[jerdonald]

BBO forum,
Playing in an ACBL club game today my RHO opened 1D and I bid 1S.
LHO also bid 1S and the director was called. LHO admitted she
didn't see my 1S bid so didn't accidentally pull out the wrong
bidding card. The director first gave my partner the option
of accepting or not accepting the bid. She didn't accept.

The director then allowed my LHO to put the 1S card back in the
box and make another bid. She bid 1NT and he let it stand.
I asked if the rule had changed and he said yes the director
can now decide if the second bid is one that LHO could also
make. So is there no such thing as an insufficient bid any more?

He never looked at her hand so I asked how he knew what she
might bid in this situation? He said that is now the rule.
I asked if he knew how many points my LHO had or how good a
player she was. He said no and this new rule put a lot of
pressure on directors. Looks like the director is now
participating in the bidding.

Does ACBl expect directors to be clairvoyant in this situation?

Jerryd

[sanst]

This has nothing to do with the ACBL, but it's a change in the laws, in particular the new law 23. Law 23A defines a comparable call:

Quote

A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it:
1. has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or
2. defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or
3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call.

That's a decision a director can make without seeing the hand of the offender.
Then there is Law 23C:

Quote

If following the substitution of a comparable call [see Laws 27B1(b), 30B1(b)(i), 31A2(a) and 32A2(a)] the Director judges at the end of the play that without the assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non‐offending side is damaged, he shall award an adjusted score [see Law 12C1(b)].

This change does indeed put a lot of pressure on the directors, or at least the obligation to review the hand afterwards does that.

[jerdonald]

sanst, on 2018-January-24, 17:19, said:

This has nothing to do with the ACBL, but it's a change in the laws, in particular the new law 23. Law 23A defines a comparable call:
That's a decision a director can make without seeing the hand of the offender.
Then there is Law 23C:
This change does indeed put a lot of pressure on the directors, or at least the obligation to review the hand afterwards does that.

So the director can somehow decide what the player was thinking when
making the insufficient bid or the replacement bid?

[TylerE]

I can think of NO situation involving an IB where the director SHOULD be looking at the player's hand - under the new rules or the old.

[helene_t]

The 1nt bid doesn't promise four spades so it's questionable if it can be called comparable. The TD may judge it to be comparable but then he should review the board to make sure that rho did not make use of the information that lho had four or more spades.

[gordontd]

Yes, the wording of the law has changed, but no, it doesn't seem to me that 1NT should be allowed as a comparable call, so if it is made it would silence partner, just as before.

[barmar]

jerdonald, on 2018-January-24, 17:54, said:

So the director can somehow decide what the player was thinking when
making the insufficient bid or the replacement bid?

No, he just has to decide what the original and replacement bids "mean" according to the pair's system, not what the player was thinking. If the meanings are comparable the replacement bid doesn't silence partner.

[jerdonald]

barmar, on 2018-January-25, 10:00, said:

No, he just has to decide what the original and replacement bids "mean" according to the pair's system, not what the player was thinking. If the meanings are comparable the replacement bid doesn't silence partner.

The director in this situation did not look at the players convention cards so he couldn't have
known their system. I happen to like this particular director I'm just saying this change in
the laws causes more problems than whatever they thought it was going to fix.

I also note that I have gotten conflicting responses on this post and I don't recall any past
posts about the old system.

One post said this change doesn't have anything to do with ACBL. Who makes and enforces the laws?

[gordontd]

jerdonald, on 2018-January-25, 10:57, said:

One post said this change doesn't have anything to do with ACBL. Who makes and enforces the laws?

The World Bridge Federation makes the Laws.

[bixby]

The OP says that the Director allowed the 1NT bid to stand. Under Law 27, there is no doubt that the offender was entitled to replace the 1S bid with a 1NT bid. The question is not whether the 1NT bid may stand. The question is whether the partner of the offender is barred from bidding for the remainder of the auction.

The OP does not make clear what the Director's ruling on this point was. Perhaps in saying that the Director allowed the 1NT bid to stand, the OP means that the Director ruled that the offender's partner was not barred and that the auction would proceed "without further rectification," presumably under Law 27B1b, the Director having determined that 1NT is a "comparable call" to the withdrawn 1S bid.

If that is what the OP means, I find the Director's ruling puzzling. I don't know the offending side's agreements, of course, but I would think the 1NT bid could be made on something like AQx / xxx / xxx / Kxxx, which would not be an appropriate 1S response to 1D. So I don't think 1NT has the same or a similar meaning as 1S, nor does it promise a subset of 1S. So it is not a "comparable call" and offender's partner should have been barred.

The OP notes that the offender indicated that she bid 1S because she didn't see the intervening 1S call. This raises a question: is the offender's reason for making an insufficient bid relevant? Is the Director even permitted to consider the reason?

