[scmwop]

The bidding went 2C ( Benji) 2S, 2D (attempted relay - did not see intervening bid). The director was not sure and allowed the 2D bid to be withdrawn as it actually said nothing.
Does the insufficient bid apply or can he withdraw the bid as it artificial?

This post has been edited by barmar: 2016-August-04, 08:39
Reason for edit: fix typo

[sanst]

What the director should have done - it's clearly not a law 25A case - is give the LHO the opportunity to accept the 2♦ call. If not, that call is withdrawn and the culprit should replace it with a sufficient bid or pass. If the replacement conveys the same information as the insufficient bid, the auction continues with no limitations for the partner, otherwise the partner is forced to pass throughout the auction. I think that passing conveys the same as 2♦, anything else bars partner.

[barmar]

In the case of relays, I think "conveys the same information" means that it asks the same question.

If the OS doesn't have a way to relay after interference, then I think any replacement will bar partner.

[sanst]

barmar, on 2016-August-03, 08:57, said:

In the case of relays, I think "conveys the same information" means that it asks the same question.

If the OS doesn't have a way to relay after interference, then I think any replacement will bar partner.

What more information gives a pass in comparison to the 2♦ call?

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2016-August-03, 09:23, said:

What more information gives a pass in comparison to the 2♦ call?

Well it depends if you use P/X as different ranges for example.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-03, 10:13, said:

Well it depends if you use P/X as different ranges for example.

That is no problem - your replacement is allowed to be more specific. The issue comes if the replacement is less precise than the IB.

[Trinidad]

sanst, on 2016-August-03, 09:23, said:

What more information gives a pass in comparison to the 2♦ call?

That is the wrong question. The right question is:

What more information does the 2♦ call give in comparison to the pass?

Rik

[gordontd]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-03, 10:21, said:

That is no problem - your replacement is allowed to be more specific. The issue comes if the replacement is less precise than the IB.

Indeed. The textbook example is an insufficient 1D response to a Precision 1C opener: it can be replaced with a 0-4 Pass or a 5-7 Double.

[helene_t]

2♦ should be more specific than pass since you have more bidding space without the interference. For example, it is possible that 2♦ denies a decent five-card hearts or some such.

The way most people play Benji here in the North is that 2♦ says nothing. So the pass does not bar partner.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-03, 10:21, said:

That is no problem - your replacement is allowed to be more specific. The issue comes if the replacement is less precise than the IB.

So it would be a problem if you played 2♥ in response to 2♣ as something less than a full positive with a good heart suit, so it now rolls into p/x but wasn't in the original 2♦ ?

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-04, 05:37, said:

So it would be a problem if you played 2♥ in response to 2♣ as something less than a full positive with a good heart suit, so it now rolls into p/x but wasn't in the original 2♦ ?

In theory it could be although the TD has latitude to interpret the rule generously, so it might depend on who you got at the table. The opinions of Gordon, pran, etc would be valuable for this.

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-04, 06:05, said:

In theory it could be although the TD has latitude to interpret the rule generously, so it might depend on who you got at the table. The opinions of Gordon, pran, etc would be valuable for this.

The important question for the Director is:
Can the replacement call (pass) now (according to agreements) include any hand with which the offender would not have made the insufficient bid (2♦) had this bid been sufficient?

If the answer to this question is YES - that is possible, then the replacement call is less precise than the insufficient bid and partner is therefore forced to pass during the remainder of the auction.

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-04, 05:37, said:

So it would be a problem if you played 2♥ in response to 2♣ as something less than a full positive with a good heart suit, so it now rolls into p/x but wasn't in the original 2♦ ?

I'm not sure what the heart suit has to do with anything, since when 2H is played as a double negative 2NT usually shows a heart positive.

With such a scheme 2D shows some values, but many players also play that pass over intervention shows some values (and double would show a bust). I'd be prepared to consider allowing Pass to replace an insufficient 2D and double to replace an insufficient 2H if they could convince me that's what they are playing.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2016-August-05, 04:30, said:

I'm not sure what the heart suit has to do with anything, since when 2H is played as a double negative 2NT usually shows a heart positive.

With such a scheme 2D shows some values, but many players also play that pass over intervention shows some values (and double would show a bust). I'd be prepared to consider allowing Pass to replace an insufficient 2D and double to replace an insufficient 2H if they could convince me that's what they are playing.

