[Vampyr]

Here's a story of an insufficient bid...

(How do you show just the bidding without any hands?)

Anyway, the bidding went 2♠-(P)-2♥-(P)-2♠ and continued from there.

The 2♠ bid showed 5+ spades and some other suit, I don't remember whether it was a minor or any, or whether it promised 4 or 5. It doesn't matter, because in the event the side suit was a very good 6-card diamond suit.

So opener could have given a lot of information about his hand had he bid 3♦ instead of 2♠ over partner's insufficient bid. I don't see how or why this should be illegal, yet I am a little uneasy about the way declarer's side has the opportunity to gain after the IB. Is this just bad luck for the NOS? I think that it is, but that this is a little harsh, since the new Laws make whether or not to accept an insufficient bid a very difficult decision.

[glen]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-03, 08:19, said:

...bidding went 2♠-(P)-2♥-(P)-2♠ and continued from there. ... declarer's side ...

Since we don't know how the bidding ended we don't know "declarer's side", though I assume it was opener's.

On this hand, the NOS is the NPEAS, or the not-paying-enough-attention side, and they suffer the NPEAS penalty, which in bridge can be significant. That's the way the bidding crumbles.

[paulg]

In this specific case why would the NOS accept the insufficient bid when it is very likely that the opener will use the opportunity to show his second suit cheaply?

[Vampyr]

glen, on 2011-July-03, 08:32, said:

Since we don't know how the bidding ended we don't know "declarer's side", though I assume it was opener's.

You know, come to think of it, I don't remember who declared the hand. It doesn't really matter.

Quote

On this hand, the NOS is the NPEAS, or the not-paying-enough-attention side, and they suffer the NPEAS penalty, which in bridge can be significant. That's the way the bidding crumbles.

Yes, but a problem is that if they are paying attention, it is difficult to decide whether to accept the insufficient bid or not, since the Laws are so favourable to the OS side.

paulg, on 2011-July-03, 08:37, said:

In this specific case why would the NOS accept the insufficient bid when it is very likely that the opener will use the opportunity to show his second suit cheaply?

Well, in this specific case the NO dozily pushed the tray back without the really noticing the IB. But also in this case, the opener is not going to show a so-so 4-card suit at the three level; it is the fact that his side suit was 6 cards and good that gave him the opportunity to show it. I don't know why he didn't do so, frankly.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-03, 08:19, said:

Here's a story of an insufficient bid...

(How do you show just the bidding without any hands?)

Anyway, the bidding went 2♠-(P)-2♥-(P)-2♠ and continued from there.

The 2♠ bid showed 5+ spades and some other suit, I don't remember whether it was a minor or any, or whether it promised 4 or 5. It doesn't matter, because in the event the side suit was a very good 6-card diamond suit.

So opener could have given a lot of information about his hand had he bid 3♦ instead of 2♠ over partner's insufficient bid. I don't see how or why this should be illegal, yet I am a little uneasy about the way declarer's side has the opportunity to gain after the IB. Is this just bad luck for the NOS? I think that it is, but that this is a little harsh, since the new Laws make whether or not to accept an insufficient bid a very difficult decision.

My immediate reaction is: What on earth made offender's LHO accept the IB when he had no use for the bidding space offered to him?

The law is clear: Once offender's LHO has accepted the IB the auction continues with no restriction. If opener decides to rebid 2♠ then so be it. (I would expect that bid to show a minimum opening with minimal values in any other suit.) Had opener decided to bid 3♦ then why not? There is nothing in the laws (or ethics) preventing that call.

[glen]

pran, on 2011-July-03, 13:04, said:

My immediate reaction is: What on earth made offender's LHO accept the IB when he had no use for the bidding space offered to him?

Btw I had nearly the same auction in the Mississauga (near Toronto) regional a few years ago. I was in 2nd seat, and neither the 2♠ opener, the 2♥ responder, or my partner noticed anything wrong at anytime during the bidding, because opener bid 3♦ at their next turn, instead of trying to find a second 2♠ bid in the bidding box. The search in the bidding box could result in UI at the table.

My partner passed because they had nothing to bid and was not paying full attention to the opponents bidding.

pran, on 2011-July-03, 13:04, said:

The law is clear: Once offender's LHO has accepted the IB the auction continues with no restriction. If opener decides to rebid 2♠ then so be it. (I would expect that bid to show a minimum opening with minimal values in any other suit.) Had opener decided to bid 3♦ then why not? There is nothing in the laws (or ethics) preventing that call.

At the table once partner had smoothly passed over 2♥, there was nothing to say anymore.

[mgoetze]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-03, 08:51, said:

it is difficult to decide whether to accept the insufficient bid or not, since the Laws are so favourable to the OS side.

