[pescetom]

---

TD comfortably numbed by 18 months of online bridge is called to table after an insufficient bid of 1♦ by South.
After a moment of shock, he ascertains (away from the table) that South thought East had passed and that the agreements after 1♣ (1♦) are that 1NT would be natural with stop, a 2♦ cue is an invitational raise of clubs (he does not ask about other calls).
West does not accept the insufficient bid.
Which (if any) replacement calls should TD now consider acceptable under 27B1a and under 27B1b?
Did he get anything wrong so far?

[sfi]

The director hasn't actually confirmed the N-S agreement about 1D, but the hand suggests it's simply showing a 4-card suit and bidding suits up the line. I can't see any argument for any call being comparable (1b) and it doesn't look like N-S have a bid here that would show diamonds (1a). So it looks like North is barred for the remainder of the auction and South can do what they like apart from double 1D. Plus lead restrictions as per 26B.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2021-August-26, 15:44, said:

Did he get anything wrong so far?

Yes. As sfi points out he neglected to find out what NS's agreements are regarding a 1!D response if East had passed. He might also want to know what 3!D would mean in the contested auction. That said, I suspect sfi has arrived at the correct ruling.

[mycroft]

Yep, sometimes there isn't a L27B1 option available to the player. It happens.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2021-August-26, 18:14, said:

Yes. As sfi points out he neglected to find out what NS's agreements are regarding a 1!D response if East had passed. He might also want to know what 3!D would mean in the contested auction.

Those were my first reactions too. I would guess that 1D if East passed just promises 4 cards and does not deny a 4 card major (not a great agreement, but that is how many agree it here) and that 3D in the contested auction asks for a diamonds stop.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-August-26, 19:43, said:

Yep, sometimes there isn't a L27B1 option available to the player. It happens.

I gather you would exclude 1NT too, even if it promises a diamonds stop?

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2021-August-27, 02:02, said:

I gather you would exclude 1NT too, even if it promises a diamonds stop?

Or 2N if that was nat with a stop (I'd value this as 11 with the intermediates and well placed diamonds)

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-August-27, 02:25, said:

Or 2N if that was nat with a stop (I'd value this as 11 with the intermediates and well placed diamonds)

The dose of intermediates is just generosity on my part, all I really know is that it was 10 HCP with 4-4 reds.
But yes 2NT would be natural and might be coherent with the hand. The issue for both NT bids is not so much strength but whether showing a stop in a suit equates to showing the same suit in the context of 27B1.

[mycroft]

KQx isn't a 1♦ response. Kxx isn't a 1♦ response. I'm not sure it counts.

That's not subtlety for emphasis. I'm really not sure. I know we are given "some liberty" to be "close enough", and I don't know how close this is.

Another question to ask is "is 1♦ a catchall response?" Commonly in my area, 1♣-1NT is 8-10, with a 6-count 3334 we bid 1♦. That might change how comparable a 1NT response would be.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-August-27, 08:42, said:

KQx isn't a 1♦ response. Kxx isn't a 1♦ response. I'm not sure it counts.

That's not subtlety for emphasis. I'm really not sure. I know we are given "some liberty" to be "close enough", and I don't know how close this is.

Instructions of my national federation are to be liberal in case of doubt.
IIRC the WBF Commentary 2017 gives some relevant guidance about suit lengths, but I don't want to bias the discussion with my own evaluation.
Interested to hear what others think about this (beyond those who already excluded 1NT).

mycroft, on 2021-August-27, 08:42, said:

Another question to ask is "is 1♦ a catchall response?" Commonly in my area, 1♣-1NT is 8-10, with a 6-count 3334 we bid 1♦. That might change how comparable a 1NT response would be.

A catchall is not common in this area: some of us would respond 1♦ with a weak (32)35 or even (32)26, but that would/should have been alerted and of course be explained to TD. But it's an interesting point all the same. I find it hard to imagine that 1NT with a diamonds stop will always be contained in a catchall 1♦ though.

