Insufficient Bid Ruling
Steve Foster
Acol with a weak NT. North deals, and the bidding goes:
1S-2D-P-P
1NT-
"Director!"
How should the director rule (assuming that East does not accept the
IB)?
--
Steve Foster
For SSL Certificates, Domains, etc, visit.:
https://netshop.virtual-isp.net
Bertel Lund Hansen
> It's an EBU affiliated club evening. North-South are playing Standard
> Acol with a weak NT. North deals, and the bidding goes:
> 1S-2D-P-P
> 1NT-
> "Director!"
> How should the director rule (assuming that East does not accept the
> IB)?
If North corrects to 2NT, there is no problem - assuming that
neither 1NT was nor 2NT would be conventional.
North may also correct to another legal bid if it has the same as
or a more precise meaning than 1NT - that is a hand that can bid
the new bid must also be suitable for the insufficient bid (in a
legal sequence).
The player should not choose a bid until he has received the full
explanation - but that is always the case.
--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
Robin Barker
<splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> If North corrects to 2NT, there is no problem - assuming that
> neither 1NT was nor 2NT would be conventional.
>
> North may also correct to another legal bid if it has the same as
> or a more precise meaning than 1NT
[ "legal bid" should be "legal call" - in principle North can double
if that has the same or more precise meaning than 1NT, and South is
not silenced.]
North can also make any other sufficient bid or pass and South must
pass for the rest of the auction. North can not double [unless double
has the same or more precise meaning than 1NT]
Robin
Bertel Lund Hansen
> [ "legal bid" should be "legal call" - in principle North can double
> if that has the same or more precise meaning than 1NT, and South is
> not silenced.]
> North can also make any other sufficient bid or pass and South must
> pass for the rest of the auction. North can not double [unless double
> has the same or more precise meaning than 1NT]
Both corrections are correct.
Steve Foster
> Steve Foster skrev:
>
> > It's an EBU affiliated club evening. North-South are playing
> > Standard Acol with a weak NT. North deals, and the bidding goes:
>
> > 1S-2D-P-P
> > 1NT-
>
> > "Director!"
>
> > How should the director rule (assuming that East does not accept the
> > IB)?
>
> If North corrects to 2NT, there is no problem - assuming that
> neither 1NT was nor 2NT would be conventional.
This is the heart of the question. Aren't NT rebids at least partly
artificial - since (playing weak NT) a 1NT rebid shows 15-16 hcp, and a
2NT rebid shows 17-18 hcp? Does this not rule out a direct substitution
(without barring partner), as the substitute bid fails the "same or
more precise meaning" test?
Robin Barker
wrote:
> This is the heart of the question. Aren't NT rebids at least partly
> artificial - since (playing weak NT) a 1NT rebid shows 15-16 hcp, and a
> (without barring partner), as the substitute bid fails the "same or
> more precise meaning" test?
It is Law27B1a that allows replacement by 2NT without silencing
partner if 1NT and 2NT are not artificial. It is Law27B1b that
includes the "same or more precise meaning" test.
In general 1NT and 2NT rebids are not artificial - showing a
particular range does not make a bid artificial.
In practice determine the meaning/range of 1NT in this sequence (if we
had to rule under L27B1b) is fraught - there is no 1NT rebid by 1S
opener.
Robin
Bertel Lund Hansen
> This is the heart of the question. Aren't NT rebids at least partly
> artificial -
No. Agreeing on a range for a bid does not make it artificial.
Neither does the fact that the offending player might not have
the strength that 2NT promises. That is just a problem he has
created for himself (and his partner).
Travis Crump
> Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>
>> Steve Foster skrev:
>>
>>> It's an EBU affiliated club evening. North-South are playing
>>> Standard Acol with a weak NT. North deals, and the bidding goes:
>>> 1S-2D-P-P
>>> 1NT-
>>> "Director!"
>>> How should the director rule (assuming that East does not accept the
>>> IB)?
>> If North corrects to 2NT, there is no problem - assuming that
>> neither 1NT was nor 2NT would be conventional.
>
> This is the heart of the question. Aren't NT rebids at least partly
> artificial - since (playing weak NT) a 1NT rebid shows 15-16 hcp, and a
> 2NT rebid shows 17-18 hcp? Does this not rule out a direct substitution
> (without barring partner), as the substitute bid fails the "same or
> more precise meaning" test?
>
Huh? I play weak NTs regularly though not Acol. After 1X-1Y-p-p; 1N
shows 17-19. With 15-16 you either pass or double if they've bid your
doubleton. Is it standard in Acol to open 1N with 5 spades in
range[quick google turned up at least one reference that suggested it
wasn't]? I don't except for some rare cases of xxxxx AJx KQx Kx, after
all you can't rationally expect to ever rebid 1N after opening 1S. In
that case this auction wouldn't really be any different from a strong NT
auction.
