[jvage]

---

This was our only Director call during the week in Pula, and I think it has some interesting aspects. I was North, playing with a non-regular partner in the Butler pairs. At the table West bid 2♥ over partners 2♥. When I told her that this was insufficient she immediately replaced 2♥ with 3♥. I then called the TD, partly because I considered accepting and bidding 3♥ over 2♥. When the TD arrived he started by giving me the option of accepting, but during the time this took I had realized that I did not have a 3♥ bid (partner had passed initially, and although I never asked about the unalerted 2♥ it looked like it could be natural and we were vulnerable...). I refused to accept and the TD then took West away from the table, presumably to ask about the meaning of 2♥ and 3♥ (and possibly other calls). I don't know what was told to the TD, but when they came back he said West could bid 3♥ instead of the insufficient 2♥! The bidding continued undisturbed 3♥ - 3♠, 4♠ all pass. 4♠ made an overtrick, for a score of -1 IMP for us.

The TD's in Pula are generally very good, but this ruling seemed strange to me. We did not appeal, but I wondered what other people think (as a sidenote; I have several times been a member of appeal committees in Pula).

It also made me think about a slightly different scenario. Assuming a double by West is penalty and showing at least 4 hearts, would a double be a Comparable call? To me it seems to comply with §23A2 "Defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call" (or possibly §23A1) in that it also shows hearts, possibly a better suit than 2♥. If a penalty double is considered a Comparable call it may lead to another problem. Here 2♥X is no disaster (-500 would be a good score for N/S), but if North had less support he would probably like to accept the insufficient bid if he knew that it could be changed to a penalty double. Should he be informed about this before he makes a choice or is §23C (later adjustment due to damage to non-offending side) relevant?

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 27B1{a}: 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bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call, the auction proceeds without further rectification. Laws 26B and 16C do not apply but see D following.

Quote

Law 27C: f the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on rectification, the substitution, if legal, stands unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A1 allows (but see B3 above). The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution.

27C means that if you accept the IB, both it and the premature correction are withdrawn. Since you didn't accept it, the premature correction stands, and then the director has to figure out which part of 27B to apply. So the question is what 3♥ would mean. Seems the director determined it specifies the same denomination as specified by 2!H, so B1{a} applies.

[pescetom]

I'm no Director, but it looks to me as if DBL can be a comparable call: Law 23 doesn't make any distinction between bids/passes and doubles/redoubles, Law 27 does but it seems to treat them the same way. So I imagine that the question of whether 3♥ or DBL are comparable calls to 2♥ depends upon EW agreements. If 3♥ would be natural rather than (say) a stopper ask then it looks comparable. If double would be for penalty showing good hearts then it does look like a subset.
Even if the Director was wrong about this I doubt you would win an appeal as it's hard to see how you could have been damaged by any replacement bid, they are always going to find 4♠.

[gordontd]

jvage, on 2018-September-26, 06:26, said:

---

This was our only Director call during the week in Pula, and I think it has some interesting aspects. I was North, playing with a non-regular partner in the Butler pairs. At the table West bid 2♥ over partners 2♥. When I told her that this was insufficient she immediately replaced 2♥ with 3♥. I then called the TD, partly because I considered accepting and bidding 3♥ over 2♥. When the TD arrived he started by giving me the option of accepting, but during the time this took I had realized that I did not have a 3♥ bid (partner had passed initially, and although I never asked about the unalerted 2♥ it looked like it could be natural and we were vulnerable...). I refused to accept and the TD then took West away from the table, presumably to ask about the meaning of 2♥ and 3♥ (and possibly other calls). I don't know what was told to the TD, but when they came back he said West could bid 3♥ instead of the insufficient 2♥! The bidding continued undisturbed 3♥ - 3♠, 4♠ all pass. 4♠ made an overtrick, for a score of -1 IMP for us.

The TD's in Pula are generally very good, but this ruling seemed strange to me. We did not appeal, but I wondered what other people think (as a sidenote; I have several times been a member of appeal committees in Pula).

It also made me think about a slightly different scenario. Assuming a double by West is penalty and showing at least 4 hearts, would a double be a Comparable call? To me it seems to comply with §23A2 "Defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call" (or possibly §23A1) in that it also shows hearts, possibly a better suit than 2♥. If a penalty double is considered a Comparable call it may lead to another problem. Here 2♥X is no disaster (-500 would be a good score for N/S), but if North had less support he would probably like to accept the insufficient bid if he knew that it could be changed to a penalty double. Should he be informed about this before he makes a choice or is §23C (later adjustment due to damage to non-offending side) relevant?

Hi John

I would have thought the obvious thing to do for you would be to accept the 2H bid and double it: useful to be able to show partner a 2H raise of 2H! This would also solve your second concern that the player might try, if allowed, to make a penalty double of your partner's 2H bid.