I was talking about the scheme where 2♦ is neg/waiting, 2M is semi positive natural.

The point of the question stands, if you only have a couple of rarish hands that are not in the original bid but are in the replacement, is that enough to cause a problem ?

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-05, 05:34, said:

I was talking about the scheme where 2♦ is neg/waiting, 2M is semi positive natural.

The point of the question stands, if you only have a couple of rarish hands that are not in the original bid but are in the replacement, is that enough to cause a problem ?

The WBF issued a minute recommending a liberal interpretation of this law, but obviously each case would need to be judged on its merits.

[pran]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-05, 05:34, said:

I was talking about the scheme where 2♦ is neg/waiting, 2M is semi positive natural.

The point of the question stands, if you only have a couple of rarish hands that are not in the original bid but are in the replacement, is that enough to cause a problem ?

gordontd, on 2016-August-05, 05:50, said:

The WBF issued a minute recommending a liberal interpretation of this law, but obviously each case would need to be judged on its merits.

Law 27B1b (supplemented with Law 27D) is clear.

The clause "in the Director’s opinion" opens the door for WBF to recommend a liberal interpretation. This must obviously be aimed at marginal cases, not as a general rule.

[Zelandakh]

gordontd, on 2016-August-05, 05:50, said:

The WBF issued a minute recommending a liberal interpretation of this law, but obviously each case would need to be judged on its merits.

This is indeed what I was referring to in the previous post. In more detail (from October 10, 2008):

Quote

Law 27B – Mr. Endicott’s statement on interpretation was adopted and agreed viz:– The Committee has noted an increasing inclination among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the Director judges that the outcome could well have been different without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in consequence the non‐offending side has been damaged).

It was also agreed that where it says in Laws 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) that ‘the auction proceeds without further rectification’ this is interpreted as meaning that the auction and play continue without further rectification.

We had a thread here a few years back where it was reported that some countries, notably Australia and New Zealand, perhaps also Italy, had agreed an even more liberal interpretation in which strength was being completely ignored for the purposes of this law. As far as I know, the majority of RAs use the interpretation above, so the question is which side of the line CY's example would fall. It seems wrong that the answer to that question should too strongly depend on which TD is making the call.

[barmar]

The OP said that 2♦ without interference would have been "attempted relay". I interpreted that as something more specific than just showing values. The responses to a relay are generally artificial bids that describe the hand in more detail.

If, on the other hand, 2♦ is just a positive waiting bid, and the partnership just bids naturally afterward, then I agree that a forcing pass would be considered equivalent, so that replacement wouldn't bar opener.

[jallerton]

pran, on 2016-August-05, 01:29, said:

The important question for the Director is:
Can the replacement call (pass) now (according to agreements) include any hand with which the offender would not have made the insufficient bid (2♦) had this bid been sufficient?

If the answer to this question is YES - that is possible, then the replacement call is less precise than the insufficient bid and partner is therefore forced to pass during the remainder of the auction.

I agree with this. Law 27B1b states that the replacement call must have "in the Director's opinion, 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)".

pran, on 2016-August-05, 07:43, said:

Law 27B1b (supplemented with Law 27D) is clear.

The clause "in the Director’s opinion" opens the door for WBF to recommend a liberal interpretation. This must obviously be aimed at marginal cases, not as a general rule.

No, "in the Director’s opinion" simply means that it is up to the Director (not any of the players) to judge which replacement calls have the same or a more precise meaning. It does not given the Director (or the WBFLC) any freedom to permit the auction to proceed with no further rectification if the replacement call (according to agreements) could include any hand with which the offender would not have made the insufficient bid had this bid been sufficient.

[pran]

jallerton, on 2016-August-05, 10:42, said:

No, "in the Director’s opinion" simply means that it is up to the Director (not any of the players) to judge which replacement calls have the same or a more precise meaning. It does not given the Director (or the WBFLC) any freedom to permit the auction to proceed with no further rectification if the replacement call (according to agreements) could include any hand with which the offender would not have made the insufficient bid had this bid been sufficient.

The WBF minute simply opens the door for the Director to rule (at his own discretion) that although he finds it possible for a hand to be consistent with the replacement call but with which the offender would not have made the insufficient bid had this been sufficient, this possibility is so extreme or extraordinary that he will disregard it and still make a Law 27B1b ruling. He must however always consider a possible adjustment under Law 27D whenever he has made a Law 27B1b ruling.