[shevek]

Auction goes

West deals
1D - no - 1C

Next player doesn't accept.
Let's say you take East away and ask what is going on.
East admits "I didn't see partner's 1D."

How would you rule if EW play better minor? If EW play short club (2+) ?

[Vampyr]

shevek, on 2014-October-01, 04:13, said:

How would you rule if EW play better minor? If EW play short club (2+) ?

Well, as per 27B1(a), 2♣ is permitted with no penalty if the 1♣ and 2♣ bids are both incontrovertibly not artificial. I think that most NBOs consider a club opening on a possible doubleton to be artificial, while a better minor is not. At least this is the case in the EBU; in the ACBL a 1♣ opening is considered natural (which I think precludes its also being artificial, but I am not positive) if it can only be a doubleton in a hand which is 4=4=3=2. So the application of this law is dependent upon regulation. I am afraid I do not know yours.

Of course, a 1♣ response cannot legally have a meaning, so if we were to interpret the law logically the 1♣ would, since it has no meaning, certainly be artificial. I think that when players are taken away from the table in bonkers L27 cases, they will be safest if they just say "I thought it was sufficient at the time", which of course will always be the truth.

[helene_t]

Somewhat depending on style it may well be that a 2♣ response is more specific than a 1♣ opening, in which case it can be replaced by 2♣ without penalty. I think this is the case even if a short 1♣ opening is treated as artificial in your jurisdiction (27B1(b), see https://www.ebu.co.u...flow-charts.pdf)

Edit: opps I realize this is probably not true since a 1♣ opening denies a hand suitable for a 1NT opening. So it will only be true in some exotic styles in which a 1NT opening had been artificial, or in which the 2♣ response promises an unbalanced hand.

Quote

I think that when players are taken away from the table in bonkers L27 cases, they will be safest if they just say "I thought it was sufficient at the time", which of course will always be the truth.

Yes except if it was a mechanical error that was noticed too late, or the player wasn't aware that he could correct a mechanical error.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2014-October-01, 05:08, said:

Somewhat depending on style it may well be that a 2♣ response is more specific than a 1♣ opening, in which case it can be replaced by 2♣ without penalty. I think this is the case even if a short 1♣ opening is treated as artificial in your jurisdiction (27B1(b), see https://www.ebu.co.u...flow-charts.pdf)

My first thought was that you could use 27B1(b) if your 2♣ response promised an opening bid (ie 2/1 GF). But I think that there is a problem, in that you may well have an equal-length or longer major that you could (and would) have bid at the 1-level, and also the simple fact that you may have a shorter ♣ suit than you would usually have for a 2/1.

[pran]

Law 27B1 should not be too difficult for the Director. (1♣ and 2♣ are both incontrovertibly not artificial, or 2♣ has an equal or more precise meaning than the 1♣ bid.)

However, the important Law in either case is Law 27D:

If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2014-October-01, 05:28, said:

Law 27B1 should not be too difficult for the Director.

Seriously? Pity the poor playing director, who may have of training and little experience. Recently one asked me for help; he was having trouble with his ruling.he thought that the word "call" in the Lawbook meant to call a card from dummy. He is going to apply L27? and if he could work it out in theory, is he going to be able to figure out whether the new bid is more specific than the old one? To do that he'd need to be a pretty good player too.

I hope that the next version of the Laws goes back to "no penalty-free if either bid is or might be artificial (I think it used the word 'conventional'). The preface is bullshit except at the top levels. I share andy's wish that there could be two versions of the Laws with one designed for clubs, but that is just a pipe dream.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2014-October-01, 05:08, said:

Yes except if it was a mechanical error that was noticed too late, or the player wasn't aware that he could correct a mechanical error.

This could never happen since if the next player does not implicitly accept the bid by taking action over it, the director will be called.

[VixTD]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-01, 06:44, said:

pran, on 2014-October-01, 05:28, said:

Law 27B1 should not be too difficult for the Director. (1♣ and 2♣ are both incontrovertibly not artificial, or 2♣ has an equal or more precise meaning than the 1♣ bid.)

Seriously? Pity the poor playing director, who may have of training and little experience.

I didn't think this was easy, and I'm not short of training and experience.

First there's the question of whether the opening bid is natural or not, and I would agree with Vampyr that (in the EBU at least), it is natural if it promises at least three clubs.

