[awm]

East and west generated the following auction (N/S passing throughout):

1♣ - 1♥
1♦...

The one diamond bid was, of course, insufficient. Opener was allowed to correct it to 2♦ and the auction continued with 3NT and everyone passed.

At the end of the hand, it was revealed that responder held 15 hcp. He chose to bid only 3NT because (in his own words) "I didn't believe partner had the values a reverse would show after the 1♦ bid and correction."

So the question is, was the attempt to bid 1♦ before correcting it authorized? Should director (at least under some circumstances) change the table result?

[sdoty]

Edit: I forgot that 16C2 is specifically excluded. (yeah yeah, I know it's only 2:30 a.m....) But the section that -does- apply (27B1b) accomplishes the same thing:

1. Not Conventional and Corrected by Lowest Sufficient Bid in Same Denomination
<snip> (Law 16C2 does not apply to this situation, but see (b ) following).

(b ) Award of Adjusted Score
If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall assign an adjusted score.

Particularly in light of the player's comment at the table I think it's clear that the other pair could indeed have been damaged by the 'information conveyed.' In the scenario as given, I would overturn the table result if 3NT scored poorly for the non-offending side (i.e, the offending pair would have been set in their 'correct' contract of 4NT or higher).

[mike777]

awm, on Jun 22 2005, 12:26 AM, said:

Should director change the table result?

NO!

1c=1h=1d=minimum 5-4
1c=1h=2d=maximum 5-4

Is this not standard worldwide?

[mr1303]

Tongue in cheek I hope....

[Gerben42]

First, you are not allowed to make an insufficient bid on purpose.

Second, the information from the cancelled insufficient bid is UI to partner. Partner should therefore take the auction 1♣ - 1♥ - 2♦ at face value, i.e. reverse strength.

[luis]

Gerben42, on Jun 22 2005, 08:57 AM, said:

First, you are not allowed to make an insufficient bid on purpose.

Second, the information from the cancelled insufficient bid is UI to partner. Partner should therefore take the auction 1♣ - 1♥ - 2♦ at face value, i.e. reverse strength.

I did made an insufficient bid on purpose once,
playing with screens we started a relay auction and my screenmate told me (I always pass, I don't care about this crazy system you play, just move the tray). So I asked everything I could up to the level of 5c passing the tray while my LHO was just sitting there, over 5c I bid 3NT and passed the tray, LHO had to accept that :-)
There was some action after this with the TD quite confused about what happened but finally the conclusion was that 3NT was an accepted insufficient bid and that my opponent learned a lesson :-)

[Blofeld]

Great story, luis!

---

My attempt at the problem would be that some adjustment is in order, but to what would depend on whether East's hand was good enough to force to a slam opposite a minimum reverse, or merely to invite.

[EricK]

Can we say for certain the 1♦ bid would be not conventional?

There is no natural unopposed sequence where opener rebids 1♦. Obviously there is also no conventional unopposed sequenced where opener rebids 1♦ (forcing pass systems aside!). So the question is should an impossible bid be assumed to be conventional or non-conventional for the purposes of applying the law?

Eric

[awm]

This amusing situation occurred at a sectional last weekend. When dummy came down, it was revealed that opener in fact held 18 high card points! East-West played 3NT making six, with pretty much the whole field in slam. The director wasn't asked to do anything.

So the attempt to take advantage of partner's insufficient bid got its just result!

Anyways, I brought this up because I was relating the story to a local expert (who also serves on various national-level committees) and he somewhat surprisingly thought the insufficient bid was authorized to partner! Good to see that (here at least) reason prevails in interpreting the laws.

[Elianna]

It's nice when attempts to be unethical meet their just rewards, no?

[the hog]

If opener corrects the 1D bid to 2D, there is no way that responder is obliged to believe that opener has reversing values. Responder legally and ethically does not need to commit hari kiri. This is taking the concept of active ethics to an absurdity. To accuse responder here of being unethical is reductio ad absurdum.

[sdoty]

Well, the relevant law is 27, right?

LAW 27 INSUFFICIENT BID
B. Insufficient Bid Not Accepted
1. Not Conventional and Corrected by Lowest Sufficient Bid in Same Denomination
(a) No Penalty
If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are incontrovertibly not conventional and if the bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, the auction proceeds as though the irregularity had not occurred (Law 16C2 does not apply to this situation, but see (b ) following).
(b ) Award of Adjusted Score
If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall assign an adjusted score.

Law 16C2, which is speficially stated as *not* applying in this situation, reads:

LAW 16 UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION
C. Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays
2. Offending Side
For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information.

