[david_c]

This has just come out today. I thought BBF might be interested. If you're a face-to-face TD this will probably be the hardest thing to get used to in the new Laws. The big change is section B1(b ).

(The version which came out last year was supposed to be "final", but nevertheless they have changed it. I don't think it's even been updated on the official site yet. This information comes from BLML.)

Quote

Law 27 – INSUFFICIENT BID

A. Acceptance of Insufficient Bid.

1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender’s LHO. It is accepted if that player calls.

2. If a player makes an insufficient bid out of rotation Law 31 applies.

B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted.

If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (but see 3 following). Then

1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director’s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply but see D following.

  (b ) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with alegal 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 following.

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 26 may apply, and see Law 23.

3. except as provided in B1(b ) above, if the offender attempts to substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid theattempted call is cancelled. The offender must replace it as the foregoing allows and his partner must then pass whenever it is his turn tocall. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23.

4. if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid withanother insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does not accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows.

C. Premature Replacement

If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A allows the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution.

D. Non-offending Side Damaged.

If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred.

[footnote: * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ]

[TylerE]

Edited for early morning stupidity

[hrothgar]

Even with the rework, the new Law still has me very confused. I think that the footnote is asking for trouble…

Quote

(b ) if, except as in (a), 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 following.

[footnote: * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ]

Consider the following

John Doe has just made an insufficient 1H bid.

At this point in the auction, there is some set of hands that John Doe could conceivably hold. Let’s call this set A

John Doe has just made a 1H bid. The 1H bid defines a set of possible hands. Let’s call this set B. Furthermore, 1H denies some other set of hands. (A 1H overcall is inconsistent with 13 Spades). Let’ call this set C.

A = The Union of B and C

Here’s the catch: The definition of the 1H bid simultaneously provides information about both B and C. Suppose that I wanted to substitute a 2D call for the insufficient 1H call. 2D shows a subset of set B. Lets call this set D.

By my understanding, this wouldn’t be legal because the set A – D is not a subset of C. (I have access to additional information about the set of hands excluded by the 2D call)

The way that I read things, the only way that I can substitute some new call is if this new call draws precisely the same boundary as the original 1H call. Each and every hand included in set B must be in set D. Each and every hand in set C must be in (A – D).

In all honesty, I’d be shocked if anyone can find and example that would meet this stringent a test.

I suspect that either

1. My reading of the Law is incorrect, in which case I’d appreciate it if someone picked apart my logic

2. The new Law 27 is drafted poorly

[TimG]

I'm not sure about all your sets and subsets, but it seems to me that the intent was to allow the correction of things like 2N-P-2D to 2N-P-3D where the diamond calls would both be transfers.

But, I'm note sure how you can determine the meaning of an insufficient bid.

Quote

(b ) if, except as in (a), 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 following.

I suppose the director could look at responder's hand, see a bunch of hearts, and accept that responder intended to transfer. But, what if the pair also plays multi, maybe this person missed the opening bid altogether instead of mistook 2N for 1N and was attempting to open 2D rather than transfer over 1N?

Even if you decide that the insufficient 2D was a transfer, wouldn't there be some minor differences in the sets of hands that would transfer? There are ranges of hands that contain hearts that might make a four-level transfer over 1N, that would make a three-level transfer over 2N.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Mar 5 2008, 05:26 PM, said:

Even if you decide that the insufficient 2D was a transfer, wouldn't there be some minor differences in the sets of hands that would transfer? There are ranges of hands that contain hearts that might make a four-level transfer over 1N, that would make a three-level transfer over 2N.

That's the core of my argument:

There are always going to be minor differences

[david_c]

hrothgar, on Mar 5 2008, 03:05 PM, said:

Here’s the catch: The definition of the 1H bid simultaneously provides information about both B and C. Suppose that I wanted to substitute a 2D call for the insufficient 1H call. 2D shows a subset of set B. Lets call this set D.

