[lamford]

---

Butler IMPs. Table result 4H-1.

This was an interesting hand from a North London club last night. South opened 4H, and West, who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, made the insufficient bid of 1C and the TD was called. He correctly offered North the opportunity to accept the IB, but North did not, and West substituted a Pass, silencing his partner. This drifted only one off, when the defence failed to find their trump promotion, but EW were delighted to see that this was worth 17 IMPs as all Easts at other tables protected with 4S over 4H, met with a firm double from North, who collected +1400.

North wondered if he should have allowed the 1C to stand, but SB stated that he would then pass the forcing 1S response by East, and the psyche would be exposed. The TD came back again, and wanted to rule under either Law 27D or Law 23, but SB was prepared for both. He pointed out that 27D only provided for an adjustment after the application of 27B1, and the law that had been applied was 27B2. His partner was not on lead, so no lead restrictions applied (although he did mention that there was probably director error in not giving South the opportunity to insist on or prevent a club lead when East won the first spade; as both lead to one down as well, he saw no reason for an adjustment for this reason). He also pointed out that an insufficient bid was not an irregularity, which requires a deviation from correct procedure, and Law 18A indicates the "Proper Form" for all bids, and nothing in 18D suggests that an insufficient bid is an irregularity, just as nothing in 18C suggests that a sufficient bid is an irregularity. Both are legal, just as forcing and non-forcing bids are legal. He also pointed out that Law 23 only permitted an adjustment following an irregularity. The TD thought he was being duped, and wants to know how you would rule.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2015-March-06, 07:43, said:

---

Butler IMPS. Table result 4H-1

This was an interesting hand from a North London club last night. South opened 4H, and West, who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, made the insufficient bid of 1C and the TD was called. He correctly offered North the opportunity to accept the IB, but North did not, and West substituted a Pass, silencing his partner. This drifted only one off, when the defence failed to find their trump promotion, but EW were delighted to see that this was worth 17 IMPs as all Easts at other tables protected with 4S over 4H, met with a firm double from North, who collected +1400.

North wondered if he should have allowed the 1C to stand, but SB stated that he would then pass the forcing 1S response by East, and the psyche would be exposed. The TD came back again, and wanted to rule under either Law 27D or Law 23, but SB was prepared for both. He pointed out that 27D only provided for an adjustment after the application of 27B1, and the law that had been applied was 27B2. His partner was not on lead, so no lead restrictions applied. He also pointed out that an insufficient bid was not an irregularity, which requires a deviation from correct procedure, and Law 18A indicates the "Proper Form" for all bids, and nothing in 18D suggests that an insufficient bid is an irregularity, just as nothing in 18C suggests that a sufficient bid is an irregularity. Both are legal, just as forcing and non-forcing bids are legal. He also pointed out that Law 23 only permitted an adjustment following an irregularity. The TD thought he was being duped, and wants to know how you would rule.

I cannot bother to go into a discussion on this flagrant abuse of the laws, but will only point out that

Law 12A1 said:

The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

allows the Director to adjust the result to 4♠X E -5 +1400 if he fails to find a more applicable Law.

(I would not hesitate to use Law 23 which is explicitly addressed from Law 27B2 for the same result.)

[lamford]

 pran, on 2015-March-06, 08:06, said:

I cannot bother to go into a discussion on this flagrant abuse of the laws, but will only point out that

Quote

[Law 12A1]: The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

allows the Director to adjust the result to 4♠X E -5 +1400 if he fails to find a more applicable Law.

The problem with that is there was no violation. That is not defined in the glossary, so takes its normal English meaning, which is pretty much the same as infraction or infringement, probably a bit stronger. The problem with using Law 23 is that there has to have been an infraction. Could you advise me which Law indicates that an IB is an infraction?

