Law 27B1 (Insufficient Bid)
#1
Posted 2017-August-25, 17:43
Looking at the hypothetical insufficient bid example below:
1NT-(2♥)-2♥ (intended as a transfer to spades, but didn't see the overcall)
Unfortunately, due to the words "lowest sufficient BID", a stolen bid double is not allowed under 27B1(a) because it must be a BID. Unfortunate, and I suspect being able to use a double or redouble as a transfer should have been considered as acceptable. (Perhaps there were concerns about a pass for penalty by partner?)
If they are playing stolen bid doubles, 2♠ is likely artificial, meaning the lowest sufficient BID is 3♠.
Yes, it is possible the stolen bid double may be considered a comparable call under Law 27B1(b).
#2
Posted 2017-August-25, 18:13
#3
Posted 2017-August-26, 01:08
BudH, on 2017-August-25, 17:43, said:
Looking at the hypothetical insufficient bid example below:
1NT-(2♥)-2♥ (intended as a transfer to spades, but didn't see the overcall)
Unfortunately, due to the words "lowest sufficient BID", a stolen bid double is not allowed under 27B1(a) because it must be a BID. Unfortunate, and I suspect being able to use a double or redouble as a transfer should have been considered as acceptable. (Perhaps there were concerns about a pass for penalty by partner?)
If they are playing stolen bid doubles, 2♠ is likely artificial, meaning the lowest sufficient BID is 3♠.
Yes, it is possible the stolen bid double may be considered a comparable call under Law 27B1(b).
Is this a problem? You get to make the call you want with the meaning you want it to have. Does it matter to the player whether this is allowed by 27B1a or 27B1b?
London UK
#4
Posted 2017-August-26, 02:41
Vampyr, on 2017-August-25, 18:13, said:
I think that your usage is highly restrictive.
Many posters (mainly North American?) use "stolen-bid double" to refer to any double which means "I would have bid that".
"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
#5
Posted 2017-August-26, 04:55
RMB1, on 2017-August-26, 02:41, said:
Many posters (mainly North American?) use "stolen-bid double" to refer to any double which means "I would have bid that".
I see. I have not come across this.
#6
Posted 2017-August-26, 05:48
Vampyr, on 2017-August-26, 04:55, said:
Yes. Stolen bid is horrible
so after 1N-(2H)
normally you can bid 2S to play then X is either takeout or penalty , system choice. and ways to bid S higher
stolen X
X=spades
to show 4S you have to bid 3H
and no way to penalize
#7
Posted 2017-August-26, 06:36
steve2005, on 2017-August-26, 05:48, said:
so after 1N-(2H)
normally you can bid 2S to play then X is either takeout or penalty , system choice. and ways to bid S higher
stolen X
X=spades
to show 4S you have to bid 3H
and no way to penalize
What is the rationale for this? Losing the takeout double seems a high price to pay.
#8
Posted 2017-August-26, 07:09
gordontd, on 2017-August-26, 01:08, said:
It's not a problem for this particular auction, but in other auctions it could matter.
It seems to me if double and redouble can be used under Law 27B1(b) using a comparable call (27B1a, that the same should be true for Law 27B1(a) using the option of showing the same denomination(s) with the cheapest sufficient call (instead of bid).
#9
Posted 2017-August-26, 07:11
BudH, on 2017-August-26, 07:09, said:
Do you have an example where it could?
London UK
#10
Posted 2017-August-26, 07:14
Vampyr, on 2017-August-25, 18:13, said:
This is one of those things you won't see in high level bridge (where insufficient bids and calls out of rotation are also rare.)
But in a local club game, at least in the USA, I have seen several cases where stolen bid doubles are played throughout the 2-level and sometimes the 3-level. And that is where the large majority of insufficient bids and calls out of rotation will occur.
Your local club director is going to have far more practice and experience using the new comparable call law and the changes to the insufficient bid, call out of rotation, and lead penalty laws than a high level tournament director will have.
#11
Posted 2017-August-26, 08:08
Surely, if the stolen bid double shows 5 spades then it qualifies under 27B1b. It does not matter if it shows a non-minimum, or even a minimum hand with spades since a non-minimum hand is a subset of a minimum - > anything hand.
(b) except as in (a), if the insufficient bid is corrected with a comparable call (see Law 23A)
the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16C does not apply but see D
following.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
#12
Posted 2017-August-26, 10:34
Vampyr, on 2017-August-26, 04:55, said:
I sometimes wish I hadn't, as I have a couple of partners who insist on it. "Lebensohl is too hard".
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#13
Posted 2017-August-26, 19:44
Vampyr, on 2017-August-26, 04:55, said:
It's the standard meaning of the term on this side of the pond.
We had a discussion of the term just a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.bridgebas...__1#entry929637
Vampyr, on 2017-August-26, 06:36, said:
Or the penalty double. Stolen bid double is often considered one of the worst conventions. It's something that's mostly played by LOLs, who like things simple.