[swanway]

EBU

Can somebody please clarify Law 27 Insufficient Bid.

If the insufficient bid is artificial can it be corrected by a call that has the same meaning as the insufficient bid? Can LHO overrule this? Can you give me some examples.

[aguahombre]

I believe it can be replaced by a call with the same, or a more precise meaning..in any jurisdiction.

There still might be UI from the withdrawn call, however; another subject.

One example which seems to be o.k. from what I have read would be:

2C (2H) 2H.... Where replacing the IB with a double would also convey exactly what 2H meant; artificial and holding no controls.

[blackshoe]

Law 27A1 says "Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender’s LHO. It is accepted if that player calls." If that's what you mean by LHO "overruling" correction of the IB, then the answer to that question is yes. However, LHO must choose whether to accept the IB before Law 27B comes into effect. He cannot defer his choice until after he hears what correction the IBer will make. He is entitled to know what Law 27B says, though.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-01, 19:29, said:

Law 27A1 says "Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender’s LHO. It is accepted if that player calls." If that's what you mean by LHO "overruling" correction of the IB, then the answer to that question is yes. However, LHO must choose whether to accept the IB before Law 27B comes into effect. He cannot defer his choice until after he hears what correction the IBer will make. He is entitled to know what Law 27B says, though.

IMO he is not entitled to know what correction the IBer eventually will make in case the IB is not accepted, but he is entitled to know if the IBer has any bid available that will satisfy the conditions in L27B and thus not force the IBer's partner to pass for the rest of the auction. This is a consequence of Law 20F1: [...] He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. [...]

(The IBer is of course similarly entitled to know the ruling before selecting his option if that option will force his partner to pass)

[VixTD]

pran, on 2011-October-02, 03:27, said:

IMO he is not entitled to know what correction the IBer eventually will make in case the IB is not accepted, but he is entitled to know if the IBer has any bid available that will satisfy the conditions in L27B and thus not force the IBer's partner to pass for the rest of the auction. This is a consequence of Law 20F1: [...] He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. [...]

(The IBer is of course similarly entitled to know the ruling before selecting his option if that option will force his partner to pass)

I don't agree that the opposition are entitled to know if offender has a correction available that would enable partner to take further part in the auction. To know this, they would have to know what offender intended by the insufficient bid, and I don't think the director should be disclosing this. So:

2NT - 2♣

It may be unclear to the next player whether offender was trying to open 2♣, overcall 2♣ over 1NT, overcall 3♣ over 2NT, or anything else. They are not entitled to know what offender intended by 2♣, but they may ask about the opponent's agreements and find out that they are playing a 2♣ opening as e.g. Precision, or a weak two in diamonds or strong and artificial; Landy or Asptro over 1NT etc. and base a guess on that information.

The TD should find out from offender away from the table what was intended and tell him what corrections are available which don't silence partner, then return to the table, explain law 27B to everyone and then give offender's LHO the option of accepting the insufficient bid. If it's not accepted, offender corrects the bid and the TD says either "Carry on with the auction, there are no further penalties although it's possible I may have to award an adjusted score", or "Carry on with the auction, offender's partner has to pass throughout, there may be lead penalties if offender becomes the defending side..."

[pran]

VixTD, on 2011-October-04, 07:46, said:

I don't agree that the opposition are entitled to know if offender has a correction available that would enable partner to take further part in the auction. To know this, they would have to know what offender intended by the insufficient bid, and I don't think the director should be disclosing this. So:

2NT - 2♣

It may be unclear to the next player whether offender was trying to open 2♣, overcall 2♣ over 1NT, overcall 3♣ over 2NT, or anything else. They are not entitled to know what offender intended by 2♣, but they may ask about the opponent's agreements and find out that they are playing a 2♣ opening as e.g. Precision, or a weak two in diamonds or strong and artificial; Landy or Asptro over 1NT etc. and base a guess on that information.

The TD should find out from offender away from the table what was intended and tell him what corrections are available which don't silence partner, then return to the table, explain law 27B to everyone and then give offender's LHO the option of accepting the insufficient bid. If it's not accepted, offender corrects the bid and the TD says either "Carry on with the auction, there are no further penalties although it's possible I may have to award an adjusted score", or "Carry on with the auction, offender's partner has to pass throughout, there may be lead penalties if offender becomes the defending side..."

How does this comply with the principle that opponents are entitled to complete knowledge of the partnership's agreements (including available calls that were not used)?

They may have to guess the meaning of the IB (of course at their own risk), but with complete knowledge of agreements (as they are entitled to) they will (usually) be able to infer if a call is available that will not force the offender's partner to pass.

In the above example offender's LHO is (before deciding on whether or not to accept the IB) entitled to know the meaning of 2♣ both as response to 1NT and as an opening bid, and he is entitled to know the meanings of the complete set of calls available in response to 2NT.

[blackshoe]

And then, three hours later, after we go through all this, they can go on to complete the board, and then go home, because the event is over. They will, of course, get "not played" (illegally) on the boards they did not play.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2011-October-02, 03:27, said:

but he is entitled to know if the IBer has any bid available that will satisfy the conditions in L27B and thus not force the IBer's partner to pass for the rest of the auction.

I don't think that this is the current interpretation, and I think that that fact is scandalous. Perhaps the next edition of the Laws will provide a reward for making an insufficient bid.

[aguahombre]

Perhaps someone can explain how it could matter to LHO, when deciding whether to accept the insufficient bid, whether the I.B'r has a proper substitution available.

If he accepts the I.B., the auction proceeds. If he doesn't, the TD either allows or doesn't allow the substitution. It would seem that the only plus position of LHO accepting the I.B. would be if he wants bidding room; and there is no disadvantage when he lets 27B be applied.

[VixTD]

aguahombre, on 2011-October-04, 10:43, said:

Perhaps someone can explain how it could matter to LHO, when deciding whether to accept the insufficient bid, whether the I.B'r has a proper substitution available.

If LHO knows that offender has no penalty-free correction available they can force them to either take a punt at the final contract or give up competing at this point by refusing to accept the insufficient bid. They may, however, think it more advantageous to accept the insufficient bid if they know offender can correct it without penalty.

[VixTD]

pran, on 2011-October-04, 08:52, said:

How does this comply with the principle that opponents are entitled to complete knowledge of the partnership's agreements (including available calls that were not used)?

They may have to guess the meaning of the IB (of course at their own risk), but with complete knowledge of agreements (as they are entitled to) they will (usually) be able to infer if a call is available that will not force the offender's partner to pass.

In the above example offender's LHO is (before deciding on whether or not to accept the IB) entitled to know the meaning of 2♣ both as response to 1NT and as an opening bid, and he is entitled to know the meanings of the complete set of calls available in response to 2NT.

I don't understand your argument, Pran. I agree, as I said above, that LHO is entitled to know their opponents' agreements; they can ask all questions they like (within reason) about what 2♣ means in various different situations if they like, but they are not entitled to know what offender intended when they bid 2♣ insufficiently, and without this information they cannot know whether any correction can be made without penalty, so, as you say, they will have to guess.

I can't work out if we're in disagreement or not.