I don't think this situation is covered by L27B1a since although the insufficient 2H bid and a 3H replacement bid both name the same suit, I don't think they necessarily specify the same suit, as understood in the application of these laws.

To determine whether it might be covered by L27B1b (ie by L23A) we have to consider what meanings might be attributed to the insufficient bid and here I think it not unreasonable to include "natural" or "forcing cue-bid" both as attributable meanings. That being the case, allowing a 3H cue-bid as a replacement seems plausible. Of course if the player had done anything to indicate that the intention had been to bid 2H naturally, then the cue-bid possibility could no longer be attributable to it.

As to a penalty double belonging to a subset of meanings attributable to a 2H insufficient bid, I think you are probably right that it does, though one would need to be sure that the pair were playing penalty doubles in this situation before allowing it.

[jvage]

Hi Gordon!
Yes, I should have mentioned §27. My thinking was that 2♥ was natural and that 3♥ was a cuebid, but I did not get an explanation from the TD.

The reason I did not double 2♥ is that I thought it would show an honour, that would be the meaning of a double of a 3♥ cuebid. With my non-regular partner I did not have an agreement about a double of an insufficient 2 ♥

John

[barmar]

I don't think anyone answered your last question, about whether the TD should inform you about what the allowable CCs would be when you're deciding whether to accept the IB. The Laws never specifically cover this, but it seems like it would be impractical to enumerate all the possible CCs.

I think the general laws about full disclosure should allow you to find out what 2♥ would mean if you accepted it. If you're told that it would be natural, you can probably figure out for yourself that a penalty double would be comparable. I don't think the TD or opponent has to volunteer this information, but you should be allowed to ask, just ask you can ask about any other call.

[weejonnie]

I don't know whether a PD would be comparable in this case. Assuming the Heart overcall shows a natural heart suit (at least 4), the penalty double (assuming it is so) a desire to punish a 2 heart contract by the opponents e.g. on cards and AQJ stiff in hearts. Note that the caller's partner cannot make use of the fact that the 2H call was withdrawn to deduce that the double is a penalty double.

If it not comparable the caller would be only too delighted that partner has to pass i.e. not be able to escape from the contract. If a normal penalty here is not penalty we now, of course start looking at 23C.

I don't think the TD can tell you (the opponent) what CCs the offender has available. However you can ask (it is your turn to call at the moment).

Whether that will be successful or not I don;t know. One could argue that the correct explanation from partner about the meaning of the original (insufficient bid) is "No partnership agreement" - which suggests that if partner DOES make an insufficient bid then you must alert it!


If I remember correctly haven't there been discussions as whether the TD should even find out whether a replacement call is comparable, before it is made. Once it is made the the TD DOES have to find out whether it is a comparable call or not since he has to make the ruling whether partner is barred from bidding - and this does not need the opponents to ask.

[axman]

jvage, on 2018-September-26, 06:26, said:

---

This was our only Director call during the week in Pula, and I think it has some interesting aspects. I was North, playing with a non-regular partner in the Butler pairs. At the table West bid 2♥ over partners 2♥. When I told her that this was insufficient she immediately replaced 2♥ with 3♥. I then called the TD, partly because I considered accepting and bidding 3♥ over 2♥. When the TD arrived he started by giving me the option of accepting, but during the time this took I had realized that I did not have a 3♥ bid (partner had passed initially, and although I never asked about the unalerted 2♥ it looked like it could be natural and we were vulnerable...). I refused to accept and the TD then took West away from the table, presumably to ask about the meaning of 2♥ and 3♥ (and possibly other calls). I don't know what was told to the TD, but when they came back he said West could bid 3♥ instead of the insufficient 2♥! The bidding continued undisturbed 3♥ - 3♠, 4♠ all pass. 4♠ made an overtrick, for a score of -1 IMP for us.

The TD's in Pula are generally very good, but this ruling seemed strange to me. We did not appeal, but I wondered what other people think (as a sidenote; I have several times been a member of appeal committees in Pula).

It also made me think about a slightly different scenario. Assuming a double by West is penalty and showing at least 4 hearts, would a double be a Comparable call? To me it seems to comply with §23A2 "Defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call" (or possibly §23A1) in that it also shows hearts, possibly a better suit than 2♥. If a penalty double is considered a Comparable call it may lead to another problem. Here 2♥X is no disaster (-500 would be a good score for N/S), but if North had less support he would probably like to accept the insufficient bid if he knew that it could be changed to a penalty double. Should he be informed about this before he makes a choice or is §23C (later adjustment due to damage to non-offending side) relevant?

Two infractions by W
1. change of intended call
2. IB

1. not accepting the original 3H cancels the 3H thereby reverting to the insufficient 2H: L25B2
2. 2H not accepted must be made sufficient (due to the canceled 3H must repeat the 3H), and, the pard must pass throughout: L27C. UI and applicable lead penalties accrue.