The way I interpret these, I agree with Ron. Responder doesn't have to treat the insufficient bid as UI, and his 3NT bid isn't unethical [edit: in that it is not prohibited by the laws].

The legality of the 3NT bid is a separate issue from whether the director should consider adjusting the table result. If the field had reached a failing slam, I'd have to say that yes, in my opinion the information from the 1D bid had caused damage to the non-offending side and that an adjustment was in order. If that part of Law 27 isn't meant to be applied in situations like this one, I'm not sure when it -is- meant to be applied.

Susan

[mike777]

sdoty, on Jun 22 2005, 09:40 PM, said:

Well, the relevant law is 27, right?

LAW 27 INSUFFICIENT BID
B. Insufficient Bid Not Accepted
1. Not Conventional and Corrected by Lowest Sufficient Bid in Same Denomination
(a) No Penalty
If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are incontrovertibly not conventional and if the bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, the auction proceeds as though the irregularity had not occurred (Law 16C2 does not apply to this situation, but see (b ) following).
(b ) Award of Adjusted Score
If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall assign an adjusted score.

Law 16C2, which is speficially stated as *not* applying in this situation, reads:

LAW 16 UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION
C. Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays
2. Offending Side
For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information.

The way I interpret these, I agree with Ron. Responder doesn't have to treat the insufficient bid as UI, and his 3NT bid isn't unethical.

The legality of the 3NT bid is a separate issue from whether the director should consider adjusting the table result. If the field had reached a failing slam, I'd have to say that yes, in my opinion the information from the 1D bid had caused damage to the non-offending side and that an adjustment was in order. If that part of Law 27 isn't meant to be applied in situations like this one, I'm not sure when it -is- meant to be applied.

Susan

WHAT?

I think I am in Twilight Zone based on above thinking. Are there gremlins on the airplane wings, am I am stuck in a tiny tiny Salvation Army basket or worms in my brain?

[awm]

This seems like an open and shut case to me. Law 27b seems pretty straightforward.

The insufficient bid gives the offending side the information that opener may not have the values for the subsequent 2♦ call. If the insufficient bid had not been made, this information would not be available and responder would take 2♦ at face value -- probably bidding a slam. If the choice to stop in 3NT harmed the offending side (i.e. 3NT was the limit) then it seems clear that the initial insufficient call of 1♦ was a cause of this damage, and the score should be rolled back. Obviously responder is taking advantage of information that would not be available had the insufficient bid not occurred.

No damage on the actual hand of course.

A similar situation would seem to be 1♥-2♠-2♥... corrected to 3♥. If opener chooses to pass on a borderline hand which might choose to bid game if the insufficient bid had not occurred, he is taking advantage of the information conveyed by the attempted insufficient call (i.e. he knows partner has only a single raise and not a limit raise). Assuming this leads to a poor result for the non-offending side, the director should roll it back.

[the hog]

awm you have totally misunderstood the law. Point of fact that WHO knows what responder would have done had the bid been 2D. Responder might have elected to stay out of slam because of a misfitting maximum. You arguments are based on totally hypothetical situations.

[awm]

Seems like if the hog's interpretation of the laws are correct, it is -extremely- advantageous to make insufficient bids. For example:

(1) If I'd like to reverse without showing full values, just make an insufficient bid and correct it. The insufficient call will be authorized for partner, who can then assume I don't have reverse values.

(2) If I'd like to make a competitive raise without encouraging partner to bid on (in an auction like 1♥-2♠) then make an insufficient single raise and correct it. Then partner will know I have only competitive values (and this will be authorized!) and not bid on.

Seems like these insufficient bids are HUGE wins! Of course, it would be unethical to do this on purpose, but you can't go around accusing people of cheating and the burden will always be on the nonoffending side to prove that this is being done INTENTIONALLY. And you can always just adopt a policy of bidding without paying much attention to opponents calls, so that your insufficient bids are not on purpose, but happen a bit more frequently than they would if you looked at opponents bids...

It just seems wrong to me that a clear violation of the laws (insufficient bid) could carry so many ADVANTAGES for the offending side, with the only disadvantage being that "it's unethical to do this on purpose." It seems clear to me that law 27B exists to prevent exactly this inequitable situation.

As for "who knows what responder would have done had the bid been 2♦" aren't we supposed to assume the most favorable reasonable result for the non-offending side as a matter of course? Surely holding 15 hcp opposite a reverse, it is at least reasonable to assume that 3NT would not have been the final contract. Keep in mind that responder did STATE that he chose 3NT because he "did not believe his partner's reverse after the insufficient bid" which would seem to remove all doubt.