[mycroft]

Yes, "would 'all' hands that bid 1NT over a 1♦ overcall have bid 1♦ over 1♣?" is your question. And the answer is likely "no". As I said, sometimes there just isn't anything that saves the auction, and natural insufficient "cuebids" are prime territory for this.

[pescetom]

I asked the same question on the EBU TD forum and was intrigued by the following reply:

an EBU TD, on 2021-August-27, 13:34, said:

The point is that you can't give your partner any less information than the 1♦ bid showed. 1♦ is ambiguous as to whether it was 2♦ bid at the wrong level, or 1♦ bid on the wrong auction – replacing it with 2♦ would presumably narrow this down to the former possibility, thus is allowed as comparable (even though this wasn't actually South's intent with the 1♦ bid, North doesn't know that).

What do people make of this argument? I seem to remember somebody (perhaps GordonTD?) arguing a similar position here some time ago, that it was not the TD's task to discover what the insufficient bidder thought he was doing. It seems to me hard to reconcile with the WBF Commentary and logic of the law itself.

[mycroft]

I agree that bidding 2♦ would narrow this down to "I meant to have the auction 1♣-(1♦)-2♦". But the thing is, he didn't.

I don't know if that's what we would do here. I do know that if that was my guidance, I'd be watching the rest of the auction like a hawk, to ensure partner treated it as a good club raise, and that bidder didn't try to "misbid" his way out of the lie he just told (or at least, didn't succeed at it).

I wonder what happens after ...3NT and dummy comes down; the opponents are going to have a fit. Even more if this hand is the declarer in 3NT, and they try running their "diamonds" before he "runs his clubs", or mispitches.

Is there a rule in this game that bars a psych of an artificial response in this auction? If there is, "oh yeah, I meant to bid 2♦ as a club raise" is the deliberate part of that, and looking at the hand shows the gross part.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-August-28, 14:18, said:

I agree that bidding 2♦ would narrow this down to "I meant to have the auction 1♣-(1♦)-2♦". But the thing is, he didn't.

I don't know if that's what we would do here. I do know that if that was my guidance, I'd be watching the rest of the auction like a hawk, to ensure partner treated it as a good club raise, and that bidder didn't try to "misbid" his way out of the lie he just told (or at least, didn't succeed at it).

I wonder what happens after ...3NT and dummy comes down; the opponents are going to have a fit. Even more if this hand is the declarer in 3NT, and they try running their "diamonds" before he "runs his clubs", or mispitches.

Is there a rule in this game that bars a psych of an artificial response in this auction? If there is, "oh yeah, I meant to bid 2♦ as a club raise" is the deliberate part of that, and looking at the hand shows the gross part.

Well you can't blame him for bidding 2♦ if the TD tells him 2♦ is acceptable whatever he was thinking because it is one of the things he might have been thinking (and I don't want to find out) - but that is of course illogical.
This actually brings us full circle, because my main concern in making the post is that some TDs here remain convinced that 2♦ is always acceptable because it is a sufficient replacement in the same denomination of the insufficient bid, whatever the two bids mean - which may or may not have been so some decades ago, but has no bearing to the current law as I read it.

[mycroft]

The previous laws (and the 1997 laws) allowed the lowest bid "in the same denomination", as opposed to the 2017 "that specifies the same denomination(s)", which is where that thought is coming from. However, it was accompanied by "both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial" (2007) or "If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are incontrovertibly not conventional" (1997), which would have disallowed 2♦ by the old laws as well (because 1♣-(1♦)-2♦ is (possibly) a club raise).

The new laws are better for this because it allows 1NT-p-1♠ (intended as natural, thinking partner opened 1m) to be replaced by 2♥ (cheapest sufficient bid showing spades) or the like, and doesn't have to have that "incontrovertibly not artificial" test - which was always a pain to judge, except in the trivial cases (of course, the way it was written, it was probably safest to say that 'if it's not trivially obvious, it's not allowed').