Travis
Adam Beneschan
> On Jan 18, 6:52 pm, "Steve Foster" <stevefos...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > This is the heart of the question. Aren't NT rebids at least partly
> > artificial - since (playing weak NT) a 1NT rebid shows 15-16 hcp, and a
> > 2NT rebid shows 17-18 hcp? Does this not rule out a db) irect substitution
> > (without barring partner), as the substitute bid fails the "same or
> > more precise meaning" test?
>
> It is Law27B1a that allows replacement by 2NT without silencing
> partner if 1NT and 2NT are not artificial. It is Law27B1b that
> includes the "same or more precise meaning" test.
There is no Law 27B1a or 27B1b. Which version of the Laws are you
looking at?
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
wrote:
> Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> > Steve Foster skrev:
>
> > > It's an EBU affiliated club evening. North-South are playing
> > > Standard Acol with a weak NT. North deals, and the bidding goes:
>
> > > 1S-2D-P-P
> > > 1NT-
>
> > > "Director!"
>
> > > How should the director rule (assuming that East does not accept the
> > > IB)?
>
> > If North corrects to 2NT, there is no problem - assuming that
> > neither 1NT was nor 2NT would be conventional.
>
> This is the heart of the question. Aren't NT rebids at least partly
> artificial - since (playing weak NT) a 1NT rebid shows 15-16 hcp, and a
> 2NT rebid shows 17-18 hcp? Does this not rule out a direct substitution
> (without barring partner), as the substitute bid fails the "same or
> more precise meaning" test?
I have a big problem with this. What does a 1NT rebid show by an
opener who has opened 1S? First I need to get an answer to the
question: What kind of clever bid would responder come up with that is
between 1S and 1NT? "One sprump?"
I don't think the original question is answerable without being at the
table. The Laws say that a correction can be accepted if the new bid
"incorporates the information contained in the insufficient bid". I'm
not a director, so I don't really know how this would be handled; but
given that it is normally impossible to bid 1S and rebid 1NT, I don't
think we can judge what "information is contained in the 1NT bid"
without asking some questions of the player and/or his partner (such
as, in exactly what auction did the opener think he was bidding 1NT?).
-- Adam
Rob Morris
They're present in my copy of the 2007 Laws, EBU printing, Copyright
2008 the Portland Club.
Just a slip-up, Adam, or are your up-to-date Laws different?
--
Rob Morris
arr emm four four five (at) cam dot ac dot uk
Gordon Rainsford
Yes there is.
> Which version of the Laws are you
> looking at?
Indeed:) Perhaps you are looking at the version that was initially
released and was then superseded?
Peter Smulders
news:de116ba8-5113-4ffb...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.c
om:
> I have a big problem with this. What does a 1NT rebid show by
> an opener who has opened 1S? First I need to get an answer to
> the question: What kind of clever bid would responder come up
> with that is between 1S and 1NT? "One sprump?"
>
How about this one:
1S dbl p p
1NT
Bertel Lund Hansen
> I don't think the original question is answerable without being at the
> table.
You are missing something. Law 27 B1 does have two sections, and
the first one does not discuss whether there is new information
or not in the new bid. It only specifies that neither the old nor
the new one must be conventional and must have the same
denomination.
If this section does not apply - only then do we consider the
information contained in the bids.
And they really are marked (a) and (b).
Adam Beneschan
> On 19/01/2010 01:28, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > On Jan 18, 11:30 am, Robin Barker<Robin.Bar...@npl.co.uk> wrote:
> >> It is Law27B1a that allows replacement by 2NT without silencing
> >> partner if 1NT and 2NT are not artificial. It is Law27B1b that
> >> includes the "same or more precise meaning" test.
>
> > There is no Law 27B1a or 27B1b. Which version of the Laws are you
> > looking at?
>
> They're present in my copy of the 2007 Laws, EBU printing, Copyright
> 2008 the Portland Club.
>
> Just a slip-up, Adam, or are your up-to-date Laws different?
Oh dear, you're right. I'm not sure where my copy of the 2007 Laws
came from. Law 27 is organized quite a bit differently; the one I
have has sections A through F, and makes no reference to whether a bid
is "incontrovertibly not artificial".
I don't know what happened. At the time I obtained this file, I
thought it was the official, final version. Either I accidentally got
a hold of an earlier draft, or something got revised after the "final"
version was released and somehow I was never aware of it. I'll have
to look into it.
