[lamford]

---

Table Result 5Cx-1

SB, North, was very suspicious of Charlie the Chimp's actions on the above board from a North London club last night. Originally, ChCh overcalled 2NT, and the TD, OO, was called. The latter read out Law 27B1a:

"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bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call, the auction proceeds without further rectification.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." "Do you want me to read out those other Laws?" pressed OO.

"No, that will do", replied ChCh. "Does that mean I can bid 3NT and partner will not be silenced?" "I am not entirely sure," replied OO, "it depends on how you interpret 'specified'. I have read out the Law, now make a decision, please." ChCh didn't fancy 4NT so replaced his bid with 3NT and when North doubled, he chanced a redouble, always dangerous with East being RR. However, the Rabbit had long been programmed to treat all redoubles as SOS and pulled to 4C and when North bid 4S he tried again with 5C. This was doubled and went one off for a complete top to East-West. Even the one NS pair who missed game scored more.

SB was apoplectic. "I don't think 3NT "specified" the same denomination(s) as 2NT", he stated. 2NT was clearly intended as unusual, and 3NT was clearly natural." "No, I intended to bid 2NT over a weak 2S", replied ChCh, "which was clearly natural, but I misbid in a senior moment. I was therefore entitled to replace it with 3NT on any interpretation of 27B1a." "And there was no "assistance" from bidding 2NT first, as I could just have psyched 3NT and redoubled anyway, putting myself in the same boat."

"Very suspect. Especially from someone like you, ChCh, with the ethics of a sewer rat", replied SB.

"You are getting close to a DP again, SB", chipped in OO, "play the second board please and I will go away and consult."

How do you rule?

[barmar]

Wow, I barely had time to put my gauntlet back in its sheath!

I say EW get to keep their lucky result as rub of the green. As I said in the other thread, 3NT specifies the same denomination as a meaning attributable to 2NT. And had he replaced it with 4NT, they also would have gotten to the same place. So they didn't get there through assistance of from the IB.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-October-26, 14:27, said:

Wow, I barely had time to put my gauntlet back in its sheath!

I say EW get to keep their lucky result as rub of the green. As I said in the other thread, 3NT specifies the same denomination as a meaning attributable to 2NT. And had he replaced it with 4NT, they also would have gotten to the same place. So they didn't get there through assistance of from the IB.

Don't know what kind of sheath would contain a gauntlet; anyway claiming that you psyched and then getting to replace the psyche with a natural call is certainly cheating, but unfortunately this may become standard practice with this law.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-October-26, 14:27, said:

Wow, I barely had time to put my gauntlet back in its sheath!

I say EW get to keep their lucky result as rub of the green. As I said in the other thread, 3NT specifies the same denomination as a meaning attributable to 2NT. And had he replaced it with 4NT, they also would have gotten to the same place. So they didn't get there through assistance of from the IB.

IF the Chimp had (truthfully) said that he intended to bid 2NT over what he thought was a 1S opening bid, would you rule differently?

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2017-October-26, 16:45, said:

IF the Chimp had (truthfully) said that he intended to bid 2NT over what he thought was a 1S opening bid, would you rule differently?

Possibly. Need to take him away from the table to investigate his methods....

[barmar]

lamford, on 2017-October-26, 16:45, said:

IF the Chimp had (truthfully) said that he intended to bid 2NT over what he thought was a 1S opening bid, would you rule differently?

This is why you don't ask him what he originally intended. You just let him replace the call, and determine if it fits Laws 27B1a or 27B1b according to any likely intention of the original call.

So if he replaces it with 3NT it's OK because it's consistent with an original natural intent, and if he replaces it with 4NT it's OK because it's consistent with an original unusual intent. It doesn't have to be his actual original intent, because partner doesn't know any better. His partner should interpret the replacement bid as if it had been the original bid, so if he ends up showing something different from his actual hand it will almost certainly cause the auction to go off the rails.

Only in the magical, mythical world of the Menagerie do trains regularly jump the tracks yet no one aboard is injured.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-October-26, 18:12, said:

This is why you don't ask him what he originally intended. You just let him replace the call, and determine if it fits Laws 27B1a or 27B1b according to any likely intention of the original call.

So if he replaces it with 3NT it's OK because it's consistent with an original natural intent, and if he replaces it with 4NT it's OK because it's consistent with an original unusual intent. It doesn't have to be his actual original intent, because partner doesn't know any better. His partner should interpret the replacement bid as if it had been the original bid, so if he ends up showing something different from his actual hand it will almost certainly cause the auction to go off the rails.

Only in the magical, mythical world of the Menagerie do trains regularly jump the tracks yet no one aboard is injured.

