[jallerton]

North, the dealer opens 1♠.

East bids 1♥. If you ask, East will tell you that he did not see the 1♠ opener.

You are called to the table. What exactly do you say (and to whom)?

[You may assume that East/West play both a 1♥ opening bid and a 2♥ overcall of 1♠ as natural.]

[pran]

jallerton, on Aug 21 2010, 08:32 AM, said:

North, the dealer opens 1♠.

East bids 1♥.  If you ask, East will tell you that he did not see the 1♠ opener. 

You are called to the table.  What exactly do you say (and to whom)?

[You may assume that East/West play both a 1♥ opening bid and a 2♥ overcall of 1♠ as natural.]

You first offer South to accept the 1♥ insufficient bid in which case there will be no further rectification (and South for instance will have the legal options to double or to bid 1♠ in addition to making other legal calls).

If South does not accept the insufficient bid this bid (1♥) is cancelled and East must replace his insufficient bid with any legal call.

Now the Director must refer the entire Law 27B to the offender (East), but the most important part of it in this particular situation is probably L27B1a:
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.

[shyams]

I have heard/read that Director should not offer condonement as a first (stand-alone) option. Instead, the director should explain all relevant options to South -- including what happens if he does not condone

Isn't that supposed to be the correct process?

[pran]

shyams, on Aug 21 2010, 09:06 AM, said:

I have heard/read that Director should not offer condonement as a first (stand-alone) option. Instead, the director should explain all relevant options to South -- including what happens if he does not condone

Isn't that supposed to be the correct process?

Sure he shall inform LHO the consequences of accepting or not accepting the insufficient bid, but IMHO a summary of these consequences should be sufficient for LHO to make his decision.

The offender must of course be informed of all consequences from his choice of the replacement call once his insufficient bid is not accepted.

[RMB1]

I am sure there is not a consistent answer, but here goes:

South will have the option to accept 1♥ in which case the auction continues, otherwise the 1♥ bid is cancelled and East calls. I rule that 1♥ and 2♥ are not artificial, so if East bids 2♥ the auction continues; if East makes another call that means the same, or is more precise than, 1♥ then the auction continues, West is not silenced. Otherwise if East passes or bids then West is silenced for the rest of the auction. So it is now up to South whether to accept 1♥.
[South does not accept.]
If you bid 2♥ or a call with the same or more precise meaning than 1♥ then partner will not be silenced. If you make another call your partner will be silenced for the rest of the auction; you cannot double unless that has the same or more precise meaning than 1♥.
[East calls]

The auction continues, West is not silenced.
If North/South think they have been damaged by assistance gained through the infraction, or that I was wrong in my ruling please call me back at the end of the hand.
[OR]
West is silenced for the rest of the auction. There may be lead penalties and if North/South think they have been damaged by East silencing partner, please call me back at the end of the hand.

[McBruce]

jallerton, on Aug 20 2010, 11:32 PM, said:

North, the dealer opens 1♠.

East bids 1♥.  If you ask...

I don't; at least, not at the table.

Quote

..., East will tell you that he did not see the 1♠ opener. 

You are called to the table.  What exactly do you say (and to whom)?

[You may assume that East/West play both a 1♥ opening bid and a 2♥ overcall of 1♠ as natural.]

I tell East to put his cards face down on the table and come away from the table with me. I ask the other players not to talk about the situation while we are gone.

Away from the table I ask whether the call was the one he intended when he reached for the bid-box.

If not, we go back and apply 25A, where LHO does not have the option to accept the first call.

If so, I ask how it came to be that he intended to make an insufficient bid. Depending on the answer, I discuss what sort of hand he was trying to describe by the insufficient bid and then I ask if there is another call that means almost the same thing. If that call is fully contained within the range of meanings of his intended (although insufficient) bid, I consider 27B1b; otherwise, I use the rest of 27B.

(If it is a good day, I will be on the ball enough to realize that he will suggest 2♥ as a replacement call, which doesn't quite fit 27B1b but is already available to him under 27B1a -- and most of the above will be unnecessary.)

Often a player, especially a new player, is nervous to be talking to the TD away from the table, so it is often a good idea to assure the player that we are here because the other players are not entitled to know WHY he made the insufficient call.

Either way, we go back to the table and I offer South the option of accepting the call, first explaining the offender's options should he not accept the insufficient bid. "South, you may accept 1♥ as though it were a legal call and the auction will continue from there, or you may reject it and East will have to make a legal call. If that call is 2♥, we proceed from there; if East substitutes a different call -- and double is not allowed here -- then West will have to pass throughout the auction."

