[VixTD]

In a club matchpoint pairs:

---

NS were playing an 11-15 NT, 4cM, multi and Lucas twos.
EW were playing Benjamin Acol, 12-14 NT, 4cM and "CRO" Ghestem.

The auction proceeded:

..P........1♦......3♣.......X
..P..[stop]2♠

I'm not sure why South chose to open 1♦ rather than a major, but I suppose he had a reason. West's 3♣ (alerted) showed clubs and hearts. North's double was for takeout, East's pass showed preference for clubs. I don't know why South bid "stop" 2♠, but I suppose he had a reason.

The director was called, and gave a ruling which would have passed muster under the old laws, but ignored the last eight years' progress the WBFLC has made in dealing with insufficient bids. West was given the option to accept the call, otherwise South would have to chose a legal call, and only if this was 3♠ would North be allowed to continue bidding. North was warned not to take advantage of the unauthorized information arising from the use of the stop card.

The auction continued:

..P........1♦......3♣.......X
..P........3♠.......P........4♠
..P..........P.......P

North felt he couldn't do more than raise South to game, but could South have justified taking further action? What of the foregoing actions is authorized to him?

[sanst]

What UI has S? None as far as I can see. So he is not restricted. Actually, After 3♠ I think 4♠ is too modest a call with the hand of N, stop or no stop. I think a hand like this calls for a cue. So both N and S have behaved very ethical, even to the extent of damaging themselves. It doesn't take a magician to bid and make a slam.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2015-September-30, 06:59, said:

In a club matchpoint pairs:

---

NS were playing an 11-15 NT, 4cM, multi and Lucas twos.
EW were playing Benjamin Acol, 12-14 NT, 4cM and "CRO" Ghestem.

The auction proceeded:

..P........1♦......3♣.......X
..P..[stop]2♠

I'm not sure why South chose to open 1♦ rather than a major, but I suppose he had a reason. West's 3♣ (alerted) showed clubs and hearts. North's double was for takeout, East's pass showed preference for clubs. I don't know why South bid "stop" 2♠, but I suppose he had a reason.

The director was called, and gave a ruling which would have passed muster under the old laws, but ignored the last eight years' progress the WBFLC has made in dealing with insufficient bids. West was given the option to accept the call, otherwise South would have to chose a legal call, and only if this was 3♠ would North be allowed to continue bidding. North was warned not to take advantage of the unauthorized information arising from the use of the stop card.

The auction continued:

..P........1♦......3♣.......X
..P........3♠.......P........4♠
..P..........P.......P

North felt he couldn't do more than raise South to game, but could South have justified taking further action? What of the foregoing actions is authorized to him?

Initially I have comments on the two points for which you were unsure:
Opening an auction with the lowest ranking 4 card suit among several on a hand without any longer suit is to my knowledge rather common.
So if they had this agreement then South opening 1♦ rather than one in a major is quite understandable.

I don't know the relevant regulations where this incident took place, but where I play we have the regulation that STOP is mandatory with any call other than PASS once the auction has reached the three level and both sides bid, doubled or redoubled during the last previous round of the auction. So under that regulation the STOP by South did not indicate a jump bid, it simply recognized that the three-level was reached. (And most likely that 2♠ was a mispull.)

IMHO that doesn't leave much UI in this auction.

[helene_t]

pran, on 2015-September-30, 07:57, said:

I don't know the relevant regulations where this incident took place, but where I play we have the regulation that STOP is mandatory with any call other than PASS once the auction has reached the three level and both sides bid, doubled or redoubled during the last previous round of the auction. So under that regulation the STOP by South did not indicate a jump bid, it simply recognized that the three-level was reached.

In the EBU, only jump bids require the STOP card, so the STOP card probably suggests extra values.

[barmar]

I suspect S used the STOP card because he was thinking about his opening bid -- he "jumped" from the 1 to the 2 level. But I don't think that's really relevant.

I agree with sanst that that both of them can bid stronger than they did. North would be constrained by UI if he had multiple LAs, but his hand is so good that the only LA (IMHO) is looking for slam. South has no UI, and his AI is that his partner made a takeout double at the 3 level, so he should have a good hand, and South has significantly more than a minimum, with useful shortness in one of LHO's suits.