How is the volunteer playing director, under whose authority the majority of bridge is played, going to a) understand this and b) explain it to the player? The law itself is a barrel of laughs, I concede, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[BudH]

barmar, on 2017-October-26, 18:12, said:

This is why you don't ask him what he originally intended. You just let him replace the call, and determine if it fits Laws 27B1a or 27B1b according to any likely intention of the original call.

You sound like you are advocating letting offender officially make his replacement call, and only then tell him (and the other three players) if you are ruling it meets the criteria of 27B1a or 27B1b.

Which I would never do. Offender needs to know if his intended replacement call will cause his partner to pass for the rest of the auction, so he can choose a different call to "place the contract". Which is why this conversation between Director and offender needs to occur away from the table.

Example:

Director: "What were you trying to show with the insufficient bid?"
Offender: "I was intending to show both minors."
Director: "Do you have any legal calls in this auction that would also show both minors?"
Offender: "Yes, only one. 4NT would show both minors in this auction."
Director: "Other than 4NT, is there any call comparable to your insufficient bid, i.e., has similar meaning or defines your hand as much as the insufficient bid?"
Offender: "No."
Director: "Then you may bid 4NT and the auction continues normally. If you choose any other call (which may not be Double), your partner will be required to pass for the rest of the auction."

[VixTD]

BudH, on 2017-October-27, 05:12, said:

You sound like you are advocating letting offender officially make his replacement call, and only then tell him (and the other three players) if you are ruling it meets the criteria of 27B1a or 27B1b.

Which I would never do. Offender needs to know if his intended replacement call will cause his partner to pass for the rest of the auction, so he can choose a different call to "place the contract".

I agree up to here, but in the rest of your ruling you are only allowing offender to make a penalty-free replacement call that would have the same meaning as that intended by the withdrawn call. The law allows any call that has the same meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call to be penalty-free, as Barmar correctly says.

barmar, on 2017-October-26, 18:12, said:

His partner should interpret the replacement bid as if it had been the original bid

I think this should be "as if it had its normal systemic meaning".

I take it from this that Barmar and I would allow the score to stand, but Bud would award an adjusted score.

[barmar]

BudH, on 2017-October-27, 05:12, said:

Director: "What were you trying to show with the insufficient bid?"
Offender: "I was intending to show both minors."
Director: "Do you have any legal calls in this auction that would also show both minors?"
Offender: "Yes, only one. 4NT would show both minors in this auction."
Director: "Other than 4NT, is there any call comparable to your insufficient bid, i.e., has similar meaning or defines your hand as much as the insufficient bid?"
Offender: "No."
Director: "Then you may bid 4NT and the auction continues normally. If you choose any other call (which may not be Double), your partner will be required to pass for the rest of the auction."

So if you took ChCh away from the table, and he answered "I was intending to bid 2NT over what I thought was a weak 2" (as he claimed in the OP), you would allow the 3NT replacement?

Do you look at his hand, to see if his answer seems reasonable? If you do, and he explains, "I was psyching, planning on making an SOS redouble if necessary", do you believe him? Or is he giving self-serving responses in an attempt to minimize the damage?

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-26, 21:32, said:

How is the volunteer playing director, under whose authority the majority of bridge is played, going to a) understand this and b) explain it to the player? The law itself is a barrel of laughs, I concede, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Shouldn't you have used "barrel of monkeys" in a thread dedicated to the Cheating Chimp? And what was the origin of that phrase?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-October-26, 14:27, said:

Wow, I barely had time to put my gauntlet back in its sheath!

I say EW get to keep their lucky result as rub of the green. As I said in the other thread, 3NT specifies the same denomination as a meaning attributable to 2NT. And had he replaced it with 4NT, they also would have gotten to the same place. So they didn't get there through assistance of from the IB.

Well ... replacing it with 4NT was a tad on the aggressive side, and far better to bid 3NT first if it does not silence partner. I don't think it is relevant that an alternative call would have got the job done if 3NT should have silenced East. I would rule "results stands" however, as I cannot see how an IB can specify anything other than the named suit, even if one argues that a non-IB can specify more than one suit. An IB either does not specify anything or specifies the named suit.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2017-October-27, 09:12, said:

Well ... replacing it with 4NT was a tad on the aggressive side, and far better to bid 3NT first if it does not silence partner. I don't think it is relevant that an alternative call would have got the job done if 3NT should have silenced East. I would rule "results stands" however, as I cannot see how an IB can specify anything other than the named suit, even if one argues that a non-IB can specify more than one suit. An IB either does not specify anything or specifies the named suit.

