Insufficient bid with added complication
One from last night at the club:
East (third in hand) opens 1H, S passes, W also bids 1H. Opps point out this is insufficient and before anyone can call the director W "corrects" to 2D. (This is not a typo). N declines to accept the 1H bid.
As I read Law 27, a) the 2D bid has to stand (27C, Premature Replacement) and b) E is barred from bidding again (27B(2)). N/S felt this was harsh and offered to ignore the 2D bid and allow W to go back to correcting his insufficient bid, i.e. either bid 2H without penalty or bid anything he liked while silencing partner.
I said that this was not in strict accordance with the Laws but if both N and S were agreeable I would accept it.
1) Was my original ruling correct?
2) Is it a) correct procedure (I'm sure it isn't) and/or b) acceptable in practice, at a club of less than expert standard, to compromise with the laws at players' request in this way?
Comments
Alan
If NS wanted to let EW off, why didn't they just accept the 2D bid? [Edit - this is incorrect, see below]
@gordonrainsford said:
Is that actually an option within the law?
I hadn't a clue without checking the law book, but as far as I can see by strict law the 2D has to stand whether N likes it or not, and E has to pass.
As it happened, when I offered North the choice of accepting 1H, he replied "No, and I'm not accepting 2D either", which saved me the trouble of looking it up.
I think NS's view was that while they didn't want to overlook the irregularity altogether, they didn't want to force E into the position of having to pass a bid his partner may have intended as forcing.
In this situation, I always take the opportunity to point out to the player that it would have been in their best interest to call the TD before trying to correct it themselves when something goes awry.
@Tag said:
I did not omit this opportunity
Gordon, this is very interesting, and I am confused (not for the first nor I doubt the last time).
I would never have guessed this applies after an IB.
Had it been a call out of rotation I know that Laws 30, 31, and 32 include a refer-back to Law 25 applying in certain cases (30 B 2; 31 C; 32 C).
Given that there is no such refer-back in Law 27 I had assumed that Law 27 C was the be-all and end-all of dealing with the specific case of a change made to an insufficient bid.
I would have ruled that as 27 C says "the (premature) substitution, if legal, stands unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A1 allows (but see B3 above)" so I wouldn't have seen the need for LHO to accept 2D as it had already stood as accepted under Law 27 C
I would then have carried on and executed the last sentence in 27 C "The Director applies the relevant
foregoing section to the substitution".
In this case I'd have thought that the relevant foregoing section was 27 B 2: "except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26B may apply, and see Law 72C."
I am probably missing something rather obvious.
I am not trying to be awkward - I'd just rather get to the bottom of this in discussion here before I have to do it at the table.....
Peter Bushby Suffolk
I must admit I would have thought the specific instructions for the correction of an IB (Law 27) would take precedence over the general allowing of acceptance of a changed call.(Law 25).
@Peter it's perfectly simple.
Well no, it's slightly complicated, but I think my reading of the Laws is identical to yours.
2D SHOULD unquestionably have stood as the bid, bidder's partner excluded from bidding in the rest of the auction.
I tend to think, though, that in the circumstances as outlined above my decision was the best on the spot. No club wants to discourage inexperienced players, or indeed good sportsmanship.
Glad I didn't stop to check out Laws 30, 31 and 32 as well, or partner and I might have had to play the whole of the next round at coffee break as well as the one board we missed while I was adjudicating the one in question.
A director's life is not a happy one
([bottom F] Happy one)
I agree that's it's difficult when faced with inexperienced players who have no idea what the fuss is about, however I think it's counterproductive, even dangerous, to be pick and choose when to apply laws.
One of the reasons the director is there is so "someone else" is applying the penalty rather than the opponents, so the opponents don't come across as "bad sports".
Another (and IMHO more important) reason is so that there is no pressure on opponents to waive or reduce the penalty. As soon as that starts happening it becomes expected and anyone insisting on their due restitution becomes a bad sport.
Think about it this way: Would you ever consider not applying the automatic penalty for a revoke? Probably not. Why is this case any different?
A good director can handle such a situation with tact and diplomacy, explaining that they have no choice, that everyone does it (IB, COOT, OLOOT, Revoke...) from time to time and it's nothing to feel bad about - you get the idea.
The time to be lenient is when inexperienced players don't follow correct procedure but there is no penalty or restitution (not using stop card, removing bidding cards early), or when the laws allow (e.g. Law 50: A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates
otherwise).
There's no mention of what 2D meant. I can't see why Law 27 doesn't allow it to stand without penalty IF it shows 4- card heart support (4-card Drury).
I have no idea what 2D meant (and I don't think the bidder did either as it had very little relevance to his actual holding), but I am reasonably confident the gentleman in question has never heard of Drury.
The more I think about it, I'm not convinced that you are wrong, even though it would not have occurred to me to go down that route. We all accept that 25A 'trumps' Law 27. Is there anything in the laws that suggests that 25B can not?
Even if it is a permissible route, I think it must be made clear that it is an additional option, not replacing the 27C option (whereas, as an aside, if 25A applies, it is not an option to apply law 27, unless of course the intended call was also insufficient!)
By saying "I do not accept [the IB]", LHO is not saying that they are accepting the second call under 25B; they are saying they do not wish to apply 27A1. (I don't believe that you were suggesting otherwise).
I would, in that case, go down the 27C route, which seems sufficiently prescriptive, without offering the alternative to LHO. But if LHO knows the rules & suggests that he can accept the replacement call under 25B, I'm not convinced that I would argue against him.
Note (1) that under 25B, there are still potential rectifications under Laws 26 and 16B
Note (2) I can't see anybody else having mentioned Law 81C5. This seems entirely appropriate for the situation.
81C5 includes "in his discretion" - at club level I would have no problem in exercising this option.
As I see it, 81C5 gives us the opportunity for LHO to accept the second call without applying rectification (& without resorting to 25B).
Going back to the original post: The question was whether TD can allow LHO effectively to change his mind about accepting the IB. He made this decision without being aware of the full consequences, and I might argue (if i wanted to) that I made an error as TD in not explaining all the consequences before this decision (although my guess is that it wasn't TD error at all, as LHO jumped in with "I don't accept" before TD had a chance to explain!)
Can I allow LHO to change his decision on this basis?