[weejonnie]

pescetom, on 2021-August-28, 09:14, said:

I asked the same question on the EBU TD forum and was intrigued by the following reply:



What do people make of this argument? I seem to remember somebody (perhaps GordonTD?) arguing a similar position here some time ago, that it was not the TD's task to discover what the insufficient bidder thought he was doing. It seems to me hard to reconcile with the WBF Commentary and logic of the law itself.

Well I hope that I'm not contradicting myself!
A comparable call can provide less information providing it is 'similar': a call that shows 11-17 is going to be comparable cateris paribus with one that shows 12-16 as the overlap is substantially greater than the discrepancy. If it turns out that the extra information (in this case the fact that a player can't have 11 or 17) is material to the final result then we adjust under 27D (which explains how you apply 23C)

The argument comes from the definition of a comparable call and the word "attributable" to the withdrawn call. So it does not matter what, exactly the bidder meant to say, it is what they could have meant to say. Suppose there is an IB of 4♣.It could have been Gerber or a cue bid (no agreement). Suppose the player meant it to be a cue bid: they can still replace it with 4NT asking for aces since that meaning is attributable to the IB.

[mycroft]

But I can't, because my card says "GERBER IS BABY FOOD". Which is something TDs should always be thinking of checking - what if what "everybody" does, this pair doesn't?

[mycroft]

More specifically, if it is possible it could have been meant as Ace-asking in some reasonable other auction, then 4NT is comparable. If it is possible it could have been a cue-bid (i.e. 5♣ is a cue-bid, or 4♣ over 3♠ rather than 4♠) then a club cue-bid could be comparable.

All I was saying in my last is that it is not possible for it to have been meant as ace-asking if I do it, so for me, 4NT (if Blackwood) is not comparable.

I get it the other way - "but [call] is an LA because partner's hesitation could have meant [almost opener]." No, with that hand she would have opened; we play EHAA, and that is an auto-2♠ opener. Just because that would be insane for any other pair in the room, doesn't mean that it's not how we play.

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2021-September-19, 14:08, said:

The argument comes from the definition of a comparable call and the word "attributable" to the withdrawn call. So it does not matter what, exactly the bidder meant to say, it is what they could have meant to say. Suppose there is an IB of 4♣.It could have been Gerber or a cue bid (no agreement). Suppose the player meant it to be a cue bid: they can still replace it with 4NT asking for aces since that meaning is attributable to the IB.

The argument has inebriating overtones of Lewis Carroll, who was of course English, but also writing for well schooled English children who know when they are having their leg pulled
Did any TD ever try to sell this argument to Lamford after he refused an insufficient bid and opponent attempted a U turn in replacement? Somehow I doubt it.

It has a certain perverse logic and of course it's very comfortable from the TD's point of view, but it's hard to imagine this is what the lawmakers had in mind. It is certainly not what the official WBF Commentary says they had in mind: quite the contrary, the recommended interpretation is entirely dependent on what the bidder meant to say. Nor is it a coincidence that senior WBF Directors recommend that the TD should first establish what the bidder meant to say.

Has this interpretation ever been taken to a higher level for discussion and approval, either within the EBU or within the WBF?


“The riddle, as originally invented, had no answer at all” (the Mad Hatter).

[Gilithin]

pescetom, on 2021-August-28, 09:14, said:

What do people make of this argument? I seem to remember somebody (perhaps GordonTD?) arguing a similar position here some time ago, that it was not the TD's task to discover what the insufficient bidder thought he was doing. It seems to me hard to reconcile with the WBF Commentary and logic of the law itself.

The advantage of this approach over the WBF commentary is that it does not penalise players that are honest rather than quick-thinking SBs who will tell the TD whatever gives them the best options. Presumably the WBF approach relies on knowing that all of the players in their events are lying SBs so it is still a level playing field not to allow that type of substitution.