[gnasher]

McBruce, on Aug 21 2010, 12:33 PM, said:

If so, I ask how it came to be that he intended to make an insufficient bid.  Depending on the answer, I discuss what sort of hand he was trying to describe by the insufficient bid and then I ask if there is another call that means almost the same thing.  If that call is fully contained within the range of meanings of his intended (although insufficient) bid, I consider 27B1b; otherwise, I use the rest of 27B.
...
Either way, we go back to the table and I offer South the option of accepting the call, first explaining the offender's options should he not accept the insufficient bid.  "South, you may accept 1♥ as though it were a legal call and the auction will continue from there, or you may reject it and East will have to make a legal call.  If that call is 2♥, we proceed from there; if East substitutes a different call -- and double is not allowed here -- then West will have to pass throughout the auction."

Are you saying that what you say to South might vary according to whether, for example, East was trying to open the bidding or to overcall?

[JoAnneM]

I got the impression from the OP that it was not the Director who asked, that he was called after the insufficient bidder said he didn't see the opening bid. Not that it really matters who asked (players should be trained to just call the director) but west now has significant UI even if east makes the bid sufficient - it was an opening bid, not an overcall.

How do the expert directors deal with this?

[pran]

JoAnneM, on Aug 21 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

I got the impression from the OP that it was not the Director who asked, that he was called after the insufficient bidder said he didn't see the opening bid.  Not that it really matters who asked (players should be trained to just call the director) but west now has significant UI even if east makes the bid sufficient - it was an opening bid, not an overcall.

How do the expert directors deal with this?

Law 27D (assuming a Law 27B1a rectification which seems most appropriate here)

[PeterE]

Here's my way of dealing with it (and I had a couple of IBs today )

1. When I'm called and I get aware of the IB, I tell the IBer not to tell anything about his motives at the table.

2. Then I ask the table, whether the IBer did already say anything about his motives (in which case there will be UI for his partner).

3. I ask the table whether anything else happened before or after calling the TD (today I suddenly was told, that next player already had taken the pass card out of his box - and returned it, of course).

4. Then I start my monolog:
"South may accept the 1♥ bid, but he need not and he need not decide until I have told all the possibilities. If South accepts 1♥, that 1♥ will become a legal part of the auction and the auction goes on with and after this 1♥ bid. If South does not accept 1♥, East will have a couple of options that are dependent of what East meant with his bid and that can no longer be influenced by South.
a) If East meant 1♥ as a natural bid and 2♥ now would be also natural in EW's system, East might substitute his IB with 2♥ and the auction (and play) would continue without further rectifications.
b ) If East has a another call in his system that has the same (or a more precise) meaning as what he wanted to show with 1♥, East might substitute his IB with that call and the auction (and play) would continue without further rectifications.
c) If East does not have those possibilities or does not want to chose on of those calls, he might make any sufficient bid ot he might pass, in which case West has to pass (in this board !) whenever it is his turn to call. Furthermore there might be lead restrictions for West, if East does not show the ♥ suit in the legal auction and EW become defenders."

5. Now I ask South whether he accepts 1♥

6. If South does not accept, I tell East to put his cards face down on the table and to follow me a few steps off the table.

7. There I ask East, why he bid 1♥ and there I will first get the answer "I did not see the opening" and I will establish that he wanted to open the bidding with 1♥.

8. Now I will ask East what 2♥ will be (natural) and whether he has a different call in his system showing here the same as a 1♥ opening (or something more precise than that).

9. For the sake of argument, if he denies another possible call, I will tell South:
"ok, when we will be back at the table, you might bid 2♥ and there will be no further rectifications (West is free to call), or you might pass or you might make any sufficient bid you like in which cases West will have to pass (in this board) every time the auction reaches him. We will go back now, and after taking your cards again you may bid whatever you want - whereupon I will tell the table, whether West must pass throughout or will be allowed to participate in the auction."

10. so be it.

11. If East decides to bid 2♥ I will have to examine after the board whether we are in Law 27D territory.

12. After having done all ths stuff, I will have to adjust my tournament schedule, as this table lost about 5 minutes ...

[jallerton]

pran, on Aug 21 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

You first offer South to accept the 1♥ insufficient bid in which case there will be no further rectification (and South for instance will have the legal options to double or to bid 1♠ in addition to making other legal calls).

If South does not accept the insufficient bid this bid (1♥) is cancelled and East must replace his insufficient bid with any legal call.

Now the Director must refer the entire Law 27B to the offender (East), but the most important part of it in this particular situation is probably L27B1a:
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.

Thanks to everyone who has replied.

Sven, can you please explain which Law gives you the authority to read out the whole of Law 27B to the players?

