[VixTD]

While playing in the county B-team yesterday I was called over to the C-team to give a ruling. As I was due to play the board in the next stanza, I was trying not to take in any unnecessary information, and I may have the auction wrong, and even the wrong hands, but this is my best attempt to reproduce what happened:

---

Teams-of-eight. The auction, starting with East, went:
2♦(1)...P...2♠(2)...3♥
.P......3♥

(1) Multi (2) pass or correct to 3♥ with a weak two

When I arrived at the table to deal with the insufficient bid, South said "If I understand the rules correctly, I can just do this" and placed the 4♥ bidding card on the table. He was promply informed that he did not understand the rules correctly, and taken away from the table where I established that when he bid 3♥ he was just trying to raise his partner's overcall. I explained that if the insufficient bid was not accepted he would have to repeat his 4♥ call and that partner would not be barred from the auction, although I may have to award an adjusted score if they reach an unplausible contract by means of the insufficient bid.

We returned to the table and I explained the options. West then wanted to speak to me away from the table, so we left the room. He asked whether, if he accepted the insufficient bid, the attempted correction to 4♥ would be unauthorized information to North.

I must say this is a level of foresight and deviousness I don't usually encounter among C-team players. I told him that if he accepted it, all players would be entitled to know that South had bid 3♥, but would only be entitled to guess at the intended meaning. The attempted correction to 4♥ would indeed be unauthorized to North, who must strive not to use this to his advantage. We returned to the table, West accepted the call by passing, and then North decided he wanted to talk to me away from the table to clarify under exactly what circumstances he could bid 4♥. I explained it as best I could, we went back, I invited them to call me back if there were any problems, and they continued playing. (I did just check to see if East had anything to say to me in private, in case he was feeling left out, but no, he wasn't.)

I wasn't ever called back, and I didn't find out what happened. Just out of interest, do you think I got the ruling right, and what would you say if North had bid 4♥ and it made (as it did at other tables)?

[ahydra]

Your ruling sounds good. I think pass is an LA for North after the attempted correction to 4H by South.

ahydra

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2012-June-11, 07:15, said:

We returned to the table and I explained the options. West then wanted to speak to me away from the table, ...

A minor point (and probably irrelevant to this ruling):

At this point did you make any ruling (to the table) about whether North would be silenced if South did get to bid 4♥? (I do not think you should.)

[VixTD]

RMB1, on 2012-June-11, 08:13, said:

A minor point (and probably irrelevant to this ruling):

At this point did you make any ruling (to the table) about whether North would be silenced if South did get to bid 4♥? (I do not think you should.)

I agree with you, but I don't think EBU directors are consistent in the way they handle this. I explain to offender away from the table which calls are available which won't bar partner, but when I get back to the table I just explain it in general terms:

"If South corrects to 4♥, and both the 4♥ correction and what South intended when he bid 3♥ are natural, or if South corrects to a call which has much the same or a more restricted meaning than what was intended by the 3♥ call, then there are no restrictions on North's bidding. Otherwise he has to pass for the rest of the auction. I'm not going to tell you what South intended by 3♥, but you're entitled to guess..."

That sort of thing.

West then decides what to do. If he doesn't accept it, South chooses a call, and only then do I tell everyone whether North can bid again.

[Fluffy]

I am not familiar with EBU nor very experienced, so I post mainly for others to correct me if appropiate.

If it happened here I would agree with all your rulings at the table, It seems hearts makes exactly 9 tricks so OS got some benefit after all, but it comes from bridge decisions, north is allowed to guess right. So no adjustement.

I think it would be different if south barred north from bidding, and the normal bidding would be for north to (for example) double 4♠ wich makes. Then adjusting to 4♠ doubled making would be correct.

[pran]

I feel puzzled, and I am not at all sure that I have understood the "problem".

But as far as I know this is the correct procedure:

West may accept the IB (Law 27A), if he does the auction continues without any rectification at all.

If West does not accept the IB then the premature correction to 4♥ stands (Law 27C), and as the insufficient bid now 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 27B1{a})

At the time West must select whether to accept the IB or not he is entitled to all relevant information on the consequences of his choice except that he will only be told: If the conditions in Law 27B1{a} are satisfied, not that they eventually will be considered satisfied.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2012-June-11, 09:37, said:

I feel puzzled, and I am not at all sure that I have understood the "problem".

The problem is that South has provided his partner with UI, by prematurely expressing a willingness to bid 4♥.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2012-June-11, 11:23, said:

The problem is that South has provided his partner with UI, by prematurely expressing a willingness to bid 4♥.