Let us say that the Laws or RA's regulations say that:
a) A bid either one or more higher than the previous one in a higher denomination, or two or more higher than the previous one in a lower denomination is a jump (or skip) bid.
b) All other bids are not jump bids.
The "stop" card is to be used at the same time as all bids in a), but not in b), and held in view for 10 seconds.

You would not consider the bids of either a) or b) to be infractions. Why do you consider an insufficient bid to be an infraction?

[blackshoe]

The word "insufficient" implies that making such a bid is an irregularity.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2015-March-06, 08:29, said:

The word "insufficient" implies that making such a bid is an irregularity.

No it doesn't. It merely means that it is a bid that does not supersede a previous bid and does not designate either the same number of odd tricks in a higher-ranking denomination or a greater number of odd tricks in any denomination. I have just started playing the game. Where in the laws does it say that I must not make insufficient bids? Indeed 40A3 tells me: A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding. If the Laws intended that I can make any sufficient bid or play, they would have said so. Instead they go out of their way to say any call.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2015-March-06, 08:12, said:

The problem with that is there was no violation. That is not defined in the glossary, so takes its normal English meaning, which is pretty much the same as infraction or infringement, probably a bit stronger. The problem with using Law 23 is that there has to have been an infraction. Could you advise me which Law indicates that an IB is an infraction?

Let us say that the Laws or RA's regulations say that:
a) A bid either one higher than the previous one in a higher denomination, or two higher than the previous one in a lower denomination is a jump (or skip) bid.
b) All other bids are not jump bids.
The "stop" card is to be used at the same time as all bids in a), but not in b), and held there for 10 seconds.

You would not consider the bids of either a) or b) to be infractions. Why do you consider an insufficient bid to be an infraction?

I don't care about elaborate lawyerism here

Law 27B2 said:

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 26 may apply, and see Law 23.

(My Enhancement)
This makes it quite clear that Law 23 is applicable.

Does anybody contest that the forced pass in this situation damaged the non-offending side?

[lamford]

 pran, on 2015-March-06, 08:34, said:

I don't care about elaborate lawyerism here
(My Enhancement)
This makes it quite clear that Law 23 is applicable.

I agree it is applicable. But it has no effect, because it requires an irregularity and there was none. Please indicate which Law makes an IB an irregularity.

[blackshoe]

If making an insufficient bid is not a departure from correct procedure, then why is Law 27 in a section of the law book that deals with such departures?

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2015-March-06, 08:42, said:

If making an insufficient bid is not a departure from correct procedure, then why is Law 27 in a section of the law book that deals with such departures?

It is in the section of the Law Book that deals with the auction. Another Law (22A1, for example) states:

The auction ends when:
1. all four players pass (but see Law 25). The hands are returned to the board without play. There shall not be a redeal.

I hope that you are not suggesting that when all four players pass that is "an irregularity" or a departure from correct procedure, and the penalty or rectification for the irregularity is to return the hands to the board without play! You will have some support from the EHAA players, however.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2015-March-06, 08:12, said:

Why do you consider an insufficient bid to be an infraction?

Next I shall expect a claim that there is no offending side when an insufficient bid has been made?

[pran]

 lamford, on 2015-March-06, 08:41, said:

I agree it is applicable. But it has no effect, because it requires an irregularity and there was none. Please indicate which Law makes an IB an irregularity.

Even if nothing else does, the very text in Law 27 implies that an insufficient bid is an irregularity.
Otherwise there would not have been any reference to Law 23 from Law 27B2 etc.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2015-March-06, 08:52, said:

Next I shall expect a claim that there is no offending side when an insufficient bid has been made?

All that is needed to correct the bug is to change 18A to read
A. Proper Form
A bid which supersedes the previous bid and designates a number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six), from one to seven, and a denomination. (Pass, double and redouble are calls but not bids.)
18B defines what "supersedes the previous bid" means.

