[alanmet]

Hi Everyone
Should an Insufficient Bid be alerted if without interference would have been alerted?
If so on what basis? The bid itself is not legal.
1NT 2S 2D meant as a transfer without the 2S overcall.

Cheers
Alan

[mrdct]

It is illegal to have a partnership agreement as to the meaning of an insufficient bid so it's not clear to me how you could assume 2D was a transfer H. It's kind of moot anyway, as the first thing you are going to do when partner bids insufficiently is call the TD.

[Fluffy]

I though that what was ilegal was to have agreements over how to take maximum advantage over opponent's insuicent bids (conventions to gain from the extra space)

[jallerton]

 Fluffy, on 2012-September-08, 07:42, said:

I though that what was ilegal was to have agreements over how to take maximum advantage over opponent's insuicent bids (conventions to gain from the extra space)

It depends where you play. Law 40B3 says:

Quote

The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity.

For example, for events in England, section 7D1(j) of the 2012 EBU Orange Book is relevant:

Quote

Under Law 40B3 (d) a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity by
either side, except that following its own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so that it is brought within the criteria of Law 27B1 (b).

[barmar]

Since the law regarding replacing the IB with a correct bid refers to bids that have "the same or more specific meaning", that implies that the IB itself must have a meaning. If that meaning is alertable, presumably it should be alerted.

On the other hand, when we're asked to determine the meaning of the IB, we usually do so by asking the bidder what was going through his mind -- did he think partner had bid on the lower level, did he not see the previous bid at all, etc.? Since alerting is done by his partner, who doesn't know what's in his mind, how can he be expected to give the appropriate alert? E.g. 2NT-2♦ is a transfer (alertable or announceable in many places) if responder thought the opening was 1NT, it's a weak 2 (not alertable in most places) if responder didn't see the opening (or maybe it's Flannery or Multi). How is opener supposed to know?

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2012-September-09, 14:30, said:

Since the law regarding replacing the IB with a correct bid refers to bids that have "the same or more specific meaning", that implies that the IB itself must have a meaning. If that meaning is alertable, presumably it should be alerted.

And yet, meaning is related to partnership agreements, and in at least some jurisdictions, including the ACBL I believe, it is illegal to have an agreement regarding IBs. So that implies that the IB cannot have a meaning. Now what?

 barmar, on 2012-September-09, 14:30, said:

On the other hand, when we're asked to determine the meaning of the IB, we usually do so by asking the bidder what was going through his mind -- did he think partner had bid on the lower level, did he not see the previous bid at all, etc.? Since alerting is done by his partner, who doesn't know what's in his mind, how can he be expected to give the appropriate alert? E.g. 2NT-2♦ is a transfer (alertable or announceable in many places) if responder thought the opening was 1NT, it's a weak 2 (not alertable in most places) if responder didn't see the opening (or maybe it's Flannery or Multi). How is opener supposed to know?

If the bid cannot have a meaning, it cannot require an alert. Easy-peasy.

[jallerton]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-09, 14:58, said:

And yet, meaning is related to partnership agreements, and in at least some jurisdictions, including the ACBL I believe, it is illegal to have an agreement regarding IBs. So that implies that the IB cannot have a meaning. Now what?

From that we can infer that Law 27B1b is nonsense.

[semeai]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-09, 14:58, said:

And yet, meaning is related to partnership agreements, and in at least some jurisdictions, including the ACBL I believe, it is illegal to have an agreement regarding IBs. So that implies that the IB cannot have a meaning. Now what?

The fact that it's illegal to have an agreement about them doesn't mean they don't have at least a meaning, or at the very least an intended meaning.

This "illegal to have an agreement" rule is presumably to forbid agreeing with your partner that when you make an insufficient bid, it shows, say, a worse hand than the corresponding sufficient bid. Otherwise I suppose it may be legal to have the auction 1S P 1H, agreed as "natural but not enough to force game," then legally corrected under 27B1a to 1S P 2H (which is otherwise game forcing in your methods, say).

Unfortunately, laws don't always succumb to the strict application of logic to their strict readings. Some sense of the intention of the law may be necessary in interpreting it.

 jallerton, on 2012-September-09, 16:53, said:

From that we can infer that Law 27B1b is nonsense.

