[campboy]

East deals at amber, and EW have the following uncontested auction:

1♣ (1) - 1♥ (2)
2NT - 3♦
3♠ - 4♦
4♣

(1) clubs or any balanced 12-14 or 18-19
(2) spades

at which point the director is called. I was South, so I don't have intimate details of the EW system, but I think 4♦ was natural and bidding clubs now is a cue bid. How do you rule? The EBU follows a "mildy liberal" interpretation of Law 27B1b.

[mrdct]

I would've thought 3♠ agreed ♠ and 4♦ was a cue-bid which would tend to indicate that 4♣ was intended as a cue-bid; but like a lot of these problems it would be useful if all of the facts could be presented upfront by the initial poster.

As 4♣ may have a conventional meaning, South is to be informed that he has the option to accept the insufficient bid but if he doesn't East will be required to make a sufficient call after which his partner will be barred from the rest of the auction and there may be lead penalties against West if NS wind up declaring the contract.

A pet peeve of mine is directors who simply ask the non-offender if they want to accept the insufficient bid without explaining to them the full ramifications of not accepting an insufficient bid that may be conventional.

[gordontd]

I would try to find out more from the 4♣ bidder (away from the table) about what was meant by it, but I would have thought it to be a fairly likely candidate for an Law 27B1b correction.

[pran]

mrdct, on Nov 9 2009, 08:47 AM, said:

I would've thought 3♠ agreed ♠ and 4♦ was a cue-bid which would tend to indicate that 4♣ was intended as a cue-bid; but like a lot of these problems it would be useful if all of the facts could be presented upfront by the initial poster.

As 4♣ may have a conventional meaning, South is to be informed that he has the option to accept the insufficient bid but if he doesn't East will be required to make a sufficient call after which his partner will be barred from the rest of the auction and there may be lead penalties against West if NS wind up declaring the contract.

A pet peeve of mine is directors who simply ask the non-offender if they want to accept the insufficient bid without explaining to them the full ramifications of not accepting an insufficient bid that may be conventional.

Not so fast!
With 4♣ having a conventional meaning West will not be barred from the further auction if East can find a legal replacement call that has the same or a more precise meaning than that of the insufficient bid.

I believe it is fair to assume here that 5♣ will be such a call.

regards Sven

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on Nov 9 2009, 08:52 AM, said:

I would try to find out more from the 4♣ bidder (away from the table) about what was meant by it, but I would have thought it to be a fairly likely candidate for an Law 27B1b correction.

I agree, because it seems to me that a cue-bid above game has a meaning that is a subset of the meaning of a cue-bid below game. However, I am uncomfortable with the fact that the insufficient bid is AI, so that East is permitted to take into account that the 5♣ bid may not be full strength.

On the other hand, if East assumes that the bid is up to strength, and they reach a slam that no one else gets to because neither partner really had the values to go beyond game, I don't like that either. It seems that whatever result EW receive, it can be said that they had assistance from the infraction.

Probably a better Law is that after any insufficient bid that is not accepted, partner is barred and the insufficient bidder must make the final call for his side. I don't really understand this new lenient approach to people who can't be bothered to follow the basic mechanics of the game.

What does amber mean?

[greenender]

Vampyr, on Nov 9 2009, 05:09 AM, said:

What does amber mean?

East of the Pond:

Red = Vul vs NV
Amber = Game all
White = Love all
Green = NV vs Vul

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on Nov 9 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

However, I am uncomfortable with the fact that the insufficient bid is AI, so that East is permitted to take into account that the 5♣ bid may not be full strength.

Aren't we all? Ok, a lot of us anyway. I think it an awful Law. But here we have to decide how to apply it, not what we think of the WBFLC in perpetrating this on us.

[duschek]

pran, on Nov 9 2009, 05:04 AM, said:

With 4♣ having a conventional meaning West will not be barred from the further auction if East can find a legal replacement call that has the same or a more precise meaning than that of the insufficient bid.

I believe it is fair to assume here that 5♣ will be such a call.

If 4♦ is a cuebid, denying a club control, and 4♣ was an attempt to simply show a club control, then 4♥ seems to have a more precise meaning than the insufficient 4♣, in that it shows a club control and a heart control (or even, if it is the last train, simply a club control, which will not be a problem either).

[pran]

duschek, on Nov 9 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 9 2009, 05:04 AM, said:

With 4♣ having a conventional meaning West will not be barred from the further auction if East can find a legal replacement call that has the same or a more precise meaning than that of the insufficient bid.

I believe it is fair to assume here that 5♣ will be such a call.

If 4♦ is a cuebid, denying a club control, and 4♣ was an attempt to simply show a club control, then 4♥ seems to have a more precise meaning than the insufficient 4♣, in that it shows a club control and a heart control (or even, if it is the last train, simply a club control, which will not be a problem either).

If I understand you correct then 4♥ includes information about the heart suit that is not included in the ♣ cue bids? As such the 4♥ bid is not a more precise call than the (insufficient) 4♣ cue bid.

Remember the rule of the thumb: If the Director can find at least one hand that in his opinion satisfies the replacement call but with which the player would not have made the insufficient bid (had it been available) then the replacement call does not have the same as, or a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid.

Sven

[duschek]

pran, on Nov 9 2009, 02:33 PM, said:

If I understand you correct then 4♥ includes information about the heart suit that is not included in the ♣ cue bids? As such the 4♥ bid is not a more precise call than the (insufficient) 4♣ cue bid.

Remember the rule of the thumb: If the Director can find at least one hand that in his opinion satisfies the replacement call but with which the player would not have made the insufficient bid (had it been available) then the replacement call does not have the same as, or a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid.