You are right, under the current Laws there is no "offender" when an IB is made. And I think we have to assume the error in the Laws, and decide that an IB is an irregularity. Certainly I will rule as though it is, whatever the Laws say.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2015-March-06, 08:59, said:

Even if nothing else does, the very text in Law 27 implies that an insufficient bid is an irregularity.
Otherwise there would not have been any reference to Law 23 from Law 27B2 etc.

I wouldn't count on the references to other Laws ever having any relevance, and certainly I would not imply anything instead of using the definitions. For example:
Law 21B1a <Snip> Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent (see Law 17E).

Law 17E which deals with three passes, one out of rotation, is hardly of great relevance to Law 21B1a!

[RMB1]

I don't believe any of this is important but it is bizarre that in all words in Law 18 B/C/D the law makers could not find room to say that bids must be sufficient.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2015-March-06, 09:14, said:

I wouldn't count on the references to other Laws ever having any relevance, and certainly I would not imply anything instead of using the definitions. For example:
Law 21B1a <Snip> Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent (see Law 17E).

Law 17E which deals with three passes, one out of rotation, is hardly of great relevance to Law 21B1a!

Failure to read the laws correctly is a frequent cause for Director's errors.

Law 17E defines "the end of the auction period" as highlighted by me in your own text above. This definition is essential for correct application of Law 21B1a so the Reference is absolutely relevant.

You have apparently only noticed L17E2 which handles the exception to this definition when after a call there has been three consecutive passes, one of which was out of rotation?

[helene_t]

Law 23 says in a footnote "for example by partner's enforced pass" so clearly it is meant to solve exactly this problem.

It is also strange that 27D refers only to 27B1, is there any reason why it wouldn't apply after 27B2 had been used?

[lamford]

 pran, on 2015-March-06, 10:05, said:

Failure to read the laws correctly is a frequent cause for Director's errors.

Law 17E defines "the end of the auction period" as highlighted by me in your own text above. This definition is essential for correct application of Law 21B1a so the Reference is absolutely relevant.

You have apparently only noticed L17E2 which handles the exception to this definition when after a call there has been three consecutive passes, one of which was out of rotation?

It seems odd to refer to the definition of the end of the auction period, without referring to the definition of other things such as misinformation, but you could be right.

[pran]

 RMB1, on 2015-March-06, 09:28, said:

I don't believe any of this is important but it is bizarre that in all words in Law 18 B/C/D the law makers could not find room to say that bids must be sufficient.

I believe they have trusted that bridge players possess a minimum level of intelligence.
And I (for one) have no problem understanding that the words "sufficient" describes a correct procedure and that "insufficient" imply a violation of correct procedure.

[lamford]

 helene_t, on 2015-March-06, 10:10, said:

Law 23 says in a footnote "for example by partner's enforced pass" so clearly it is meant to solve exactly this problem.

It is also strange that 27D refers only to 27B1, is there any reason why it wouldn't apply after 27B2 had been used?

Not necessarily; enforced passes are also caused by BOOTs. Those are indeed illegal, unlike IBs ... which are just bad form. BOOTs breach one of these two Laws:

[17]B. The First Call
The player designated by the board as dealer makes the first call.
C. Successive Calls
The player to dealer’s left makes the second call, and thereafter each player calls in turn in a clockwise rotation.

27D should indeed refer to 27B1, 27B2 and, I think, 27B3. The fact that it only refers to 27B1 does strongly suggest that the TD should NOT award an adjusted score when the IB is corrected under 27B2.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2015-March-06, 10:15, said:

I believe they have trusted that bridge players possess a minimum level of intelligence.
And I (for one) have no problem understanding that the words "sufficient" describes a correct procedure and that "insufficient" imply a violation of correct procedure.

 pran, on 2015-March-06, 10:05, said:

Failure to read the laws correctly is a frequent cause for Director's errors.

I suggest that you re-read 18C and 18D, and then you will understand what "sufficient" and "insufficient" actually mean, and realise that they have nothing to do with correct procedure or otherwise.