South has also — rather blatantly, imo — violated law 9B2. Unless he is clearly clueless about this law, he has well earned a PP.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-11, 12:27, said:

South has also — rather blatantly, imo — violated law 9B2. Unless he is clearly clueless about this law, he has well earned a PP.

And his qualifier "If I understand the rules correctly" suggests that he's made some attempt to learn the laws, yet has failed to apply that one to himself.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2012-June-11, 11:23, said:

The problem is that South has provided his partner with UI, by prematurely expressing a willingness to bid 4♥.

Leave it to the Director to rule if North
1: has received UI
2: has among logical alternatives selected one that demonstrably was suggested by such UI
3: opponents have been damaged by such illegal use of UI.

If West accepts the 3♥ IB then (Law 27A) the auction continues without restriction.
If North then bids 4♥ the natural question is if this is a violation of Laws 16B and 16D, a question that must be judged and ruled upon by the Director after play on the board has ended.

If West does not accept the IB then (Law 27C) South's 4♥ bid stands and (Law 27A) the auction continues without restriction as apparently neither the 3♥ IB nor the 4♥ bid are artificial.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-11, 12:27, said:

South has also — rather blatantly, imo — violated law 9B2. Unless he is clearly clueless about this law, he has well earned a PP.

I should normally (from my more than 30 years experience) account this to ignorance rather than deliberate violation of law 9B2 and be very reluctant about considering any PP.

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-June-11, 12:57, said:

And his qualifier "If I understand the rules correctly" suggests that he's made some attempt to learn the laws, yet has failed to apply that one to himself.

Sure, like thousands of other bridge players.

[nigel_k]

Whatever the insufficient 3♥ means, surely it must be based on a hand that would raise 3♥ to at least 4♥. There is UI, but I think the AI overwhelmingly suggests that North should bid 4♥ and pass is not logical, ever.

I would not impose a procedural penalty - is there any reason to believe that South knew the law perfectly well when he put 4♥ on the table? It sounds like he was just as clueless as most other bridge players regarding the insufficient bid rules.

[mycroft]

Well, that's two steps ahead of what happens here all the time - the "call the TD" and the "if I understand the laws correctly" steps.

Usually what happens here is that someone points out the IB and the IB'er just punches it up enough levels, and then (sometimes, at least) there's the "but, wait..."

[gordontd]

pran, on 2012-June-11, 13:26, said:

Leave it to the Director to rule if North
1: has received UI
2: has among logical alternatives selected one that demonstrably was suggested by such UI
3: opponents have been damaged by such illegal use of UI.

Sure but you, a director, said you didn't understand what the problem was. So I explained it.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2012-June-11, 17:42, said:

Sure but you, a director, said you didn't understand what the problem was. So I explained it.

And honestly: I still do not see any problem here, at least nothing that warrants a PP.

[jallerton]

pran, on 2012-June-11, 13:26, said:

Leave it to the Director to rule if North
1: has received UI
2: has among logical alternatives selected one that demonstrably was suggested by such UI
3: opponents have been damaged by such illegal use of UI.

If West accepts the 3♥ IB then (Law 27A) the auction continues without restriction.
If North then bids 4♥ the natural question is if this is a violation of Laws 16B and 16D, a question that must be judged and ruled upon by the Director after play on the board has ended.

If West does not accept the IB then (Law 27C) South's 4♥ bid stands and (Law 27A) the auction continues without restriction as apparently neither the 3♥ IB nor the 4♥ bid are artificial.

Fair enough, Sven, but you are the director. How do you determine the answers to questions 1,2 and 3?

[VixTD]

pran, on 2012-June-11, 13:26, said:

Leave it to the Director to rule if North
1: has received UI

We could leave it to law 16D2, which seems quite clear:

Quote

For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized.

[pran]

jallerton, on 2012-June-12, 03:27, said:

Fair enough, Sven, but you are the director. How do you determine the answers to questions 1,2 and 3?

I consider as authorized to North the information that South has support justifying a voluntare raise in hearts. South may have intended to raise a (mistaken) 2♥ bid to 3♥ or he may have intended to raise the 3♥ bid to 4♥ but misbid.

Consequently I consider it doubtful whether North has received any UI at all, and definitly that the UI received in case did not demonstrably suggest any logical alternative over other available alternatives.

Over an accepted 3♥ insufficient bid I would accept either PASS or 4♥ by North, whichever call selected at his own discretion.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2012-June-12, 06:22, said:

We could leave it to law 16D2, which seems quite clear:

The authized (and important) information is that South had a voluntary raise to partners bid in hearts.