[ahydra]

So the auction goes, starting with my RHO, us passing throughout:

1S-4NT (RKC 3041)
4H

I call the Director who rules that if the bid is corrected to 5H there's no penalty. I wasn't offered the chance to accept the bid - as per 27A - clearly a mistake from the TD, but not the interesting part. Having read 27B1, 27B2:

Law 27B1, 2 said:

1. (a) 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. Law 16D
does not apply but see D following.
(b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call
that in the Director’s opinion has the same meaning as, or a more
precise meaning than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully
contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the
auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following.

2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a
sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender’s partner must pass whenever it
is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law
23.

is this ruling correct? 5H is definitely artificial, and 4H doesn't really exist in this sequence (since the only viable responses to RKC are 5x and possibly 5NT, 6x). So it's hard to see how 5H has "the same or a more precise meaning" than 4H... but on the other hand, it's clear what opener intended.

Any opinions?

Edit: Thinking about it, how can an insufficient bid be artificial?! One agrees a system based on sufficient bids only, but 27B1 seems to suggest you can have artificial insufficient bids - so does it mean you are allowed to agree systems where you make insufficient bids (eg with hearts agreed, an insufficient bid in spades means "bid 6 with a top spade honour" ), or does it mean "starting from the previous call and going in reverse order, if the minimum number of calls are substituted with passes such that the bid is now sufficient, would it be artificial", or something else?

ahydra

[campboy]

If the TD determines that insufficient bidder intended 4♥ as showing 2 without the queen then replacing it with 5♥ is ok under 27B1b. This is a reasonably likely scenario: the player knew hearts was the right suit but got the level wrong. If the TD determines otherwise (for example, the player got mixed up with Gerber and was showing one ace) then he rules differently (presumably that partner will always be silenced).

The TD will normally make his ruling after talking to the player away from the table to find out how the bid was intended. Yes, this is a ridiculous law.

[mjj29]

ahydra, on 2011-November-12, 05:31, said:

Edit: Thinking about it, how can an insufficient bid be artificial?! One agrees a system based on sufficient bids only, but 27B1 seems to suggest you can have artificial insufficient bids - so does it mean you are allowed to agree systems where you make insufficient bids (eg with hearts agreed, an insufficient bid in spades means "bid 6 with a top spade honour" ), or does it mean "starting from the previous call and going in reverse order, if the minimum number of calls are substituted with passes such that the bid is now sufficient, would it be artificial", or something else?

The way we are told to rule in these cases (discussions as to how 27B is awful aside) is to ask the IBer away from the table what he meant by the bid. Possible responses are things like "I didn't see the overcall, I was just responding", in which case you judge the meaning and artificiality from the meaning of the response sans overcall. Alternatively you might have "I thought he bid 1NT, not 2NT, so was responding 2C stayman".

In this case it seems likely the response will be "I was trying to show 2 key cards, but forgot that 4H wasn't sufficient over 4NT", in which case you judge it to be an artificial bid, showing 2 key cards and look to see whether there is a bid available which also means that - which conveniently, there is.

The reasoning behind this is that if you give a L27B1 ruling like this, while you are telling the partner what was meant by the IB, it must, perforce, be something with no additional information, since otherwise you wouldn't be ruling under L27B1.

Yes, there is scope for people lying to the director, but that's often the case and something we have to live with. At least by doing so they then aren't giving any UI to partner as per the above.

Matt

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2011-November-12, 05:51, said:

If the TD determines otherwise (for example, the player got mixed up with Gerber and was showing one ace) then he rules differently (presumably that partner will always be silenced).

Not too sure about this -- if the player was showing one ace he can presumably still show one ace. I don't think he can show one or four, though.

[campboy]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-12, 08:09, said:

Not too sure about this -- if the player was showing one ace he can presumably still show one ace. I don't think he can show one or four, though.

My thinking was that if the withdrawn call showed a particular number of aces but the replacement would show a particular number of key cards then neither is more precise than the other. I suppose the player could have been responding to keycard Gerber though!

[blackshoe]

If in whatever form of Gerber they play 4♥ would show two particular aces, and in whatever form of RKCB they play 5♥ would show two cards plus the Queen of trump, the latter is not more precise than the former, so I would not allow it under 27B1{b}. If in their form of Gerber 4♥ would show two unspecified aces, I would allow it.

If they play straight Gerber (4♥ shows one ace) I would not allow a change to 5♥ under 27B1{b}.