In the auction 1D - 1S - 1S, perhaps the offender didn't see the intervening 1S. But perhaps the offender saw the 1S bid and meant to bid 2S, showing a limit raise or better in diamonds, and then had a brain malfunction and pulled out 1S. How can the Director rule on whether a replacement call of 2S would be "comparable" to the withdrawn 1S without knowing the meaning of 1S? And how can the Director know the meaning of 1S when 1S can't have a meaning in the auction 1D - 1S - 1S? Is the Director supposed to assume that the offender thought the auction was 1D - P - 1S? In that case 2S would not be comparable at all. Is the Director supposed to imagine what meaning 1S would have if a player really intended to bid it over RHO's 1S? Is the Director supposed to ask the offender what she thought she was doing and what meaning she thought it had?

[jerdonald]

bixby, on 2018-January-25, 13:22, said:

The OP says that the Director allowed the 1NT bid to stand. Under Law 27, there is no doubt that the offender was entitled to replace the 1S bid with a 1NT bid. The question is not whether the 1NT bid may stand. The question is whether the partner of the offender is barred from bidding for the remainder of the auction.

The OP does not make clear what the Director's ruling on this point was. Perhaps in saying that the Director allowed the 1NT bid to stand, the OP means that the Director ruled that the offender's partner was not barred and that the auction would proceed "without further rectification," presumably under Law 27B1b, the Director having determined that 1NT is a "comparable call" to the withdrawn 1S bid.

If that is what the OP means, I find the Director's ruling puzzling. I don't know the offending side's agreements, of course, but I would think the 1NT bid could be made on something like AQx / xxx / xxx / Kxxx, which would not be an appropriate 1S response to 1D. So I don't think 1NT has the same or a similar meaning as 1S, nor does it promise a subset of 1S. So it is not a "comparable call" and offender's partner should have been barred.

The OP notes that the offender indicated that she bid 1S because she didn't see the intervening 1S call. This raises a question: is the offender's reason for making an insufficient bid relevant? Is the Director even permitted to consider the reason?

In the auction 1D - 1S - 1S, perhaps the offender didn't see the intervening 1S. But perhaps the offender saw the 1S bid and meant to bid 2S, showing a limit raise or better in diamonds, and then had a brain malfunction and pulled out 1S. How can the Director rule on whether a replacement call of 2S would be "comparable" to the withdrawn 1S without knowing the meaning of 1S? And how can the Director know the meaning of 1S when 1S can't have a meaning in the auction 1D - 1S - 1S? Is the Director supposed to assume that the offender thought the auction was 1D - P - 1S? In that case 2S would not be comparable at all. Is the Director supposed to imagine what meaning 1S would have if a player really intended to bid it over RHO's 1S? Is the Director supposed to ask the offender what she thought she was doing and what meaning she thought it had?

I did suggest to the director that my LHO may have meant to bid 2S
showing a limit raise but that was ignored and again LHO said they
didn't see my 1S bid. The director did say he thought the 1NT bid
was comparable to the 1S bid but there was no mention of RHO not
being allowed to bid. And the director didn't ask the offender
anything and didn't look at their convention cards.

What was wrong with the old rule that was pretty black and white.

Now we have a situation where the director has to make a decision
based on his best guess as to what the offending bidder was
attempting to convey to their partner. Is the expertise of the pair
taken into account? This just causes more confusion as is evident by
the responses to this post.

Maybe if I knew what the reasoning behind the rule change I could
understand it.
Jerryd

[sanst]

jerdonald, on 2018-January-25, 15:57, said:

Maybe if I knew what the reasoning behind the rule change I could
understand it.
Jerryd

Before this change, the offender's partner quite often had to pass, which resulted in some gambling bid by the offender. That had not much to do with bridge and could easely result in a bad score for the non affending side. The change should change that.

[fromageGB]

bixby, on 2018-January-25, 13:22, said:

... And how can the Director know the meaning of 1S when 1S can't have a meaning in the auction 1D - 1S - 1S?

This is the big problem with the concept of "comparable call" in many situations. If an illegal insufficient bid is made, what can the meaning be? If it has no meaning in the system (and systems I play have no meaning assigned to an insufficient bid, do yours?) then how can another bid be said to have an equivalent meaning?

I think more work needs to be done on this rule, and rapidly.

[gordontd]

fromageGB, on 2018-January-26, 05:53, said:

This is the big problem with the concept of "comparable call" in many situations. If an illegal insufficient bid is made, what can the meaning be? If it has no meaning in the system (and systems I play have no meaning assigned to an insufficient bid, do yours?) then how can another bid be said to have an equivalent meaning?

I think more work needs to be done on this rule, and rapidly.