• Hands with a club control, with or without a heart control, bid 4♣.
  
• Hands with a club control and a heart control bid 4♥.

Hence, any hand that would make the replacement call would also make the insufficient bid. In other words, the replacement call has a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid.

[mrdct]

gordontd, on Nov 9 2009, 02:52 AM, said:

I would try to find out more from the 4♣ bidder (away from the table) about what was meant by it, but I would have thought it to be a fairly likely candidate for an Law 27B1b correction.

It is not necessary to establish that 4♣ was conventional, the laws only require that the insufficient may be conventional. Strengthening this point, Law 27 also says in relation to insufficient bids that can be made sufficient without penalty as being limited to "incontrovertibly not conventional". By definition, the offending pair will not have any agreements about what their insufficient bids mean so it's up to the director to determine whether or not there is any possibility that a conventional meaning could attach to the 4♣ bid. In this case, on the limited information presented, it seems pretty clear to me that 4♣ is not "incontrovertibly not conventional".

[gordontd]

May I direct you towards L27B1b:

Quote

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.

You seem not to have got past L27B1a.

[aguahombre]

OP states he thinks 4D was natural, and 4C was intended as a cuebid. Yet, others who were not there decide 4D is a Cue denying club control. I agree with the others who were not at the table, because after 3S trumps have been set.

I think the following questions are relevant to this case:
1) What on earth did the offender think he was bidding 4C over? Does 4D remotely look like the only other possible call (3NT)? Goes to intent.
2) In order to allow 4H in substitute, don't we have to have more than just logical inference that it shows a club control? If 4H were bid without the insufficient call, would the partner of a player who would make this insufficient bid be that confident? With the 4H substitution after 4C, there is no doubt.
3) Even if 5C were the only allowed substitution, isn't there already enough UI? Now the 5C bidder might well have a heart control, whereas a 5C cue which was not a substitution would have denied a heart control.

[pran]

duschek, on Nov 9 2009, 09:32 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 9 2009, 02:33 PM, said:

If I understand you correct then 4♥ includes information about the heart suit that is not included in the ♣ cue bids? As such the 4♥ bid is not a more precise call than the (insufficient) 4♣ cue bid.

Remember the rule of the thumb: If the Director can find at least one hand that in his opinion satisfies the replacement call but with which the player would not have made the insufficient bid (had it been available) then the replacement call does not have the same as, or a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid.

• Hands with a club control, with or without a heart control, bid 4♣.
  
  
• Hands with a club control and a heart control bid 4♥.

Hence, any hand that would make the replacement call would also make the insufficient bid. In other words, the replacement call has a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid.

When will a hand with both heart control and club control be shown with the cue bid 4♣ rather than 4♥ according to your understanding?
To me the natural understanding of a cue bid is that it shows control in the denomination named and denies control in any denomination that could have been named with a lower ranking bid.

On second thoughts I realize that with this understanding 5♣ is the only possible call with the same or a more precise meaning as the insufficient 4♣ cue bid and only when the last previous bid was 4♠ or 4NT!

[blackshoe]

Discussion of what the laws should belongs in our "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum, not here. So let's try to see what the laws do say about this situation - and if we need more information, let's ask for it, rather than guessing or making assumptions.

[campboy]

I think that 4♦ was natural because (a) looking at the hand record it doesn't make sense as a cue-bid since if it shows a first-round control he doesn't have one, and if it could be a second-round conrol he would have bid 4♣ himself (b.) the later auction made it clear that they had agreed diamonds.

Naturally the TD did not look at the hand, but she did take the player away from the table, so she was probably told that 4♦ was natural, as well as details of their cue-bidding style which I don't know.

My concern with this one -- as aguahombre says -- was that 5♣ might give negative inferences about majon suit controls which 4♣ does not. (I'm asking because I want to know what to do as TD if it comes up, not because I think the ruling made a difference to the table result, btw.)

[gordontd]

campboy, on Nov 10 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

My concern with this one -- as aguahombre says -- was that 5♣ might give negative inferences about majon suit controls which 4♣ does not.

That would give the replacement call a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid. It's when it's the other way around that we need be concerned.

[campboy]

Ah, yes, you're right. I'd gotten confused.

[aguahombre]

gordontd, on Nov 10 2009, 09:16 AM, said:

campboy, on Nov 10 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

My concern with this one -- as aguahombre says -- was that 5♣ might give negative inferences about majon suit controls which 4♣ does not.

That would give the replacement call a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid. It's when it's the other way around that we need be concerned.

the point is that 5C, if it is the acceptable replacement bid, might INCORRECTLY be more precise than 4C--in the case where both 4H and 5C were not acceptable replacement bids. This possibility (that the Cue bidder might have a heart control) is UI. And 5C is less precise than it would have been.

[gordontd]

When the new laws came in, Max Bavin (WBF & EBU Chief TD), issued a paper to the EBL and the EBU which in part said:

Quote

Misbids and fielded misbids.

Laws 27B1a and 27B1b work on the assumption that when the IB-er selects a call which does not silence partner, his hand actually conforms to the newly selected bid.

However, this will not necessarily be the case.  For example, it may make perfect bridge sense to make a slight misbid in order to keep the auction open rather than gamble on a final contract by making a call which silences partner.

It may also make perfect bridge sense for partner to assume that the IB-er may be ‘misbidding’, and to cater for (‘field’) this possibility.

All this is entirely legal – it is general bridge knowledge covered by Law 16A1(d).

This is why Law 27D exists.  If the player does misbid, or if his partner attempts to cater for it (regardless of whether there has been an actual misbid or not), then Law 27D may apply.