Regarding taking players away from the table: we have players here who come to the club expecting to sit North, and to not move out of that chair until the end of the session. Some of them have walkers, and are frail enough that watching them move about is worrisome even with the walker. What's the best way to handle this? Ask the other three to leave the table?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-12, 12:06, said:

If they play straight Gerber (4♥ shows one ace) I would not allow a change to 5♥ under 27B1{b}.

OK, but what about 27C? Doesn't this require you to allow any bid that shows one ace? Or even, any bid that shows two keycards, if one of them is the trump king? This is more specific, after all, and seems to be a allowing it seems to be required by the law. I wonder if Grattan's post means that they are going to make major changes before 2017? Maybe rethink L27?

[blackshoe]

27C? That has to do with the situation when the offender replaces the IB before the director has ruled, which is nothing to do with this case.

Under 27B1{b}, if offender thought he was replying to Gerber, and showing one Ace, the question is whether a correction to 5♦ (or 5♣, if they're playing 1430) showing one keycard has the same meaning as or a more precise meaning than 4♥ showing one Ace. The WBFLC has asked us to be lenient in applying this clause, so I'm tempted to allow it, but I suppose I could be convinced otherwise.

"If one of them is the trump king" would seem to suggest a dependence on what the offender has in his hand. I don't think we can rule on that basis. "One Ace" seems more precise, not less, than "two keycards". Or perhaps, as was suggested upthread, neither is more precise than the other.

If by "Grattan's post" you mean his letter soliciting input for the 2017 laws, I see no suggestion that the LC are contemplating any earlier major changes.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-12, 13:00, said:

27C? That has to do with the situation when the offender replaces the IB before the director has ruled, which is nothing to do with this case.

Under 27B1{b}, if offender thought he was replying to Gerber, and showing one Ace, the question is whether a correction to 5♦ (or 5♣, if they're playing 1430) showing one keycard has the same meaning as or a more precise meaning than 4♥ showing one Ace. The WBFLC has asked us to be lenient in applying this clause, so I'm tempted to allow it, but I suppose I could be convinced otherwise.

"If one of them is the trump king" would seem to suggest a dependence on what the offender has in his hand. I don't think we can rule on that basis. "One Ace" seems more precise, not less, than "two keycards". Or perhaps, as was suggested upthread, neither is more precise than the other.

If by "Grattan's post" you mean his letter soliciting input for the 2017 laws, I see no suggestion that the LC are contemplating any earlier major changes.

A call is "equivalent to, or more precise than" an insufficient bid if there is no hand with which the player may make the call but would not have made the insufficient bid had this bid been legal. (All according to partnership understandings.) This is (according to WBFLC) the test that should be applied by the director when considering Law 27B1(b).

[blackshoe]

Then it would seem that correcting 4♥ to any RKCB response is not legal under 27B1{b}.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-12, 14:20, said:

Then it would seem that correcting 4♥ to any RKCB response is not legal under 27B1{b}.

It is of course legal, but it would invoke Law 27B2 instead of Law 27B1(b), thus forcing partner to pass for the rest of that auction. (I am confident that that is exactly what you meant )

[blackshoe]

I didn't say "it's not legal," I said "it's not legal under Law 27B1{b}". There's a difference. Of course it's legal under 27B2.

[aguahombre]

O.k., I understand why a 1-Ace response to an imagined Gerber might not be replaceable by a 2-key response to the actual 4NT RKC. The asker would know that the two keys are not aces.

However, it would seem that if the 4NT asker held 3 bullets, the replacement response would in fact TO THAT PERSON be more precise; and also there is no hand the IB'r would have which would not have made if the IB were legal.

Or is this one of those situations where we just read the rule and apply it regardless of whether there was possible adverse effect from the substituted action?

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-12, 20:58, said:

O.k., I understand why a 1-Ace response to an imagined Gerber might not be replaceable by a 2-key response to the actual 4NT RKC. The asker would know that the two keys are not aces.

However, it would seem that if the 4NT asker held 3 bullets, the replacement response would in fact TO THAT PERSON be more precise; and also there is no hand the IB'r would have which would not have made if the IB were legal.

Or is this one of those situations where we just read the rule and apply it regardless of whether there was possible adverse effect from the substituted action?

In order to make the ruling that the replacement response in this particular situation is equivalent or more precise than the insufficient bid to that player the director would have to investigate that player's cards. And with his ruling the director discloses facts about those cards that should not be available to opponents.

This would be a serious TD error.