As an apparent supporter of 27B1b, I think it just needs to use "intended meaning" in place of "meaning" and some language that if the director can't determine the likely intended meaning (at least sufficiently well to decide whether the corrected bid has the same or a more precise meaning), then the director is free to disallow rectification under 27B1b.

Or my more radical change suggested in the other thread: allow any correction, and let the UI laws sort it out. (Possibly with frequent PP's for the insufficient bid as the deterrent, if you think it needs one and the UI restriction isn't sufficient.)

[Retroactive apology to blackshoe (and everyone else), who correctly points out below this is not the place for such discussion.]

***

As to the actual thread, it does seem silly to alert insufficient bids.

[blackshoe]

 jallerton, on 2012-September-09, 16:53, said:

From that we can infer that Law 27B1b is nonsense.

And that leads us to the "changing laws" forum, doesn't it?

 semeai, on 2012-September-09, 17:20, said:

The fact that it's illegal to have an agreement about them doesn't mean they don't have at least a meaning, or at the very least an intended meaning.

When I said that meaning is related to partnership agreements, I meant that the agreement defines the meaning. If you don't have an agreement, there isn't a defined meaning. I suppose there will be an intended meaning, but the law does not speak of intended meanings. Perhaps that's a flaw in the laws. If so, we're again in "changing laws" territory.

 semeai, on 2012-September-09, 17:20, said:

This "illegal to have an agreement" rule is presumably to forbid agreeing with your partner that when you make an insufficient bid, it shows, say, a worse hand than the corresponding sufficient bid. Otherwise I suppose it may be legal to have the auction 1S P 1H, agreed as "natural but not enough to force game," then legally corrected under 27B1a to 1S P 2H (which is otherwise game forcing in your methods, say).

Unfortunately, laws don't always succumb to the strict application of logic to their strict readings. Some sense of the intention of the law may be necessary in interpreting it.

Sure. Then we can have all kinds of discussions about the lawmakers' intentions. But we're not going to do that here.

 semeai, on 2012-September-09, 17:20, said:

As an apparent supporter of 27B1b, I think it just needs to use "intended meaning" in place of "meaning" and some language that if the director can't determine the likely intended meaning (at least sufficiently well to decide whether the corrected bid has the same or a more precise meaning), then the director is free to disallow rectification under 27B1b.

Perhaps so, but this isn't the place to discuss that.

 semeai, on 2012-September-09, 17:20, said:

As to the actual thread, it does seem silly to alert insufficient bids.

It's certainly possible for the laws to require us to do something silly. However, the answer to the OP question, it seems to me, lies in the fact that alert regulations are based on agreements, and you don't have an agreement as to the meaning of the IB - you can't. So my answer to the OP question is no, you don't alert IB's. Aside from that, consider the likely sequence of events. Somebody is likely to blurt out "that's insufficient" before you can get an alert or announcement off. Now everyone's first priority is to call the TD. Once he's called, no one can do anything, including alert. So there won't often be the chance, unless you're a lot quicker than your opponents.

The bottom line, really, is that alerting an IB will just make a bigger mess. So don't.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-09, 18:37, said:

The bottom line, really, is that alerting an IB will just make a bigger mess. So don't.

Here we must distinguish between alerting before and after attention has been called to the irregularity of an insufficient bid.

There is no harm in a player (automatically) alerting his partner's bid before noticing that the bid in fact was insufficient. (This alert will then of course be evidence in the question on which of the sub-paragraphs in Law 27B shall eventually apply.)

But alerting after attention has been called is a violation of Law 9B2 and should of course be avoided.

[iviehoff]

 pran, on 2012-September-10, 03:00, said:

There is no harm in a player (automatically) alerting his partner's bid before noticing that the bid in fact was insufficient. (This alert will then of course be evidence in the question on which of the sub-paragraphs in Law 27B shall eventually apply.)

Whether both the alerter and his partner are suffering from the same misapprehension is hard to know. There seem to be always at least 2 possible misapprehensions in the case of an insufficient bid - either miscalculating the level of the bid, or overlooking some earlier part of the auction.

[CamHenry]

 alanmet, on 2012-September-07, 17:48, said:

Hi Everyone
Should an Insufficient Bid be alerted if without interference would have been alerted?
If so on what basis? The bid itself is not legal.
1NT 2S 2D meant as a transfer without the 2S overcall.

