Insufficient Bid no comparable call
North opened 2H. West played 2 clubs, being 18-22 points and I was called to the table.
West said she she did not realise N has opened. She could not think of a comparable bid and did not want to bid 3 clubs. I said she could PASS but her partner would be barred from bidding.
North objected and said THATS NOT RIGHT, so I replied that I was not prepared to argue at the table. South, also a TD then accepted the call, I think she wanted to get on with the game and was not sure of my ruling.
My question is 1 Was I wrong and 2 Should north comment on my ruling at the table? She is a TD.
I found this information on one of the TD videos presented by Gordon.
Thanks to all that reply
Johnathan
Comments
The laws can not and do not guarantee there will be a comparable call in all cases of an insufficient bid. As a bridge problem, West could bid their long suit or bid NT if balanced, East will always be silenced.
Anyone at the table can politely ask if you are sure about your ruling and ask you to read the law.
If North's objection was aggressive (as 'objected' and CAPITALs suggest) then tell him to be calm, it is your ruling. If you are unsure of your ruling, you can ask North and/or South if they think you have the law wrong.
I think you should be less specific than saying "she could PASS" and might say "she could make any call except double..."
Thanks to both of you, but even if I had not suggested the pass, could West pass? Both your replies are great, it is probably obvious that I am recently new at directing and still run Gordon's videos before a session.
Yes, she (I think you meant East rather than West) can pass but this will bar her partner from bidding for the rest of the auction.
Note that in cases where it is a call out of rotation rather than an insufficient bid, the equivalent prohibition on partner is just for one round.
Yep - it's a pretty standard trip-up in TD simulations.
A similar situation: North opens 1NT announced 12-14, East passes, South fumbles the 2D bidding card(s) onto the table and immediately catches up with 2H which somehow got stuck in her fingers for a moment. Note: there was no objection to this as effectively only the 2H bid was made. No announcement from North. West passes. North, presumably not paying attention, bids 2H. East calls the playing director who is handling a 19 table movement for the first time. This is round 2. North and South both object wanting just to replace North's 2H with 2S. The TD turns up and clearly doesn't want to deal with the irregularity according to the Laws saying 'It's not the World Championships and the misbid wouldn't have happened without the mechanical error'. East asked the TD to make a ruling in accordance with the Laws. The TD said to East 'sort it out yourself' before walking off. The table agreed this was unsatisfactory and called the TD back (probably West). East suggested to the TD that North's bid wasn't a mechanical error so it would be proper to treat it as an insufficient bid. To save time and avoid further unpleasantness (directed towards East by the TD and later by North-South despite East's subsequent actions) East accepted the 2H and South was able to bid 2S and play the hand (9 tricks on almost any reasonable line of play declared by North or South). East presumably could have refused the 2H and, lacking a comparable call/sufficient bid in the same denomination below 3H, South would have played in 3S. As it happens it made no difference. I welcome comments on the eventual resolution but also the approach of the TD. There are plenty of members playing where the TD would never consider acting in this way if they had called the TD. Does the EBU have any sanction it can impose on TDs or Clubs where they persistently fail consistently to apply the Laws of bridge but instead do so arbitrarily according to who is playing at the table where an irregularity occurs?
I think, in this 1NT, 2H, 2H situation where it's obvious to everyone at the table that North was trying to accept a transfer rather than showing something about their own hand, 2S is a comparable call, under both Law 23A1 (it has the same purpose as the withdrawn call – accepting a transfer) and Law 23A2 (in most partnerships, there are very few hands which would bid 2S after 1NT, 2H that wouldn't bid 2H after 1NT, 2D – the ruling would be different if North is systemically forced to break the transfer with any hand with four-card support, and some partnerships do play that way, but for most partnerships transfer breaks over 1NT are very rare and the lack of a transfer break doesn't carry much information).
As such, by Law 23B, if East rejects the insufficient bid and North changes their bid to 2S there is no further rectification (other than the usual rectification, if any, for South having UI).
I can see an argument that the missed announcement makes it a little less obvious that North was trying to accept a transfer rather than bidding an insufficient 2H for some other reason, but a) I can't think of any other reason why the insufficient bid would be 2H in particular if North had interpreted it as natural, and b) a comparable call has to be comparable to a meaning "attributable to the withdrawn call", and accepting a transfer is a meaning that's attributable to the second 2H bid (especially if it's shown as a transfer on the system card), even if there might just about be other possible meanings.
There is no UI if a comparable call is made i.e. no obligation to carefully avoid taking advantage and selecting from calls not suggested by the additional information. If a benefit does accrue then it can be taken away, but it does not restrict actions at the table. In fact there is no UI if the call is replaced by the lowest one showing the same denomination(s) either.
In the 1NT 2H 2H auction, since the 2H (insufficient bid) shows nothing in particular then everything is a subset.
Rather than starting by invoking sanctions, we would be happy to discuss this further with the club or TD.
In response to the OP: would 2NT be a comparable bid? It specifies the same denominations (i.e. none) as the withdrawn bid.
Clubs is a denomination and so is no-trumps.
But the law refers to the denominations specified by the bid, not the denomination of the bid itself.
An opening (Acol, strong) 2C does not specify any suits. Does that make it specifying a NT denomination or none at all?
There are clearly bids that do not specify denominations (Blackwood 4NT and responses).
My understanding is that the law is written this way to allow for cases where the insufficient bid was conventional, so that for example after 1NT - (2S) - 2D (intended transfer) could be replaced by 3H (and not 3D). If I remember correctly the previous version just allowed for a bid of the same denomination.
I note that the OP referred to 3C not being desirable. Why would 3C count under Law 27B1(a)? It specifies clubs when the 2C doesn't.
It does raise the question: what denominations is a natural NT bid specifying? Does this even have a meaning?