[pran]

This has become a bit off topic, but it strikes me that if North was interested in raising partner's 2♥ bid to 3♥ he could easily have accomplished that in this situation by just accepting the insufficient 2♥ bid (by West) and then just bid 3♥ as planned?

South could hardly have misunderstood this "raise" to 3♥. (But as North realized in time: He did not have the cards to bid 3♥ !)

[gordontd]

axman, on 2018-September-26, 10:52, said:

2. 2H not accepted must be made sufficient (due to the canceled 3H must repeat the 3H), and, the pard must pass throughout: L27C. UI and applicable lead penalties accrue.

Since the TD ruled that the replacement call was comparable, there is no requirement to pass by partner and no lead penalties.

[blackshoe]

jvage, on 2018-September-26, 08:39, said:

My thinking was that 2♥ was natural and that 3♥ was a cuebid, but I did not get an explanation from the TD.

3♥ is a cuebid by definition, because it's a bid in a suit bid or shown by opponents. That doesn't mean that 3♥ is not natural. That depends on the meaning of the cuebid.

[PrecisionL]

ACBL has told me that a Double is never a comparable call. However, I recall an exception to that but it remains a mystery.

[pran]

PrecisionL, on 2018-September-26, 13:08, said:

ACBL has told me that a Double is never a comparable call. However, I recall an exception to that but it remains a mystery.

This is IMHO pure theory but I believe that if a withdrawn PASS is a demand PASS then a DOUBLE (of the same denomination) could be ruled comparable?

[weejonnie]

It could be e.g. blackwood playing DOPE or DOPI then an insufficient reply showing one ace could be corrected to a double showing one ace.

[pran]

weejonnie, on 2018-September-26, 16:41, said:

It could be e.g. blackwood playing DOPE or DOPI then an insufficient reply showing one ace could be corrected to a double showing one ace.

How come?
Should the pair use DOPE and DOPI alternatively?

[sfi]

PrecisionL, on 2018-September-26, 13:08, said:

ACBL has told me that a Double is never a comparable call. However, I recall an exception to that but it remains a mystery.

One came up at the club last week. The auction started:

1C - (1S) - 1H

Allowing double (showing four hearts) as a comparable call was uncontroversial.

[sfi]

weejonnie, on 2018-September-26, 16:41, said:

It could be e.g. blackwood playing DOPE or DOPI then an insufficient reply showing one ace could be corrected to a double showing one ace.

It's clearer if you are in DOPI territory (which should really be POXI if the double shows one ace - the name alone being a good reason to play it this way).

If DOPE is relevant, then it's more questionable if double showing an odd number is equivalent to a response showing one. My inclination would be to allow it under the "similar meaning" part of Law 23, but then to consider a possible adjustment under 23C to see if the information that the offender had one ace rather than three provided their partner with assistance in getting to the right spot.

[blackshoe]

PrecisionL, on 2018-September-26, 13:08, said:

ACBL has told me that a Double is never a comparable call. However, I recall an exception to that but it remains a mystery.

Who is "ACBL"? If it's not the Board of Directors in an official pronouncement of the board, then I submit that "ACBL" didn't tell you anything. Sounds like some director's opinion. He might be right, but then again he might not.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2018-September-26, 10:52, said:

Two infractions by W
1. change of intended call
2. IB

1. not accepting the original 3H cancels the 3H thereby reverting to the insufficient 2H: L25B2
2. 2H not accepted must be made sufficient (due to the canceled 3H must repeat the 3H), and, the pard must pass throughout: L27C. UI and applicable lead penalties accrue.

That's not how it works. First, 3♥ is ignored for the moment. If 2♥ is not accepted, both bids are cancelled and the appropriate law applied to 2!H. If 2♥ is accepted, 3♥ stands and the appropriate part of 27B is applied to that. NOS does not get the opportunity to accept or reject 3!H.

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2018-September-26, 10:37, said:

II don't think the TD can tell you (the opponent) what CCs the offender has available. However you can ask (it is your turn to call at the moment).

Whether that will be successful or not I don;t know. One could argue that the correct explanation from partner about the meaning of the original (insufficient bid) is "No partnership agreement" - which suggests that if partner DOES make an insufficient bid then you must alert it!

Is this based on some EBU regulation? It's certainly not a matter of law, afaics. And I'm pretty sure in the ACBL you're not supposed to alert calls just because there is no partnership agreement. Other jurisdictions, I don't know. Asking about comparable calls might be justified under the "alternative calls not made" provision of Law 20, or it might be disallowed because once an IB is withdrawn (because not accepted) any "comparable calls" are future calls, and I don't think a player is permitted to ask about those.