By my understanding, this wouldn’t be legal because the set A – D is not a subset of C. (I have access to additional information about the set of hands excluded by the 2D call)

If I understand your notation correctly, I think this is wrong. A call which excludes lots of hands is "more precise" than a call which excludes few hands. Thus the condition to be met is that we need C to be a subset of A - D. You've got it the wrong way round.

[jtfanclub]

OK, this is going to be weird.

Auction goes 1♦ (1♠) 1♥

The director is called.

Responder changes his 1♥ bid to X (negative, promising 4 hearts). He argues that every hand that would double in this sequence would have bid 1♥ the first time.

How would you rule?

[helene_t]

JTF: Just proceed as if the dbl was made immediately. The fact that he would have bid 1♥ without intervention does not carry extra information (except if they play WJS but I suppose in that case it suffices that opener cannot use the UI that his p would not have made a WJS).

[TylerE]

Illegal substitution. See 27B3

[helene_t]

No. B1b takes precedence over B3.

[jdonn]

I think I'm a fairly smart person who understands the laws well.

And I'm totally confused...

[JanM]

jdonn, on Mar 5 2008, 11:53 AM, said:

I think I'm a fairly smart person who understands the laws well.

And I'm totally confused...

This is definitely a confusing area, and despite a lot of effort the law is difficult to read. However, my understanding of what it means (and I think a careful reading will confirm this) is that you can change even a conventional insufficient bid to a different bid as long as the insufficient bid doesn't give your partner any information that isn't included in the sufficient bid. So, to take a simple example - I play weak NT and open 1♣ with all balanced hands in the 15-19 HCP range. Suppose that RHO opens 2♠ and I "overcall" 1♣. On it being pointed out to me that 1♣ is insufficient, and after the law is carefully explained to me, I change my bid to 2NT, which shows a balanced hand of 16-18 or so HCP. My second bid is one that was included in the hands shown by the first bid but is more precise, thus it is allowed - my partner doesn't have any information other than that provided by the 2NT bid.

On the other hand, suppose that I play 2-way Stayman over both 1NT and 2NT opening bids (OK, that's not something anyone plays, but it makes the point). Partner opens 2NT and I bid 2♦ forcing to game and asking about Majors. I am not allowed to correct this to 3♦ even though that also is forcing to game and asking about Majors because the original bid showed a better hand than the new bid and so partner knows something about my hand that is not included in the new bid.

The point is to be fair - did you ever get caught by the old rule when partner opened 2NT and you mistakenly responded 2♣ Stayman and now had no way to avoid a penalty? Yet allowing you to correct 2♣ to 3♣ wouldn't damage the opponents and would get things back to "normal." Should it matter that the bid isn't just one level higher in the same strain? For example, I play transfer responses to 1♣. A 1♦ response shows 4 or more hearts and says nothing more about the hand. If the opponent overcalls 1♦, my DBL substitutes for the 1♦ bid. The set of hands in DBL is a little smaller than those in 1♦ since I might respond 1♦ on hands that would pass over 1♣-(1♦) but there are no hands with which I would DBL but not bid 1♦ in the uncontested auction. So there is no harm done by allowing me to DBl when the 1♦ overcall is pointed out to me.

I hope that makes it clear. And I really do think that is what the law says, admittedly using more words in order to make sure it is complete. I admit my logic days are far behind me, so I can't easily discuss it in terms of sets and intersections and exclusions. But the point is that the new bid is allowed so long as the insufficient bid doesn't provide any information that is not provided by the new bid. So there have to be no hands that are included in the new bid and not in the insufficient one, since those hands would be excluded by the information provided by the insufficient bid. There can be hands that are included in the insufficient bid but not in the new bid, because then the insufficient bid doesn't clarify the new bid.

[TylerE]

I don't quite follow your stayman arguement. It takes less to stayman over 2NT than over 1NT. Thus the set of hands that bid 3♣ over 2NT is wider than the set that bids 2♣ over 1NT. So why would this correction be allowed? Only if the 2♣ bid could be e.g. garbage stayman would this seem to make sense.

[FrancesHinden]

Jan,

Your interpretation is certainly what was intended, but is not was has been written (although the new version of the Law is a lot better than the previous one).