Suppose you have an auction 2NT (P) 2♣, and the next player accepts it. Wouldn't you be at all surprised if opener responded as if 2♣ were Stayman, rather than treating it as specifying clubs?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-October-27, 08:52, said:

So if you took ChCh away from the table, and he answered "I was intending to bid 2NT over what I thought was a weak 2" (as he claimed in the OP), you would allow the 3NT replacement?

Do you look at his hand, to see if his answer seems reasonable? If you do, and he explains, "I was psyching, planning on making an SOS redouble if necessary", do you believe him? Or is he giving self-serving responses in an attempt to minimize the damage?

I am not at all convinced that an insufficient psyche can be corrected to a sufficient psyche anyway.

[BudH]

barmar, on 2017-October-27, 08:52, said:

So if you took ChCh away from the table, and he answered "I was intending to bid 2NT over what I thought was a weak 2" (as he claimed in the OP), you would allow the 3NT replacement?

Do you look at his hand, to see if his answer seems reasonable? If you do, and he explains, "I was psyching, planning on making an SOS redouble if necessary", do you believe him? Or is he giving self-serving responses in an attempt to minimize the damage?

Sorry, I intended my example to be for a case such as (3S)-2NT where offender thought he was bidding 2NT over 1S, not 2NT natural over a 2S bid.

A good example of why you need to know the offender's thought process, so you know what denomination(s) he was trying to show.

And yes, I might not ask to see offender's hand, but I will check the hand record if I rule the call will prevent offender's partner from being required to pass during the rest of the auction.

[RMB1]

BudH, on 2017-October-27, 15:07, said:

Sorry, I intended my example to be for a case such as (3S)-2NT where offender thought he was bidding 2NT over 1S, not 2NT natural over a 2S bid.

A good example of why you need to know the offender's thought process, so you know what denomination(s) he was trying to show.

And yes, I might not ask to see offender's hand, but I will check the hand record if I rule the call will prevent offender's partner from being required to pass during the rest of the auction.

I think this is the wrong approach. We look at the auction and decide that 2NT could be strong balanced or could be a specific two-suiter. 27B1(a) allows 3NT and 27B1(b) allows a bid which shows a specific two-suiter, as a comparable call (Law 23A2).

[BudH]

RMB1, on 2017-October-27, 16:53, said:

I think this is the wrong approach. We look at the auction and decide that 2NT could be strong balanced or could be a specific two-suiter. 27B1(a) allows 3NT and 27B1(b) allows a bid which shows a specific two-suiter, as a comparable call (Law 23A2).

"lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call"

Note the "(s)" at the end of "denomination".

With your interpretation, the plural of denomination would never be used.

Also, application of this law would not make logical sense if you are guessing at the possible meanings of the insufficient bid instead of determining which denomination or denominations the offender was attempting to show.

Another example: (2♣)-2♣ insufficient. Are you going to simply guess at some possible meaning or meanings for the insufficient 2♣ bid? Is it intended as strong and artificial? A Precision 2♣ opening? A natural overcall of a 1-level opening suit bid? Intended to be a Michaels majors showing cuebid over a 1♣ opening?

Or will you simply take offender away from the table and have him tell you himself, allowing you as Director to determine if there are any possible replacement calls having similar meaning or which will allow offender's partner to bid at his next turn?

[Vampyr]

BudH, on 2017-October-27, 18:55, said:

"lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call"

Note the "(s)" at the end of "denomination".

With your interpretation, the plural of denomination would never be used.

Also, application of this law would not make logical sense if you are guessing at the possible meanings of the insufficient bid instead of determining which denomination or denominations the offender was attempting to show.

Another example: (2♣)-2♣ insufficient. Are you going to simply guess at some possible meaning or meanings for the insufficient 2♣ bid? Is it intended as strong and artificial? A Precision 2♣ opening? A natural overcall of a 1-level opening suit bid? Intended to be a Michaels majors showing cuebid over a 1♣ opening?

Or will you simply take offender away from the table and have him tell you himself, allowing you as Director to determine if there are any possible replacement calls having similar meaning or which will allow offender's partner to bid at his next turn?

Of course you have to do this; having this discussion at the table will result in an even bigger mess.

[sanst]

barmar, on 2017-October-26, 14:27, said:

Wow, I barely had time to put my gauntlet back in its sheath!

Totally OT, but you would have made quite a sight on the medieval battlefield wrestling with your gauntlet and its sheath!

[Vampyr]

sanst, on 2017-October-28, 02:36, said:

Totally OT, but you would have made quite a sight on the medieval battlefield wrestling with your gauntlet and its sheath!

I would keep my gauntlets on, because I do not think that you can fasten them by yourself!