My apologies for promulgating misinformation.
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
> Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> schreef innews:de116ba8-5113-4ffb...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.c
> om:
>
> > I have a big problem with this. What does a 1NT rebid show by
> > an opener who has opened 1S? First I need to get an answer to
> > the question: What kind of clever bid would responder come up
> > with that is between 1S and 1NT? "One sprump?"
>
> How about this one:
> 1S dbl p p
> 1NT
That's too unusual an auction to be useful in answering a question
about what 1NT was supposed to show.
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
<splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> Adam Beneschan skrev:
>
> > I don't think the original question is answerable without being at the
> > table.
>
> You are missing something. Law 27 B1 does have two sections, and
> the first one does not discuss whether there is new information
> or not in the new bid. It only specifies that neither the old nor
> the new one must be conventional and must have the same
> denomination.
Please see above. At some point (perhaps a draft before the final
one, I'm not done figuring it out), there was a version of Law 27 that
was organized differently and did *not* concern itself with whether
the insufficient bid or correction were artificial, but only with
whether the new bid incorporates the information contained in the
insufficient bid.
But I think my point is still relevant. Even looking at the correct
version of the Laws, it's hard to say whether the insufficient 1NT in
the auction is "artificial" or not since it's basically in a position
that does not exist in a normal, legal auction.
-- Adam
Bertel Lund Hansen
> But I think my point is still relevant. Even looking at the correct
> version of the Laws, it's hard to say whether the insufficient 1NT in
> the auction is "artificial" or not since it's basically in a position
> that does not exist in a normal, legal auction.
In that case we can never use § 27 B1(a) since no relevant first
bid ever exists. They are all insufficient.
But you need to read the precise law, § 27B1:
(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.
The TD's oppinion matters, and he can ask the offending player
for clarification.
Adam Beneschan
<splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> Adam Beneschan skrev:
>
> > But I think my point is still relevant. Even looking at the correct
> > version of the Laws, it's hard to say whether the insufficient 1NT in
> > the auction is "artificial" or not since it's basically in a position
> > that does not exist in a normal, legal auction.
>
> In that case we can never use § 27 B1(a) since no relevant first
> bid ever exists. They are all insufficient.
I'm not sure what you mean. If it had gone
1C (2D) pass pass
1NT
the opener could well have been thinking this was a situation where
his plan was to open 1C and rebid 1NT; in that case it is useful to
ask what 1NT would have meant in that case. In the OP's case, the
opening bid was 1S, and that's a case where a 1NT rebid does not
exist. That's what I meant by "1NT does not exist in a normal, legal
auction". (And what it means in cases where partner passes and one of
the opponents has doubled is not relevant.)
> But you need to read the precise law, § 27B1:
>
> (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.
>
> The TD's oppinion matters, and he can ask the offending player
> for clarification.
Wasn't one of the first things I said on this subthread, "I don't
think the original question is answerable without being at the
table?" And that the director needs to ask the players some
questions?
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
> On Jan 18, 5:56 pm, Rob Morris <rm...@cam.spam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 19/01/2010 01:28, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 18, 11:30 am, Robin Barker<Robin.Bar...@npl.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> It is Law27B1a that allows replacement by 2NT without silencing
> > >> partner if 1NT and 2NT are not artificial. It is Law27B1b that
> > >> includes the "same or more precise meaning" test.
>
> > > There is no Law 27B1a or 27B1b. Which version of the Laws are you
> > > looking at?
>
> > They're present in my copy of the 2007 Laws, EBU printing, Copyright
> > 2008 the Portland Club.
>
> > Just a slip-up, Adam, or are your up-to-date Laws different?
>
> Oh dear, you're right. I'm not sure where my copy of the 2007 Laws
> came from. Law 27 is organized quite a bit differently; the one I
> have has sections A through F, and makes no reference to whether a bid
> is "incontrovertibly not artificial".
OK, I figured it out. I made the mistake of downloading the 2007 Laws
in 2007. This Law was changed in March 2008, and I'd failed to notice
it and replace my downloaded copy.
Again, my apologies.
-- Adam
Mark Brader
> OK, I figured it out. I made the mistake of downloading the 2007 Laws
Welcome to the club. I demonstrated a similar error in this newsgroup
in April 2009. (And as I said at the time, I don't remember anyone
in this newsgroup ever talking about that late change at the time it
happened. Of course, I might just have missed reading the relevant
thread(s).)
--
Mark Brader | Those who mourn for "USENET like it was" should
Toronto | remember the original design estimates of maximum
m...@vex.net | traffic volume: 2 articles/day. --Steven Bellovin
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Adam Beneschan
> Adam Beneschan:
>
> > OK, I figured it out. I made the mistake of downloading the 2007 Laws
> > in 2007. This Law was changed in March 2008...