I don't quite see how they are.

[FrancesHinden]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-03, 08:19, said:

Here's a story of an insufficient bid...

(How do you show just the bidding without any hands?)

Anyway, the bidding went 2♠-(P)-2♥-(P)-2♠ and continued from there.

The 2♠ bid showed 5+ spades and some other suit, I don't remember whether it was a minor or any, or whether it promised 4 or 5. It doesn't matter, because in the event the side suit was a very good 6-card diamond suit.

So opener could have given a lot of information about his hand had he bid 3♦ instead of 2♠ over partner's insufficient bid. I don't see how or why this should be illegal, yet I am a little uneasy about the way declarer's side has the opportunity to gain after the IB. Is this just bad luck for the NOS? I think that it is, but that this is a little harsh, since the new Laws make whether or not to accept an insufficient bid a very difficult decision.

I have to admit I am confused by this thread in two distinctly different ways.
(i) Why is there 'bad luck' for the NOS? All you had to do was notice the insufficient bid and not accept it.
(ii) If this was played in Poznan, as you say, then screens were in use. In fact you didn't have the option whether or not to accept it, if you noticed it you were obliged to call the TD, and the insufficient bid must be rectified with no further penalty.

"b) Before an irregularity is passed through the screen the offender or his screenmate shall draw the Director's attention to it. Infringing calls shall not be accepted and shall be put right without other rectification (but see (a) (ii) above); "

(a)(ii) above says that "ii) if a player infringes the law and, inadvertently (otherwise Law 23 may apply), the irregularity is passed through the screen by his screenmate the latter has accepted the action on behalf of his side in situations where the laws permit LHO to accept it. "

so you can accept an IB inadvertantly (as apparently you did) but, playing with screens, you cannot choose to accept one.

p.s. the EBU screen regulations are slightly different - if an IB is passed under the screen, the other side are supposed to call the TD and it still gets rectified without penalty - now there are two OS.

[mrdct]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-July-03, 15:14, said:

"ii) if a player infringes the law and, inadvertently (otherwise Law 23 may apply), the irregularity is passed through the screen by his screenmate the latter has accepted the action on behalf of his side in situations where the laws permit LHO to accept it. "

That's the key point here. It wasn't the insufficient bidder's LHO who foolishly accepted the IB, it was his dopey partner who pushed the tray through without realising that an IB had been made. As noted, under the screen regulations in force this action constituted acceptance of the IB on behalf of the NOS, the auction proceeds normally and West is perfectly entitled to use the additional space that his opponents have chosen to give him.

Working out whether or not to accept an IB is a bridge skill like anything else where you need to make an assessment about whether or not you want to accept an IB. I don't think there is anything harsh about that and in the event that the irregularity leads to a good score for the OS, Law 27D allows the score to be adjusted to what would've/could've/should've happened without the irregularity.

Screens make it a bit trickier as IBs will generally only pass through the screen where there has been a lack of attention on the other side of the screen so nobody is actually making an assessment about whether or not it's to their advantage to accept an IB. Without screens, I can think of very few hands where the 2♥ bidder's LHO would want to accept the IB; particularly as not accepting the IB could really muddy the waters for the OS when the IB and/or the replacement bid have conventional meanings (in this case both 2♥ and 3♥ could be p/c).

[Rossoneri]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-03, 08:51, said:

it is difficult to decide whether to accept the insufficient bid or not, since the Laws are so favourable to the OS side.

Looking at the above replies, I'm sure I'm not the only person saying this: Care to explain why?

[mrdct]

It's more relevant for playing without screens, but I'm interested in whether or not accepting an IB due to not paying attention could be considered a "wild or gambling action" under Law 12C1(b) and thereby negate the NOS' right to a second chance with Law 27D. I'm inclined to think that accepting an IB and then passing is sufficiently weird to be classed as "wild or gambling" as 99.99% of the time when a choice is made to accept an IB, it is so you can get a bid in yourself at lower level than you might otherwise need to. However, in this case with screens it is North who pushed the tray through, and thereby accepted the IB on South's behalf, so the subsequent pass by South irrelevant.

Similar to Rossoneri, I can't really see anything in the current Laws pertaining to insufficient bids that are favourable to the OS and Law 27D provides a good safety net for the NOS when the OS happens to land on their feet.

[blackshoe]

Not paying attention is certainly not "gambling", unless you're doing it on purpose and hoping it won't matter. Whether it's "wild" depends, I suppose on the class of player. It's certainly not wild for the players I know. Whether it's wild for world class players is another question.

[barmar]

I'd say it's seriously inferior for world class players, but unless it's the result of coming to the game drunk or stoned, I wouldn't call it wild.

