[biggerclub]

---

At this point N bid 4♠. And E . . .

[gordontd]

Double!

[gszes]

biggerclub, on 2015-November-25, 08:28, said:

---

At this point N bid 4♠. And E . . .

note that it is impossible for n to bid 4s over 4n (at least online).

[biggerclub]

gszes, on 2015-November-25, 11:20, said:

note that it is impossible for n to bid 4s over 4n (at least online).

Perhaps I should have clarified that this was not online. Hence the caption.

E has options. He can call the director and have his options explained. He can PASS or X or, god forbid, prefer ♣ to ♦ immediately. Or he can wait for his partner to claim "insufficient" and then do anything listed above.

[steve2005]

gordontd, on 2015-November-25, 09:20, said:

Double!

I concur all your cards are in the majors and partner vul so should have some defense.
not accepting and you probably are minus

[oryctolagi]

I believe the laws give the offender three options:
1. Substitute the lowest possible sufficient bid in the same denomination (5♠ in this case)
2. Substitute any other sufficient bid (e.g. 5♥, 6♠). Then the offender's partner has to pass the rest of the auction.
3. Substitute a pass. Penalty same as (2) and in addition, if offender becomes defender, declarer may call for a specific lead.

I would imagine these laws are often not rigorously enforced!

[biggerclub]

oryctolagi, on 2015-November-25, 13:06, said:

I believe the laws give the offender three options:
1. Substitute the lowest possible sufficient bid in the same denomination (5♠ in this case)
2. Substitute any other sufficient bid (e.g. 5♥, 6♠). Then the offender's partner has to pass the rest of the auction.
3. Substitute a pass. Penalty same as (2) and in addition, if offender becomes defender, declarer may call for a specific lead.

I would imagine these laws are often not rigorously enforced!

OPPs always have first option to accept offender's action.

[oryctolagi]

Incidentally, this looks very like one of Victor Mollo's Menagerie hands. And the bidding sequence is very characteristic of the Menagerie, especially if the Rueful Rabbit* was sitting North...

*No, that is not the reason for my username...

[Vampyr]

oryctolagi, on 2015-November-25, 13:06, said:

I would imagine these laws are often not rigorously enforced!

Why on earth not?

You forgot the "same or more specific" nonsense, which in this case, of course, one struggles to find a bit that would fit... Maybe 6♠ but partner is hardly going to bid over that anyway! In any case, I don't know where my law book has got to, but I believe that lead penalties apply only to a suit that is withdrawn.

[oryctolagi]

Vampyr, on 2015-November-25, 14:36, said:

Why on earth not?

Only a guess I'm afraid: this level of bridge is way beyond my experience (and ability ). If it comes down to the TD to arbitrate, would they not have the power to exercise a bit of discretion?

[sfi]

oryctolagi, on 2015-November-25, 17:31, said:

Only a guess I'm afraid: this level of bridge is way beyond my experience (and ability ). If it comes down to the TD to arbitrate, would they not have the power to exercise a bit of discretion?

This is a fairly normal ruling situation for all levels of director, so they should (and do, in my experience) know this one well. There is no room within the laws to exercise discretion apart from a determination of whether a sufficient bid has the same or a more precise meaning than the insufficient one, which is not quite the same as the out of date options you quote.

As biggerclub pointed out, you missed the first option, which is for East to accept the insufficient bid. Doing so and doubling has to be the percentage action, since often North will just choose to pass (barring partner) and you are stuck playing in one of your singletons.

[biggerclub]

Now suppose E does not X but quickly exclaims, "I accept!" with (un)due emphasis and intonation.

Does W have UI? (W by the way is 0-1-7-5)

[sfi]

Yes, West has UI. West also has AI that East chose to accept the insufficient bid and double, so I would not expect there to be any damage. It would take a truly extraordinary hand in West for me to pull this double - even with 7-6 it could easily be wrong unless I have slam in my hand.

It's worth thinking about what accepting the bid and passing would logically show. To me that would suggest values but no clear action in East - a hand that would pass a double but with values that could be useful in a minor suit contract. Partner's action is more committal than that.

[Vampyr]

sfi, on 2015-November-25, 23:44, said:

It's worth thinking about what accepting the bid and passing would logically show. To me that would suggest values but no clear action in East - a hand that would pass a double but with values that could be useful in a minor suit contract.

Then what does East do with little in values and little in minors, but a definite preference for defending 4♠ rather than play in 5 of a minor? For example, make the ♠A a small ♣ or ♦. H could probably still double because vulnerable partner must have a powerful hand, but in the general case this might not be so.