>
> Welcome to the club. I demonstrated a similar error in this newsgroup
> in April 2009. (And as I said at the time, I don't remember anyone
> in this newsgroup ever talking about that late change at the time it
> happened. Of course, I might just have missed reading the relevant
> thread(s).)
We were notified on BLML, but I don't have time to read more than a
small percentage of the mail on that list any more, so I missed it (I
found it today when I was looking this up). Dunno whether there was
any discussion on r.g.b.
-- Adam
Peter Smulders
com:
> On Jan 19, 2:12�am, Peter Smulders <d...@home.nl> wrote:
>> Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> schreef
>> innews:de116ba8-5113-4ffb-bc73-a
> 079ee...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>> > I have a big problem with this. �What does a 1NT rebid show
>> > by an opener who has opened 1S? �First I need to get an
>> > answer to the question: What kind of clever bid would
>> > responder come up with that is between 1S and 1NT? �"One
>> > sprump?"
>>
>> How about this one:
>> 1S dbl p p
>> 1NT
>
> That's too unusual an auction to be useful in answering a
> question about what 1NT was supposed to show.
What it shows is that opener has a balanced hand which he thinks
plays better in 1NT then in 1S, when the spades are badly
distributed, as evident from the fact the double is left in.
Adam Beneschan
> Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> schreef innews:bd11248b-0a6d-4de8...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.
> com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 19, 2:12 am, Peter Smulders <d...@home.nl> wrote:
> >> Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> schreef
> >> innews:de116ba8-5113-4ffb-bc73-a
> >> om:
>
> >> > I have a big problem with this. What does a 1NT rebid show
> >> > by an opener who has opened 1S? First I need to get an
> >> > answer to the question: What kind of clever bid would
> >> > responder come up with that is between 1S and 1NT? "One
> >> > sprump?"
>
> >> How about this one:
> >> 1S dbl p p
> >> 1NT
>
> > That's too unusual an auction to be useful in answering a
> > question about what 1NT was supposed to show.
>
> What it shows is that opener has a balanced hand which he thinks
> plays better in 1NT then in 1S, when the spades are badly
> distributed, as evident from the fact the double is left in
I don't think this has anything to do with the original problem, or
the succeeding discussion. Steve was talking about what a 1NT rebid
by opener shows in a weak notrump system. By agreement, it shows
15-16 or 15-17. Steve thought that the point range agreement made the
bid "partly artificial" (it doesn't).
But the above auction is a completely different one; here the 1NT bid
doesn't really *show* anything by agreement, but is just an attempt to
avoid or reduce the penalty.
My point was this: In the original insufficient bid auction, it's not
really possible that opener's 1NT bid was intended to show what a 1NT
rebid would normally show after a different suit opening---because
it's not possible for opener to be planning a 1NT rebid after opening
1S. All you've done here is shown how it's *possible* to construct a
legal auction in which opener bids 1S and then 1NT on the next round;
but 1NT here doesn't have any agreed-on meaning, and thus it isn't
really germane to the discussion.
-- Adam
Peter Smulders
@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.
com:
> On Jan 20, 3:37�pm, Peter Smulders <d...@home.nl> wrote:
>> Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> schreef
>> innews:bd11248b-0a6d-4de8-b2be-a
> b0362...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.
I don't see why my speculation about a possible meaning of 1NT is
irrelevant. To be sure we should ask opener what he meant. This
should have been the first thing for the TD to investigate, but as
far as we know he did not do so. Thus we can only speculate about
the meaning of the 1NT rebid, and subsequently what other bid
might have the same or a more precise meaning.
David Stevenson
>Is it standard in Acol to open 1N with 5 spades in
>range[quick google turned up at least one reference that suggested it
>wasn't]?
Standard? No. Some do, some don't.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
David Stevenson
>This is the heart of the question. Aren't NT rebids at least partly
>artificial - since (playing weak NT) a 1NT rebid shows 15-16 hcp, and a
>2NT rebid shows 17-18 hcp?
No. They are natural. The fact they show a range of strength - like
99% of other calls - does not stop them being natural.
Steve Willner
> I made the mistake of downloading the 2007 Laws
> in 2007. This Law was changed in March 2008, and I'd failed to notice
> it and replace my downloaded copy.
As may have been mentioned, Law 27 had a very late change -- well after
the new Laws were supposed to be final.
The ACBL made a few more changes in its version of the Laws. Most are
insignificant, but at least one in Law 12 can make a difference, though
the situation will be rare.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA