Insufficient 1NT bid corrected to 2NT
In an auction along the lines - 1H - 2C- 1NT (corrected to 2NT), Law 27B1 seems to indicate that there is no restriction on the offender's partner's actions. However, as he/she knows that 2N is 6-9 rather than say 10-12pts, he/she would appear to have UI and should bid 3N with around 15pts. Or does this fall under 27D with the TD being pro-active in studying the offender's partner's hand?
If there is such an obligation, is it in order to advise the offender, particularly if inexperienced, and away from the table, of this possible complication?
Comments
27D may indeed apply and the director may adjust the score.
The commentary to the 2017 laws makes it clear that: "the information from the insufficient bid remains authorized, i.e. partner is allowed to take into account that there are at most 9 HCPs in the responder’s hand."
This seems wrong but it is the law.
27D is not about restoring equity after use of UI (there is no UI) but removing "unintentional" advantages gained from the infraction.
Advising players of the laws is always a tricky one. Explaining the options after an infraction is fine, but advising can easily go too far.
In this case explaining potential consequences of 27D (IMHO) comes under the category of "too hard" so I wouldn't do it. Players are expected to know the law.
I assume that 2C is an overcall and the 1NT/2NT is by responder.
There is no UI. Opener is allowed to bid as if 2NT = I wanted to bid 1NT and now bid 2NT to keep the auction open.
If they make 2NT for a good score and would not reach 2NT without the insufficient bid, the TD should adjust to the outcome without the insufficient bid: e.g. 1H-(2C)-P(P)-X-P-2D/2H-P. or perhaps 1H-(2C)-X-(P)-2D/2H-...
I don't understand why there is no UI. The insufficient bid gave a different message to the replacement. If the auction had gone 1H (2C) 2NT then assuming 2NT was natural I would raise opposite what I thought was 10-12. If I know it is less because of the insufficient bid why am I not in receipt of information gained other than by a legal call?
Because that's what the law says.
OK technically it is not AI (as it does not meet the definition in 16A1) but it is not illegal to use it as Law 27B1(a) specifically says that Law 16C does not apply.
On the face if it this seems absurd, and a possible unexpected consequence of interaction laws not being thought through, but (as I referred to in my earlier post on this thread): The commentary to the 2017 laws makes it clear that: "the information from the insufficient bid remains authorized, i.e. partner is allowed to take into account that there are at most 9 HCPs in the responder’s hand."
By the way, that's a direct quote referencing exactly this situation (1NT replaced by 2NT).
For whatever reason, the effect of this law in this particuler circumstance is intentional.
I think the commentary is just that i.e. someone's (albeit, in general, knowledgeable) opinion. However there is clearly UI here however some lawmakers view it. Those who suggest not seem to have a most peculiar view of what UI actually is. My calls should be based on what I can glean from my hand, my partner's bids, our agreements. I've come by the 6-9 points information by a means other than this (an infraction) so whatever the examples are and whatever the rulings have been I'd still like to hear why this is not a UI. situation and "because we say so" by some people who have written a commentary is not IMO good enough.
The commentary I refer to is the one issued by the WBF Laws Committee to accompany the release of 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. The laws the same committee produced.
Whilst the commentary is "not part of the 2017 Code" (their words) I think it merits being considered as more than "someone's opinion".
Although ridiculous it clearly does but, of course, there are some weasel words at the end directing one to 27D where if the offending side is damaged a change can be made by the TD. If the offending side had used the information which came to one of them via an infraction then as the non offending side I would be saying, loudly, that some rectification should be made. That covers the law but it does not cover what on earth the lawmakers though they were doing with regard to this not being UI when by any sensible definition it is.
Law 27D awards redress for damage for the original infraction, not for damage for using the information from the infraction/rectification.
High on the list for change in the next version of the laws then
I also agree with Jeremy69 - the law does not seem sensible and is an exploitable loophole: players can deliberately bid insufficient 1NT responses without any real penalty. 27B1(a) says:
2NT is the same denomination but it has a different point range and therefore different meaning. Does removing "and 16C" from the above sentence solve the problem? Does it introduce other problems? A new clarification is required when TD explains the options to the offender: If the bid is corrected to a sufficient bid of same denomination then partner must ignore the insufficient bid.
