Insufficient bid
E/W are playing a system where:
Opening bid of 2D = weak in H
Opening bid of 2H = weak in S.
N opens 2S (weak).
E, not noticing, bids 2D.
Do we allow E to change his bid to 3H under 27B 1 (a), lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination, even though it shows a different hand strength from the IB, and wait to adjust under 27 D later if necessary, or do we consider the 3H replacement not acceptable as a comparable call and bar partner from further bidding?
If we allow the 3H bid can we caution his partner not to use the UI, because 27B 1 (a) says that in this case law 16C does not apply.
Comments
As I understand it 3H is totally acceptable as it specifies the same denomination as the IB at the lowest available level, which is a requirement of a correction to an insufficient bid whether or not it is strictly comparable (27B1(a)); however NS could be awarded an adjusted score if W subsequently bids as if aware that his partner is limited to the strength of a Weak Two (27D).
I would appreciate the input of more experienced heads as to whether I've got that right.
It is correct that he can bid 3H under 27B1a and that the UI rules do not apply here. The grounds for adjusting are if the pair reach a favourable contract that they wouldn't otherwise have reached without the assistance of the infraction.
So it's ok for the player's partner to play the 3H bid to be below the usual strength and to pass on that basis, but if they don't have a way to get to play in 3H in a normal auction (eg via a fourth-seat takeout double and Lebensohl), then you would adjust.
How do we know E intended to bid a weak 2 Heart opener rather than overcalling diamonds and just getting the level wrong? (I know we can ask or look at the hand but that's not the point).
The meaning (as opposed to the intended meaning) of an insufficient bid is by nature undefined (in fact it's probably illegal to have a meaning ascribed to an IB). In this case the IB could mean Hearts and it could mean diamonds. So in 27B1a, what denomination does " if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call," refer to? Do we take account of bidder's intention? We don't elsewhere.
I note that E didn't notice the 2S bid. How are we aware of this? If he stated so, then isn't that UI to W?
I also find it interesting that even if E gives no indication of why he IB'd, the directors determination that his replacement bid meets the requirements of 27B1a necessarily gives that information to W.
I realise I am being excessively pedantic here, and I accept that 27D is the way for non-offenders to get redress, but I do find the laws tend to assume that the meaning of an IB is well defined, when often it is not.
East could correct to either 3D or to 3H, either being "making it good" in the suit shown.
Yes he can - although 27D will still apply i.e. if his side gains through the correction and he would not have made the call normally then we work out what would have happened after the 2 !s call by north and a pass by East.
Since the IB could have referred to diamonds or hearts, the replacement call will make clear which. i.e. if the player rebids 3 !d it is pretty clear that the 2 !d was intended to show diamonds. Note that we could even use a comparable call ruling if the replacement call is one similar to the meaning of a meaning attributable to the withdrawn one. In this case the law (27) does not mention that 26b (lead restrictions) do not apply, but law 23 states that there is no further rectification - so I assume that means that 26b won't apply that way.
With regards to the UI - well 16C excludes UI arising from the withdrawn call. Whether that extends to the reason stated why the call was made is open to question - which is why a TD should take the player away from the table to ascertain the reasons for the call. The legal auction is AI, so the fact that his replacement call has been accepted by the TD as either being the lowest showing the same denominations etc is AI.
My OP was intended to clear a specific doubt that I had about a situation where a correction to 3H, although technically and legally permissible, but is not a comparable call, should be allowed without barring partner and without invoking Law 16C.
In order to focus on the key point I made assumptions about the meaning of the 2D bid and why it was made.
That question has been answered.
In practice, if such a situation arose, I imagine the TD would take E away from the table and ask him what his intention had been.
Pretty certain he should - since it could even have been an unintended bid.
I am beginning to think there are a lot of benefits of 'electronic' bridge to play the game - but regrettably it would lose the social interactions which, for many at a club, is also important.
Of course we could always use just one bidding box per table. No calls out of turn, no insufficient bids. Could still get an illegal double though!
I met a visiting couple from the US who combine the two - they play as a foursome with another couple but instead of using cards each one has an ipad on which they play BBO, sitting together at a table.
We might need a lot more passes and double cards though - and if the box were dropped ..... Maybe we could combine it with a chess clock (4-way).
Actually, I think using a single bidding box with my beginners class might work quite well...
And of course a lazy Susan!
Might be an idea (if possible) to make the contents a bit larger so they are easy to pull out - I mean we use large cards for bridge tuition don't we?
There was an article in English Bridge a few years ago advocating this. Unfortunately, because the issue was dated 1 April, lots of folks assumed it was an April Fool's Joke! :3
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
You could always reprint it - just in time for this year's April edition :)
It would only work to prevent insufficient bids if the bid and the lower bids were picked out (as most do with their own bidding box). So you end up with perhaps 30 bids in four piles round the table - which dummy(?) has to sort back into order for the next auction.
Tablets are the obvious solution, but for the fact that so many players seem to think that handling bits of pasteboard is a significant part of playing cards.
I think for beginners, to emphasise the ranks of the suits and the concept of a superseding bid, it would work quite well. I'll let you know :)
Regarding the bidding, I’d be interested to know whether either or both used Stop bids whilst bidding. A stop bid by N would normally be followed by a required pause by E. A Stop bid by E would give stronger support for his intended bid (i.e. that E had not seen the opening bid).
Would the Stop bids or lack of them influence the decision by the TD.
Hi, good to hear from you.
My question was not from a real life situation, it was a hypothetical one seeking clarification on whether the correction bid that meets the requirement of being the lowest sufficient bid that specifies the same denomination as specified by the IB, but is not a comparable call in the sense that it has a similar meaning, would be acceptable.
As an example, if N bids 1S and E makes an IB of 1H, the latter can be corrected to 2H without barring partner because an overcall of 2H conveys similar information to that of an opening bid of 1H. But if N opens a weak 2S and E bids a weak 2H as an IB, a correction to 3H is not the same thing.
To rule under 27B1a it does not need to be comparable- it simply needs to be the lowest bid that specifies the same denomination/s.
There is a useful section on what is meant by the same denomination in the recently published commentary on the Laws.
The Laws Commentary is indeed useful. But doesn't it consistently make the same assumption that JeremyChild comments on above that we know what the IB meant, even though by law it can have no agreed meaning? So should the TD pretty much always take the player away from the table and ask him what he thought he was doing?
This is one of the issues I want to raise at the EBL TD course in Antalya in a couple of weeks.
There are two items in the commentary which raise questions in my mind.
1) 'In respect to Law 27B1(a), for partner not to be barred, the replacement call needs to specify the same type of feature in that same denomination'.
The commentary is silent on the need for the replacement call to bear a similar relationship to hand strength. Is this intentional or could it be an oversight?
2) 'The intention is to allow the auction to continue normally if the insufficient bid does not carry disturbing unauthorised information'.
Would not the replacement bid of 3H in the example given by me be deemed to carry 'disturbing unauthorised information', considering that it shows a distinctly stronger hand than the original 2H?
I think it's clear that it's no oversight if you read the whole of the sections on Laws 23 and 27. It's fine for the strength of the calls not to match, but you have 27D available to adjust afterwards if necessary.
Thanks for the clarification.