[Wentys]

After an insufficient bid, the opponent can choose to accept the bid, and proceed.
So in this contrived auction, starting with North,

2D-p-1D- West accepts the insufficient 1D bid, and tries to find their own E-W fit, e.g. 2D-p-1D-1H ... etc.

Now if N/S do finally declare in some number of diamonds, would the declarer be the original 2D caller North, or would declarer be the 1D caller S? Does "rolling back" the bidding ladder by accepting an insufficient bid also roll back "who called this strain first?"

Thanks
Peter

[smerriman]

If the bid is accepted, then all bids are considered legal, and the declarer is the first person who bid diamonds, which is North.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2024-October-14, 14:17, said:

If the bid is accepted, then all bids are considered legal, and the declarer is the first person who bid diamonds, which is North.

Note also that many RAs do not allow an agreement about behaviour after opponent's infraction, so that (for instance) knowing that partner who accepted the insufficient call and bid 1♥ is weak/strong/long would be illegal, unless dictated by natural logic.
Which of course makes no sense, as does allowing such agreements, so probably better not to allow acceptance of insufficient bids in the first place.

[Cyberyeti]

We had the unopposed auction 1♠-1♦-1♥-1♠ and indeed the original 1♠ bidder declared

[jillybean]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-October-15, 03:38, said:

We had the unopposed auction 1♠-1♦-1♥-1♠ and indeed the original 1♠ bidder declared

I was about to ask about this type of auction! Does opener really get to play 1♠?
I will have to look at the Law,

[bluenikki]

pescetom, on 2024-October-14, 15:37, said:

Note also that many RAs do not allow an agreement about behaviour after opponent's infraction, so that (for instance) knowing that partner who accepted the insufficient call and bid 1♥ is weak/strong/long would be illegal, unless dictated by natural logic.
Which of course makes no sense, as does allowing such agreements, so probably better not to allow acceptance of insufficient bids in the first place.

Why does allowing such agreements make no sense? I am certain forbidding such agreements makes no sense.

[mycroft]

The key is in the definitions:

Quote

Declarer
the player who, for the side that makes the final bid, first bid the denomination named in the final bid.

Says nothing about lowest level, or "one level" or anything else. It's simply a matter of timing in the auction.

It was actually a question on my TA exam; which happened (for IIRC the only time in my career, at least this specifically) in my first year directing:

"The auction has gone 1NT-p-1NT (accepted)-AP. Who is declarer?"

[mycroft]

bluenikki: I refer to my previous answer to the same question. Ask the C&C committee, but I think it revolves around "we don't want to give any incentive to players to induce infractions" and "we don't want to open 'agreements' to things like 'accept and call', 'point out the infraction, accept and call', 'call the director, accept, and call', and so on."

Also, the number of infractions on an average hand is greater than one (especially if you accept violations of L46A covered in L46B as infractions). Do we really want agreements after all of those? "We play UDCA, including after dummy when playing after declarer calls 'small' or 'play', but standard after card rank."

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2024-October-15, 08:48, said:

The key is in the definitions:
Says nothing about lowest level, or "one level" or anything else. It's simply a matter of timing in the auction.

It was actually a question on my TA exam; which happened (for IIRC the only time in my career, at least this specifically) in my first year directing:

"The auction has gone 1NT-p-1NT (accepted)-AP. Who is declarer?"

“ Declarer
the player who, for the side that makes the final bid, first bid the denomination named in the final bid.”

This seems to say the player who made the “insufficient” overcall is declarer not the opening bidder in
1S 1D 1H 1S

The player who opened 1nt is declarer in you 1nt p 1nt example

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2024-October-15, 08:59, said:

bluenikki: I refer to my previous answer to the same question. Ask the C&C committee, but I think it revolves around "we don't want to give any incentive to players to induce infractions" and "we don't want to open 'agreements' to things like 'accept and call', 'point out the infraction, accept and call', 'call the director, accept, and call', and so on."

Also, the number of infractions on an average hand is greater than one (especially if you accept violations of L46A covered in L46B as infractions). Do we really want agreements after all of those? "We play UDCA, including after dummy when playing after declarer calls 'small' or 'play', but standard after card rank."

Most people commit a technical infraction almost every time they call a card from dummy.
There is also the possibility of frequent accusations of an infraction, whether or not it really occurred or was just borderline.
There is also the issue of how such agreements should be disclosed and how the Director can verify them.
All in all, it looks like a can of worms that it is probably better not to open.

[smerriman]

jillybean, on 2024-October-15, 10:30, said:

This seems to say the player who made the insufficient overcall is declarer not the opening bidder in
1S 1D 1H 1S

That auction of Cyberyeti's was unopposed, so there was no overcalls - and the first person who bids spades in that partnership was the opener.

If you meant (1S) 1D (1H) 1S, then the person who made the last bid is declarer, because they're the only player "for the side that makes the final bid" who bid spades.

[jillybean]

smerriman, on 2024-October-15, 16:02, said:

That auction of Cyberyeti's was unopposed, so there was no overcalls - and the first person who bids spades in that partnership was the opener.

If you meant (1S) 1D (1H) 1S, then the person who made the last bid is declarer, because they're the only player "for the side that makes the final bid" who bid spades.

Correct, I read it as everyone at the table having a bid