[sfi]

Partner, vul vs not, forced us to the 5 level. I'm not sure I'd want to overrule just because I have a weak hand. But you're right, it's a possible reason to accept and pass. Which is why it's worth thinking about how partner might interpret the actions you could have chosen and didn't when deciding what to do.

For some reason the partnership can't have actual agreements in situations like this, at least in areas I've played regularly. I'm not sure what the reasoning is, but working through these things is limited to logic alone.


On a personal note, a few years ago my partner and I had a case where the opponents made an insufficient bid at the two level in a competitive auction. The director did not give my partner the option of accepting, which meant she could not make what would have to have been a game try and we missed out on the game. After much consultation among the directors (it was discussed overnight at a major event), the score was adjusted by the head director without going to appeal. To this day the director jokes about his mistake every time he comes to my table.

[Vampyr]

sfi, on 2015-November-26, 00:39, said:

Partner, vul vs not, forced us to the 5 level. I'm not sure I'd want to overrule just because I have a weak hand. But you're right, it's a possible reason to accept and pass. Which is why it's worth thinking about how partner might interpret the actions you could have chosen and didn't when deciding what to do.

Partner did not expect us to have two, or in my example three, cards in the minors. Anyway if we pass are we really overruling partner? Does partner have a powerful hand or an extremely shapely one? How do we even know? If we are 1-1 or 2-1 or whatever in the minors, do we really need to bid ourselves rather than let partner decide what to do? This makes no sense to me.

Quote

For some reason the partnership can't have actual agreements in situations like this, at least in areas I've played regularly. I'm not sure what the reasoning is, but working through these things is limited to logic alone.

It seems to me that it is impossible to play under these circumstances, because if the situation comes up a second time, you will be unable to take any action whatsoever. Also, when something like this does happen, you are bound to end up discussing it afterwards. Must you forget everything partner and others might have said? Are you prohibited from agreeing that a particular action worked or didn't, and /or what would have happened had a different action been chosen?

Are you even permitted to discuss the matter on a forum like this?

EDIT: somehow managed not to proofread material added later than the rest; spell checker was unusually creative.

[sfi]

Vampyr, on 2015-November-26, 01:26, said:

Are you even permitted to discuss the matter on a forum like this?

I'm not directing my partners to this thread, at the very least.

Many years ago a friend of mine alerted just such a bid at a US nationals, because she and her partner had had a discussion six months before at the bar and had a similar understanding of the underlying principles of what actions might mean. She thought the opponents ought to know, but was ruled against because they had an illegal understanding.

How to avoid this sort of thing once it has come up? It really is a bit of an Alice in Wonderland situation, isn't it? I don't see why having solid agreements here is even frowned upon let alone discussed in regulations.

[Zelandakh]

sfi, on 2015-November-26, 04:20, said:

Many years ago a friend of mine alerted just such a bid at a US nationals, because she and her partner had had a discussion six months before at the bar and had a similar understanding of the underlying principles of what actions might mean. She thought the opponents ought to know, but was ruled against because they had an illegal understanding.

Which is obviously ridiculous. Does anyone seriously believe that Meckwell do not know precisely what each sequence over an IB would mean for them? This is precisely the kind of thing that encourages players not to provide full disclosure.

[jodepp]

I don't think I would accept the insufficient bid. UI does not attach as West has already described the nature of the hand. This puts North in a pickle:

1) Bridge laws state North may not double;
2) North can Pass and throw the board in the air (as South is now barred); if North is bidding 4♠ to make it hardly seems likely that North would Pass now;
3) North can bid 5♥ and bar South (we can double if we want);
4) North can bid 5♠ which we could double, sending an unequivocal message to West (Pass!).

Also, if North is 'operating' a director is present at hand so you can lodge any complaint.

Hopefully West decides not to bid on with 0175 (which he should not be bidding 4NT anyway).

[biggerclub]

jodepp, on 2015-November-26, 08:32, said:

I don't think I would accept the insufficient bid.

This is what my partner (W) brought up after the hand.

To be honest, I was so relieved to see that N brought anything out of the bidding box that I could not wait to evaluate whether it was sufficient before I x'd.

I have attempted before to use an insufficient bid by opponent as an opportunity to communicate to my partner that I really, really, really meant to bid 2♥ (or whatever) on the prior round. I can't remember if I was trying to communicate a lead director or satisfactory length, but it was something along those lines. Partner did not wake up, however.