[blackshoe]

NS played in game when several slams are cold. No damage.

The entire auction is authorized to South. He has no UI, so can bid what he likes. North has the UI that South apparently thought 2♠ was a skip bid, so that suggests that South has a hand consistent with a strong jump shift. But even without that, North's hand is so good that I think 4♣ (rather than 4♠) is justified. Or some other slam try, depending on their system. Now the question would be whether 4♠ is a logical alternative. My argument would be that it's not because I have a five loser hand and a double fit for partner, who having opened should have seven losers, so a slam is certainly possible, even probable if South can control the majors.

[VixTD]

pran, on 2015-September-30, 07:57, said:

Opening an auction with the lowest ranking 4 card suit among several on a hand without any longer suit is to my knowledge rather common.
So if they had this agreement then South opening 1♦ rather than one in a major is quite understandable.

If they had an agreement to bid like this it would be understandable if they bid like this, yes, that's true, but it struck me as a strange choice for a partnership playing four-card majors. Presumably the intention was to rebid 2NT over a response of 2♣, but if that's so why not open 1♥ and get a major into the auction? I used to play a four-card major system in which we tried to avoid opening four-card majors wherever possible, but that's quite unusual in England (and I've given it up now).

[VixTD]

I was wondering whether South should be concerned that he knows North is under constraints from UI, and so could well have something in reserve for his raise to 4♠. It certainly shouldn't be a "sporting" raise. Is that knowledge authorized?

If the director had been on form he might have taken South away from the table, found out he was trying to jump in spades to show extras and then found one or more law 27B1(b) replacements which did not bar North, which might have led to a happier outcome for NS.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2015-September-30, 11:31, said:

If they had an agreement to bid like this it would be understandable if they bid like this, yes, that's true, but it struck me as a strange choice for a partnership playing four-card majors. Presumably the intention was to rebid 2NT over a response of 2♣, but if that's so why not open 1♥ and get a major into the auction? I used to play a four-card major system in which we tried to avoid opening four-card majors wherever possible, but that's quite unusual in England (and I've given it up now).

Strange or not, that is in fact a very common opening agreement in Norway for partnerships using four-card, whether majors or minors. (They may open on a three-card clubs if their 4-3-3-3 distribution includes such a poor spade suit that it is "degraded" to a three-card suit.)

An important point is that they (we) bid our four-card suits from below and use double over intervening bids that makes unavailable a bid otherwise selected.

[weejonnie]

"The director was called, and gave a ruling which would have passed muster under the old laws, but ignored the last eight years' progress the WBFLC has made in dealing with insufficient bids. West was given the option to accept the call, otherwise South would have to chose a legal call, and only if this was 3♠ would North be allowed to continue bidding. North was warned not to take advantage of the unauthorized information arising from the use of the stop card."

Other than allowing a more liberal interpretation of the words 'more precise' - what has changed? The EBU flow chart As found here seems to agree with the director's instructions.

[VixTD]

weejonnie, on 2015-September-30, 16:03, said:

Other than allowing a more liberal interpretation of the words 'more precise' - what has changed? The EBU flow chart As found here seems to agree with the director's instructions.

What changed in the most recent edition of the laws is that the set of replacement bids for an insufficient bid that don't bar partner was extended from the lowest legal bid in the same denomination (both insufficient and replacement bids being non-conventional) to include also replacement calls that have the same or a more restricted meaning than that intended by the insufficient bid. (The "liberal interpretation" you refer to was added later, but that extends it further still.) The director did not allow for this in his ruling. I think if a jump to 4♠ would also show a spade fit and extra values, particularly with the liberal interpretation, that should not bar partner from bidding further. It's possible that certain cue-bids would show primary support for spades, extra values and a control, and so have a more restricted meaning. These should be allowed too.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2015-September-30, 06:59, said:

North felt he couldn't do more than raise South to game, but could South have justified taking further action?

North clearly should do more than raise to game. I would just bid RKCB for spades. South appears to have no UI, but from a bridge point of view the lack of a cue by North suggests a minimum takeout double, perhaps without either minor-suit ace, so South should pass.