[blackshoe]

81C2.

[dburn]

jallerton, on Aug 21 2010, 04:03 PM, said:

Sven, can you please explain which Law gives you the authority to read out the whole of Law 27B to the players?

Oh, I don't think that Sven is in any doubt as to whether a player is entitled to know the entirety of a Law he has just broken, and neither am I. Where we appear to differ is that I think a player is entitled to know the entirety of a Law even if he hasn't just broken it.

[pran]

jallerton, on Aug 21 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

pran, on Aug 21 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

You first offer South to accept the 1♥ insufficient bid in which case there will be no further rectification (and South for instance will have the legal options to double or to bid 1♠ in addition to making other legal calls).

If South does not accept the insufficient bid this bid (1♥) is cancelled and East must replace his insufficient bid with any legal call.

Now the Director must refer the entire Law 27B to the offender (East), but the most important part of it in this particular situation is probably L27B1a:
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.

Thanks to everyone who has replied.

Sven, can you please explain which Law gives you the authority to read out the whole of Law 27B to the players?

Law 10 C
And it is a duty, not an authority.

[pran]

dburn, on Aug 21 2010, 10:13 PM, said:

jallerton, on Aug 21 2010, 04:03 PM, said:

Sven, can you please explain which Law gives you the authority to read out the whole of Law 27B to the players?

Oh, I don't think that Sven is in any doubt as to whether a player is entitled to know the entirety of a Law he has just broken, and neither am I. Where we appear to differ is that I think a player is entitled to know the entirety of a Law even if he hasn't just broken it.

Law 40C3a (see also the separate thread on this matter although that has degraded into insanity) forbids a player to use either the law book or the director as an aid to his memory on the contents of the law book.

Such information shall be given by the director when he judges that it is necessary to ensure correct progress of the game.

[dburn]

pran, on Aug 21 2010, 04:26 PM, said:

Law 40C3a (see also the separate thread on this matter although that has degraded into insanity) forbids a player to use either the law book or the director as an aid to his memory on the contents of the law book.

In other words:

No player is expected to memorize the Laws (Sven Pran).

Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws (Law 72).

No player is allowed to find out what the Laws say if he doesn't already know (Sven Pran).

Insanity is right. But whose?

[jallerton]

jallerton, on Aug 21 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

Sven, can you please explain which Law gives you the authority to read out the whole of Law 27B to the players?

Ed suggests Law 81C2 which says:

Law81 said:

C. Director’s Duties and Powers
The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying
irregularities and redressing damage. The Director’s duties and powers
normally include also the following:
2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of
their rights and responsibilities thereunder.

So the TD should advise South that he has a right to accept the insufficient bid and (if he does not accept it) he should advise East of his responsibility to correct it to a legal call.

Sven suggests Law 10C, but that says:

Law10 said:

C. Choice after Irregularity
1. When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director
shall explain all the options available.
2. If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his
selection without consulting partner.
3. When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an
irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select the most
advantageous action.
4. Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is
appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to
their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own
infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50).

Law 10C1 instructs the TD to "explain all of the options available". In this case, it seems to me that the options available are:

1. South should be given the option to accept the insufficient bid or not.

2. If South does not accept the insufficient bid, East should be given his options: to correct his call to any sufficient bid or to a Pass (or possibly to a Double if this has the same or a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid).

It seems to me that neither Law 81C2 nor Law 10C authorises the TD to explain the consequences of selecting a particular option. I realise that it is generally accepted TD practice around the world to explain which calls would or would not bar partner, but this practice would appear to be legal only if you consider the Laws themselves to be available authorised information.

[CSGibson]

I have a question on this: If the insufficient heart bidder instead decided to substitute a michaels 2♠ bid, under what circumstances would that be legal?

[pran]

CSGibson, on Aug 22 2010, 11:12 PM, said:

I have a question on this: If the insufficient heart bidder instead decided to substitute a michaels 2♠ bid, under what circumstances would that be legal?

It is sufficient and thus of course legal.

But partner would have to pass whenever it is his turn to call.

[pran]

jallerton, on Aug 22 2010, 10:59 PM, said:

It seems to me that neither Law 81C2 nor Law 10C authorises the TD to explain the consequences of selecting a particular option.  I realise that it is generally accepted TD practice around the world to explain which calls would or would not bar partner, but this practice would appear to be legal only if you consider the Laws themselves to be available authorised information.

I cannot see how either law prevents the Director from explaining to the offender the consequence(s) of his choice after an irregularity. In fact I consider such explanation part of the Director's duty.

But the Director should be very careful about making what could be taken as a recommendation to the offender on what alternative he ought to select.