If it could be a two-card suit, does a replacement bid of 2♣ have much the same or a narrower meaning than that intended by the insufficient bid? It might do in North America, where a change of suit at the two level typically shows an opening hand, but in England where it could be a decent nine-count probably not.

There might still be other calls available to offender that would not restrict partner's options, such as 3♣ (if natural and strong), or 2NT or 3NT if these show opening values. (I don't know whether 2NT does anywhere, and partner is unlikely to want to bid on over 3NT in any case.)

[lamford]

shevek, on 2014-October-01, 04:13, said:

Auction goes

West deals
1D - no - 1C

Next player doesn't accept.
Let's say you take East away and ask what is going on.
East admits "I didn't see partner's 1D."

How would you rule if EW play better minor? If EW play short club (2+) ?

What if East says, "I thought clubs ranked above diamonds for a moment, and I was responding to a 1D opening bid".

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-01, 06:44, said:

Seriously? Pity the poor playing director, who may have of training and little experience. Recently one asked me for help; he was having trouble with his ruling.he thought that the word "call" in the Lawbook meant to call a card from dummy.

Definitions (of nouns!) said:

Call: Any bid, double, redouble or pass.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2014-October-01, 07:22, said:

[...]
There might still be other calls available to offender that would not restrict partner's options, such as 3♣ (if natural and strong), or 2NT or 3NT if these show opening values. (I don't know whether 2NT does anywhere, and partner is unlikely to want to bid on over 3NT in any case.)

Law 27 B 1 a said:

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.

(My Enhancement)

A Law 27B1b substitution is available only when the substituting call can not show any hand with which the offender had not made the insufficient bid had that been legal.

In clear language this means that the 1♣ insufficient bid may be replaced by another call under L27B1b without restraining offender's partner only if every possible hand that can be shown with the actually selected replacing call would have been shown (opened) with the 1♣ bid had this been legal.

[pran]

lamford, on 2014-October-01, 07:22, said:

What if East says, "I thought clubs ranked above diamonds for a moment, and I was responding to a 1D opening bid".

Honestly this is irrelevant.

If it is true then he probably has both 1♣ and 2♣ available as "incontrovertibly not artificial calls" and L27B1a is applicable.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2014-October-01, 08:12, said:

Call: Any bid, double, redouble or pass.

Um.... Yes, Iknow that. But the inexperienced director did not.

I thought that what I wrote was clear.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-01, 08:33, said:

Um.... Yes, Iknow that. But the inexperienced director did not.

I thought that what I wrote was clear.

And I expect a certain minimum competence from any Director.

[StevenG]

pran, on 2014-October-01, 08:35, said:

And I expect a certain minimum competence from any Director.

How do you guarantee that for the player who is persuaded to direct for the session with limited directing experience? That is the reality is a typical English bridge club - no qualified directors, but somebody has to do it.

[helene_t]

Strange discussion. Is it about how to simplify the rules so that unqualifed directors would be able to handle cases like this? In that case it should have been in "changing laws and regulations".

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-October-01, 08:35, said:

And I expect a certain minimum competence from any Director.

I would simply have shown him or directed him to the entry in the lawbook. There's no need to bring up "minimum competence".

[gordontd]

pran, on 2014-October-01, 08:33, said:

Honestly this is irrelevant.

If it is true then he probably has both 1♣ and 2♣ available as "incontrovertibly not artificial calls" and L27B1a is applicable.

Which one is it Sven? Is it irrelevant or does its truth make a difference to the ruling?

[aguahombre]

helene_t, on 2014-October-01, 09:17, said:

Strange discussion. Is it about how to simplify the rules so that unqualifed directors would be able to handle cases like this? In that case it should have been in "changing laws and regulations".

What is the problem? It might be very important to the guy in Australia looking for a ruling to know about the quality of Club directors in England.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2014-October-01, 11:33, said:

Which one is it Sven? Is it irrelevant or does its truth make a difference to the ruling?

The remark of what he thought is irrelevant.
Whether or not it is true the Director must just try if neither the insufficient bid nor the replacement bid (lowest available in the same denomination) is artificial.

A separate issue is that unless neither of them are then his remark would most likely seem untrue.
(Law 27B1a is inherited from the original corresponding Law and was written just to cater for the common mistake of accidentally making a natural bid at an insufficient level.)