[mycroft]

Speaking for Vampyr, and I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong:

The "little loophole" in Law 27 means that 2S-2H, correct to 3H:

• is allowed if both are natural,
  
• and opener is allowed to know that partner wanted to bid 2H, and
  
• instead of UI and LA coming into play, Law 27D and its more gentle "without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged" requirement apply.

So, in some people's opinion, and definitely in some cases, it's better to accept the IB and let them try to figure it out than to allow the "I don't really have a 3H call over 2S, remember that when you're bidding" game.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-03, 08:19, said:

(How do you show just the bidding without any hands?)

Use the enter hand diagram, and uncheck the North, South, East and West hands.

Vampyr, on 2011-July-03, 08:51, said:

Yes, but a problem is that if they are paying attention, it is difficult to decide whether to accept the insufficient bid or not, since the Laws are so favourable to the OS side.

I am unconvinced. Certainly the new Law 27B1B <spit> will mean that on some hands the offending side will not be disadvantaged, but that does not mean you should accept the insufficient bid.

mrdct, on 2011-July-04, 00:00, said:

It's more relevant for playing without screens, but I'm interested in whether or not accepting an IB due to not paying attention could be considered a "wild or gambling action" under Law 12C1(b) and thereby negate the NOS' right to a second chance with Law 27D. I'm inclined to think that accepting an IB and then passing is sufficiently weird to be classed as "wild or gambling" as 99.99% of the time when a choice is made to accept an IB, it is so you can get a bid in yourself at lower level than you might otherwise need to.

Having looked at hands which are considered wild or gambling, I do not think we consider accidents. In other words a call is wild if the player deliberately takes a wild action, and a call is gambling if the player deliberately gambles. So to deny redress woud need it to be a serious error unrelated to the infraction, and I do not think it unrelated.

[Vampyr]

mrdct, on 2011-July-03, 21:18, said:

That's the key point here. It wasn't the insufficient bidder's LHO who foolishly accepted the IB, it was his dopey partner who pushed the tray through without realising that an IB had been made.

What do you mean? Either the insufficient bidder or her LHO pushed the tray through. I don't know which, but obviously it was not against the wishes of LHO.

mycroft, on 2011-July-05, 17:02, said:

Speaking for Vampyr, and I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong:

The "little loophole" in Law 27 means that 2S-2H, correct to 3H:

• is allowed if both are natural,
  
• and opener is allowed to know that partner wanted to bid 2H, and
  
• instead of UI and LA coming into play, Law 27D and its more gentle "without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged" requirement apply.

So, in some people's opinion, and definitely in some cases, it's better to accept the IB and let them try to figure it out than to allow the "I don't really have a 3H call over 2S, remember that when you're bidding" game.

Yes, this is my problem. Perhaps I chose a bad example. It just happens to be the one that got me on this train of thought.

[mrdct]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-05, 19:05, said:

What do you mean? Either the insufficient bidder or her LHO pushed the tray through. I don't know which, but obviously it was not against the wishes of LHO.

The bidding tray is only allowed to be moved by North and South. We are told that the insufficient bidder's screenmate pushed the tray through, so the insufficient bidder is either sitting East or West. Accordingly, we know that the tray has been pushed through by the insufficient bidder's RHO. The insufficent bidder's LHO never got an oportunity to express his wishes as to accepting the IB as his partner has already done it for him. It may very well have beeen against the wishes of the IB's LHO.

[mrdct]

mycroft, on 2011-July-05, 17:02, said:

Speaking for Vampyr, and I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong:

The "little loophole" in Law 27 means that 2S-2H, correct to 3H:

• is allowed if both are natural,
  
• and opener is allowed to know that partner wanted to bid 2H, and
  
• instead of UI and LA coming into play, Law 27D and its more gentle "without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged" requirement apply.

So, in some people's opinion, and definitely in some cases, it's better to accept the IB and let them try to figure it out than to allow the "I don't really have a 3H call over 2S, remember that when you're bidding" game.

I would presume 2♥ to be conventional as it is most likely a pass/correct response to a two-suited opening.

[blackshoe]

mrdct, on 2011-July-05, 20:34, said:

I would presume 2♥ to be conventional as it is most likely a pass/correct response to a two-suited opening.

Whether it's conventional is not relevant I think. The law uses "artificial", not "conventional". Is a pass or correct response artificial? I'm not so sure it is.

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-06, 00:20, said:

Whether it's conventional is not relevant I think. The law uses "artificial", not "conventional". Is a pass or correct response artificial? I'm not so sure it is.

Of course a pass or correct response is artifical. It does not convey a willingness to play in the denomination named unless partner happens to hold length in that suit.