The law talks of meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, so there is no need to determine the intended meaning. Any meaning that might be attributed to the call belongs to the pool of attributable meanings, from which the player just has to choose one that has the same or similar meaning, or defines a subset of those meanings or has the same purpose as that meaning.

[fromageGB]

fromageGB, on 2018-January-26, 05:53, said:

This is the big problem with the concept of "comparable call" in many situations. If an illegal insufficient bid is made, what can the meaning be? If it has no meaning in the system (and systems I play have no meaning assigned to an insufficient bid, do yours?) then how can another bid be said to have an equivalent meaning?

Quote

A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it:
.. or 2. defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or ..

I have the answer. In the systems I play, I shall agree with partners and put on the convention card that the meaning of an insufficient bid is "a hand between 3 and 23 hcp, with at least one suit of length 4 or more".
Now every time I make an insufficient bid I can correct it to any legal call with no penalty. The call I make will be a subset of the meaning of the insufficient bid.

[gordontd]

fromageGB, on 2018-January-26, 06:04, said:

I have the answer. In the systems I play, I shall agree with partners and put on the convention card that the meaning of an insufficient bid is "a hand between 3 and 23 hcp, with at least one suit of length 4 or more".
Now every time I make an insufficient bid I can correct it to any legal call with no penalty. The call I make will be a subset of the meaning of the insufficient bid.

You seem determined not to read the answers to what you write. This won't help you, because it's not based on what you claim, disingenuously in this case, to be the meaning of the call, but on the meanings attributable (by others) to it.

[fromageGB]

gordontd, on 2018-January-26, 06:28, said:

This won't help you, because it's not based on what you claim, disingenuously in this case, to be the meaning of the call, but on the meanings attributable (by others) to it.

Yes, that was tongue in cheek, but I do seriously think it is a big hole. In fairness, my second post was created before seeing your reply.

You are saying that a list (or pool) of possible meanings is in effect generated by the director - presumably including "what if he hadn't seen the overcall?" - and then checking that the corrected bid relates in the prescribed manner to one of those. However, to make that list, surely he needs to know what methods are being employed by the perpetrator, and needs to study his card?

1♣ (1♠) 1♦: I assume you allow a correction to 2♦.
1♣ (1♠) 1♦: If I correct to 2♥ is this permissible? I am playing transfer walsh.
I think the "pool" needs to be defined in the law, or the director must check the convention card.

[gordontd]

fromageGB, on 2018-January-26, 07:13, said:

Yes, that was tongue in cheek, but I do seriously think it is a big hole. In fairness, my second post was created before seeing your reply.

My apologies!

fromageGB, on 2018-January-26, 07:13, said:

You are saying that a list (or pool) of possible meanings is in effect generated by the director - presumably including "what if he hadn't seen the overcall?" - and then checking that the corrected bid relates in the prescribed manner to one of those. However, to make that list, surely he needs to know what methods are being employed by the perpetrator, and needs to study his card?

1♣ (1♠) 1♦: I assume you allow a correction to 2♦.
1♣ (1♠) 1♦: If I correct to 2♥ is this permissible? I am playing transfer walsh.
I think the "pool" needs to be defined in the law, or the director must check the convention card.

If 1♦ in response to 1♣ is natural, and if 2♦ is the lowest bid showing diamonds, then it is explicitly allowed under L27B1a. As to the other situation, yes I would allow a call that shows hearts if they were playing transfer responses, so you are correct that you may need to find out a bit about their system.

[barmar]

jerdonald, on 2018-January-25, 10:57, said:

The director in this situation did not look at the players convention cards so he couldn't have
known their system.

What would you expect him to find on their CC? Does your CC say what the meaning of 1♠ is in response to 1♣?

The only players who have information about 1-level responses on their CCs are those who play transfer responses, and they also should alert these bids.

[barmar]

jerdonald, on 2018-January-25, 15:57, said:

What was wrong with the old rule that was pretty black and white.

Now we have a situation where the director has to make a decision
based on his best guess as to what the offending bidder was
attempting to convey to their partner. Is the expertise of the pair
taken into account? This just causes more confusion as is evident by
the responses to this post.

Maybe if I knew what the reasoning behind the rule change I could
understand it.
Jerryd

The old law wasn't as simple as you suggest. 27B1b said:

Quote

if, except as in (a) above, the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director’s opinion has the same meaning* as or a more precise meaning* than the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid), the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D below.

They've simply replaced "same meaning as or a more precise meaning" with the "comparable call" criteria. Both require the TD to determine the meaning of the insufficient bid, and compare that with the replacement.

The old law required distinguishing artificial bids from natural bids. Which also required determining the meaning of the IB.

It's true that there has been lots of debate about what constitutes a "comparable call". But we often had similar debates over "same or more precise meaning" in the past.