Cheers
Alan

In many cases, it is not clear what should be done. If the 2♦ bidder thought he was opening, this might be a weak 2: announceable in the EBU and not alertable. It might be that he thought he was bidding a natural, signoff 2♦ after a 2♣ overcall. It might be that he didn't see the overcall and was transferring (apparently alertable where you play, but announceable here). It might even be that he wanted to bid a forcing 3♦ and just forgot that he needed to bid at the 3-level to make it sufficient. Importantly, his partner cannot know what the insufficient bidder meant, and therefore I would rule it non-alertable.

It is plausible that all meanings of the bid would be alertable, with or without the interference: in one partnership, I play 1♣ as a limited opening hand without a 5-card major. Suppose the auction starts:
1♣ - (1♠) - 1♦. Here, 1♦ would be an artificial negative without the interference; 2♦ would be limited, non-forcing and therefore (by EBU rules) alertable. My belief is that, in addition to calling the director, I should explain both of these potential meanings to the opponents - they are, I think, entitled to as much information as I can give them about the situation.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2012-September-10, 03:00, said:

Here we must distinguish between alerting before and after attention has been called to the irregularity of an insufficient bid.

There is no harm in a player (automatically) alerting his partner's bid before noticing that the bid in fact was insufficient. (This alert will then of course be evidence in the question on which of the sub-paragraphs in Law 27B shall eventually apply.)

But alerting after attention has been called is a violation of Law 9B2 and should of course be avoided.

So, if you notice that partner's bid is insufficient before you alert, should you alert or call attention to the irregularity? Which takes priority?

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-10, 09:52, said:

So, if you notice that partner's bid is insufficient before you alert, should you alert or call attention to the irregularity? Which takes priority?

Considering who asked this question, may I assume it is rhetorical? Don't things stop while we call and await the director?

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2012-September-10, 10:10, said:

Considering who asked this question, may I assume it is rhetorical? Don't things stop while we call and await the director?

You misunderstand my point. You can alert and then call the TD, or you can call the TD and not alert at all. As Sven points out, the alert, if it happens, is evidence. If it doesn't happen, it's not evidence. So which should you do first? I know what my opinion is, sure, but I've been wrong before.

[aguahombre]

I got your point. But, once you notice an irregularity (and before you have alerted), I would think you have an obligation to call the TD and that doing anything else first would be a second violation of procedure.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2012-September-10, 10:47, said:

I got your point. But, once you notice an irregularity (and before you have alerted), I would think you have an obligation to call the TD and that doing anything else first would be a second violation of procedure.

Um, no. Law 9A4: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partner’s apparently mistaken explanation)."

Any player may call attention to an irregularity. No one is required to do so.

Huh. Law 9A4 fails to mention Law 20F4, which requires a player who notices his own misexplanation to call the TD immediately. An error, IMO.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-10, 13:19, said:

Um, no. Law 9A4: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partner’s apparently mistaken explanation)."

Any player may call attention to an irregularity. No one is required to do so.

Huh. Law 9A4 fails to mention Law 20F4, which requires a player who notices his own misexplanation to call the TD immediately. An error, IMO.

The choices you gave both included calling the director, so whether you are required to call attention to an irregularity or not is moot. You intend to do so. I can't imagine wanting to add complexity once you have decided to call re: the IB by saying something before he gets there.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-09, 14:58, said:

And yet, meaning is related to partnership agreements, and in at least some jurisdictions, including the ACBL I believe, it is illegal to have an agreement regarding IBs. So that implies that the IB cannot have a meaning. Now what?


If the bid cannot have a meaning, it cannot require an alert. Easy-peasy.

I think the regulation is that you can't change the meaning based on an irregularity. So it has the meaning it would have if it were sufficient. But as pointed out, that depends on what the IBer thought was going on.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-10, 09:52, said:

So, if you notice that partner's bid is insufficient before you alert, should you alert or call attention to the irregularity? Which takes priority?

When I wrote:

There is no harm in a player (automatically) alerting his partner's bid before noticing that the bid in fact was insufficient. (This alert will then of course be evidence in the question on which of the sub-paragraphs in Law 27B shall eventually apply.)

I expected it to be quite clear that I thought of the (alerting) player himself noticing.

I have no problem with a player expecting an alertable bid from partner automatically alerting it without noticing that the bid is insufficient.