In this case there appears to be no comparable call so offender will either mislead or silence partner.
A similar example of exploiting this loophole:
N - E - S - W
1H - 2S - 3H - P
?
2S is weak. For many players 3H is ambiguous - is it invitational to 4H or just a competitive raise? North with a half-decent hand doesn't know whether to go to four. However with a weak hand South could willfully bid insufficient 2H and correct it to 3H - North knows this is just a weak raise so passes. The worst that can happen is that the score is adjusted back to 2S which was probably going to happen anyway.
To play devil's advocate a bit, I don't mind the law as written. There's a question of emphasis, we have law 27 available if a pair does gain through the infraction, and most of the time the UI from the insufficient bid won't be that important, allowing law 16 would be a stronger sanction. I believe there was an intent when writing this set of the laws to, where possible, allow players to play 'normal' bridge rather than have to try to place the final contract for fear of barring partner (for instance, just punting 3NT because partner is barred. Few would argue this is desirable). While imperfect, the current law is line with this objective.
I'd further note that deliberately making an insufficient bid with intent to gain is almost certainly worthy of further sanction in and of itself. And it's likely to get noticed, even a careless pair has a very low rate of insufficient bids.
I agree it is worthy of sanction, but what and how? It feels like UI but (if properly explained) is not.
72B1 says a player can't break the laws deliberately, even if they're willing to bear the penalty, so this is definitely an infraction. 72B1 prescribes no penalty or rectification, though, and neither does the White Book 2022.
12A1 allows an adjusted score in favour of a non-offending contestant when the Laws do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed, so we could use this, but on what basis would you rectify?
On the basis of their violation of 72B1. That's exactly why 12A1 exists.
If players attempt to do this deliberately, they need to be aware
1. The opponents may accept the insufficient bid and your side will not know what the insufficient bid and subsequent bids mean
2. They may have a competent TD who applies Law 27D
3. They may have an experienced TD who applies other laws and penalties
4. They may have a lesser TD who does not allow the intended comparable replacement
Perhaps I should clarify:
By "on what basis would you rectify?" I'm referring to what exactly you would adjust the score to? Ok so you need a real example, but of all the situations I can envisage, none have an obvious "adjust to this" about them.
Well, I think you'd adjust the score based on 27D, if appropriate to the situation.
Then if you thought there might be something further going on beyond the usual entirely unintended insufficient bid, you'd consider whether you wanted to invoke 72B1 or 12A1. We'd likely be looking at some form of disciplinary penalty rather than an adjustment.
In practice, if there was a second fishy looking case with the same pair they'd probably get a warning, a notification of 72B1, and you'd fill out a record of hand form (remembering to tell them this). Which for the vast majority of pairs would be the end of it. For the reasons noted by Robin, it's not a particularly effective plan in the first place.
I stand corrected (I missed it first time round). WB2022 2.8.2 bb advocates a DP for "Deliberately and knowingly breaching the laws".
That should do it.
Is the club director training course book consistent with the above discussion? That gives the example of 2S (weak) opening, 1NT overcall (with 14 points) corrected to 2NT. Overcaller's partner passes with 9 points and 8 tricks are made for a good score. The book says that it should be adjusted to 3N-1, whereas it seems to follow from Robin Barker's post above that it should be altered to whatever would have happened if the overcall hadn't been made. The book also says 'North is quite entitled to make the bid on a weaker hand but South must not allow for this possibility in the subsequent auction'. Surely if the information isn't unauthorised then South can allow for the possibility.
The scope and application of Law 27D was subject to different interpretation in the early days of comparable calls - Max Bavin changed minds with reference to the so-called 'Prague Case'. The club training course material may fail to reflect the current interpretation.
The adjustment is under Law 27D. The last sentence of that law part is
Which supports my adjustment.