 1NT avoids further rectification under Law 27B1a, as opposed to 27B1b; 1NT could be interpreted as the lowest available bid that specifies diamonds. Unlike 27B1b, 27B1a doesn't require the call to be comparable, merely to specify the same denomination. "Specify" isn't defined in the Laws, but I think a reasonable interpretation is that a 1NT bid here would specify diamonds (given that it shows strength in diamonds, and denies length in hearts, spades, and clubs).
Surely if S gives the game away (I didn't see the 1D), that is UI, with all the attendant consequences.
Director should, I believe, avoid asking about S's intent precisely because it is not relevant.
I think that there is normally some indication of the intent or cause of the problem stated to the table...
1C - (1D) - 1D
Everyone looks at the 1D bidder and someone likely says erm, that is an insufficient bid. Then the 1D bidder says something along the lines of, "Sorry I didn't see the overcall", or perhaps "Sorry, I thought I was the dealer" or whatever.
So, now the table has a more definite indication of what the 1D call was meant to mean.
If the correct process is followed, where the insufficient bidder says, "Sorry about that, lets call the director" - in this situation, we know not (and care not) what the 1D bid could mean. So the replacement call can cover any conceivable meaning for for the 1D bid.
In the earlier examples, where a statement of intent has been volunteered it has 2 effects - 1) there is UI and 2) we have narrowed down the possible meaning of the 1D call and as such (as far as I am concerned) the replacement bid would need to match that particular meaning or would not be comparable.
For example, in my system with a couple of partners, after 2C open, 2D is bid 100% of the time, as a relay. So after 2C - (2D) - 2D, then the 2D bid could be replaced with any sufficient bid or even pass, as each replacement will be covered by every possible meaning for the relay, but more specific.
From Law 23:
LAW 23 – COMPARABLE CALL
A. 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, in the original question of 1C - (1D) - 1D* not accepted...
What are the possible meanings attributable to 1D - as I have mentioned, it could have been a 1D open or 1D response (there may be others too?) So a comparable replacement call could be one showing an opening hand with Ds (perhaps 3NT for example).
Perhaps 1NT is also okay (a response of 1D might show 4+ Ds and 6-20 points, where a 1NT following the overcall might show 8-10 points with values and some length in Ds). Now we could say that 1D and 1NT are not the same, however, we are being asked to accept 'the same or similar meaning'(s), so I would tend to accept the 1D shows 4+ D and 1NT shows stops in Ds (which I would tend to think of as showing 3+ Ds with honours).
So that we can have a proper bridge result and not ask the responder to guess at the final contract (which is the whole purpose to this law), I would tend to accept close calls like that
Thanks all for your further and interesting replies.
Jeremy, S's intent is certainly UI to his partner but I do not see why it is irrelevant to TD (who could ask away from the table)? I agree that the truth is usually out anyway.
Sorry that I am busy on other things right now but will catch up in next few days if my tablet knows the password :)
The law says:
LAW 23 – COMPARABLE CALL
A. 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.
To my mind, the word "attributable" is what makes it unnecessary in many cases to find out the intent of the player, though I know that view is not universally held. Note that it does not say "that intended by the withdrawn call".
I probably prefer more than most to take a player away from a table, especially if the player hasn't blurted out too much at the table. If I know what the player was intending, it helps me to work out the replacement calls that would be Comparable for that intent and to be able to advise the player on whether his potentially intended replacement call is Comparable. It also helps me when we get back to the table and he makes his call that I can say straight away whether he has made a Comparable Call or not, and thus advise the players of any consequences of the replacement call.
Two things to be careful with away from the table: One is to avoid giving the player any bridge advice. The less we know about the player's actual hand, the better. The other, and I don't think I have ever found it an issue, is that if the player is thinking of a replacement call that would not be a Comparable Call for the intended meaning, then might it be a Comparable Call for some other attributable meaning?
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
The crux of it is that the other players at the table should not know more about the insufficient-bidder's hand after the replacement call has been made than if it had been made initially instead of the insufficient bid.
what about a completely different bid that prevents partner from bidding again? this is rarely considered
That's the outcome if a comparable call is not selected. It's usually the final option explained by the TD.