[weejonnie]

VixTD, on 2015-October-01, 07:53, said:

What changed in the most recent edition of the laws is that the set of replacement bids for an insufficient bid that don't bar partner was extended from the lowest legal bid in the same denomination (both insufficient and replacement bids being non-conventional) to include also replacement calls that have the same or a more restricted meaning than that intended by the insufficient bid. (The "liberal interpretation" you refer to was added later, but that extends it further still.) The director did not allow for this in his ruling. I think if a jump to 4♠ would also show a spade fit and extra values, particularly with the liberal interpretation, that should not bar partner from bidding further. It's possible that certain cue-bids would show primary support for spades, extra values and a control, and so have a more restricted meaning. These should be allowed too.

OK - just misread what had happened - assumed that the bidder hadn't any options available to him. (Which of course, as you say, he might have)

[Vampyr]

VixTD, on 2015-September-30, 06:59, said:

The director was called, and gave a ruling which would have passed muster under the old laws, but ignored the last eight years' progress the WBFLC has made in dealing with insufficient bids.

This, by the way, is a super comment.

[RMB1]

The [stop] is not part of the insufficient 2♠ bid, so the meaning of insufficient bid is the meaning of 2♠ not the meaning of "[stop] 2♠". So I would question whether jump replacement bids show a meaning contained within the meaning of the insufficient bid.

barmar, on 2015-September-30, 08:38, said:

... South has no UI, ...

The [stop] is UI to South.

[VixTD]

RMB1, on 2015-October-02, 10:10, said:

The [stop] is not part of the insufficient 2♠ bid, so the meaning of insufficient bid is the meaning of 2♠ not the meaning of "[stop] 2♠". So I would question whether jump replacement bids show a meaning contained within the meaning of the insufficient bid.

When the older versions of the laws (from 1975 to 1997) referred to "non-conventional" insufficient bids, I was not alone in being confused by how I was supposed to judge whether an insufficient bid was "non-conventional", since partnerships are not allowed to assign meanings to insufficient bids. It was clarified when the laws changed in 2007 that the meaning is what offender intended when he made the bid. The use of the stop card suggests that South's intention was to show extra values, and I would believe him if that's what he told me his intention was. If he had bid 2♠ without using the stop card and he had tried to convince me that he was trying to jump to show extra values, I'd be much less willing to believe him.

RMB1, on 2015-October-02, 10:10, said:

The [stop] is UI to South.

I'm not sure how his own stop can be UI to him. Do you mean the effect the stop card has on the way he interprets his partner's subsequent bidding?

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2015-October-02, 10:40, said:

I'm not sure how his own stop can be UI to him. ...

Sorry, misread the original auction diagram (expecting West to be on the left, so the second column was North).

I meant the [stop] is UI to the partner of the insufficient bidder, even if the insufficient bid is not.

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2015-October-02, 10:40, said:

When the older versions of the laws (from 1975 to 1997) referred to "non-conventional" insufficient bids, I was not alone in being confused by how I was supposed to judge whether an insufficient bid was "non-conventional", since partnerships are not allowed to assign meanings to insufficient bids. It was clarified when the laws changed in 2007 that the meaning is what offender intended when he made the bid. ...

I know that this is clarification/interpretation of "the meaning of the insufficient bid". But is does seem nonsense that the insufficient bidder can play "adjective bridge" and add some UI to modify "the meaning of the insufficient bid".

("Adjective bridge" is a modified game where all calls may be "self-explained" by the addition of one one word, for example: "one strong club", "forcing pass", "blood redouble".)

[Cyberyeti]

I suppose the first question to S away from the table should have been "Why did you bid stop 2♠". You might get an answer of "I thought I bid stop 4♠" which I suspect is allowed a simple correction with no further penalty.

[VixTD]

RMB1, on 2015-October-02, 17:05, said:

I know that this is clarification/interpretation of "the meaning of the insufficient bid". But is does seem nonsense that the insufficient bidder can play "adjective bridge" and add some UI to modify "the meaning of the insufficient bid".

I agree that the stop is UI to offender's partner, but I'm arguing that it shouldn't be UI to the director in the private discussion about the intended meaning of the insufficient bid.