The only way the new Law can ever actually work is if TD's take a fairly loose interpretation of "the same meaning or a more precise meaning". Take the almost canonical example of Stayman. If you say that the 'meaning' of a 2C response to 1NT, and a 3C response to 2NT is 'please bid a 4-card major if you have one, otherwise diamonds at the lowest level' then fine, no problem. But when you take the footnote into account - looking at what a call shows and what it excludes - you are stuffed. You pass 1NT with a 4225 6-count but you would use Stayman over a 2NT opening: so the insufficient Stayman bid has told you that partner does not have a 6-count (unless it is a Garbage stayman hand with both majors), and so he has extra information and the correction isn't allowed.

Along with everyone else, I KNOW that the whole point of this new law is to allow this sort of correction, so I think TDs are going to have to shut their eyes and hope for the best.

And anyway, how does anyone know that the 2C bid was made in a response to a 'putative' 1NT opening? How do we know that responder didn't see a 1S opening?

p.s. Hrothgar's analysis is logically correct, but I suspect he already knows the answer to his question is option (2).

[jtfanclub]

TylerE, on Mar 5 2008, 01:57 PM, said:

I don't quite follow your stayman arguement. It takes less to stayman over 2NT than over 1NT. Thus  the set of hands that bid 3♣ over 2NT is wider than the set that bids 2♣ over 1NT. So why would this correction be allowed?

Yeah, I don't get it either.

QTxx
xx
xxx
Kxxx

I'm willing to wager that virtually everybody passes 1NT with this, and yet it's a very reasonable 3♣ over 2NT.

So the 2♣ intermediate bid does tell partner that you can't have a hand like this one, assuming it's not a mechanical error.

Edit- Frances beat me to the enter key.

[awm]

There's something sort of similar in the laws involving boards where the bidding commenced with the wrong pair at the table.

I think the laws say to send the "wrong pair" away and seat the proper pair. Then if the auction is identical up to the point where the wrong pair was sent off, allow them to play the board. Otherwise cancel it and assign scores.

At one point a friend of mine asked a similar question about this law. In particular, say the wrong pair gets to the table and opens 1♣ artificial showing any 15+ hcp hand. Before the next call the problem is corrected and the proper pair arrives at the table. All bids are removed of course, and they get to open the bidding again -- they open with 1NT showing 15-17 high card points balanced. Obviously this is not the same bid (they're not even playing the same system) but opponents have no unauthorized information since the new opening encompasses only hands that would make the old opening. The laws at the time indicated that this was irrelevant and since the auction was "not the same" the board would be cancelled. The laws were annoyingly silent about what would happen if (for example) 1♥ was opened both times but one pair was playing flannery and the other was not.

Anyways, I am curious as to whether this change in law applies to the "wrong pair" situation as well as to insufficient bids, or whether a similar change is in the works.

[jdonn]

I think I understand now. I like what they are trying to do, I think they just did an awful job of doing it.

I mean what makes information "different"? What if you bid 1NT over a 2♠ opening then change it to 2NT. Maybe the range of a 1NT overcall encompasses the range of your 2NT overcall (or maybe not? who can even tell?) but what if you are more willing to fudge your stopper when overcalling 2NT? What if you like the way Lebensohl works so you are more likely to double over a 2 bid if the decision is close? The more I think about this the more I think it's just undoable, as much as I like the thought.

[FrancesHinden]

awm, on Mar 5 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

There's something sort of similar in the laws involving boards where the bidding commenced with the wrong pair at the table.

<snip>

Oh yes, I've also always had the same problem with this law. It tends not to be a big deal in practice, because this comes up very rarely (much more rare than an insufficient bid) and in practice does not happen in 'really serious' events, or at least the TD always has the right to rule that the auction isn't identical if he wants.

[Apollo81]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 5 2008, 02:08 PM, said:

And anyway, how does anyone know that the 2C bid was made in a response to a 'putative' 1NT opening?  How do we know that responder didn't see a 1S opening?

For that matter, the player may have seen 2NT, correctly valued his hand, but just pulled the wrong card and didn't notice it immediately.