[G_R__E_G]

In regards to the changes in this area, I had an interesting scenario come up at a club game recently (this is in ACBL land). Dealer opened 1NT and his LHO overcalled 2♦ (not alerted, as it was natural). Opener's partner did not see the 2♦ bid and bid 2♣. The offending side has on their convention card that they play Lebensohl. So, had he seen the 2♦ bid, 3♦ would be Stayman denying a ♦ stopper. I'm sure most anyone would agree that under the new laws a correction of the 2♣ bid to 3♦ would be legal. But....what about allowing a correction to 2NT and then over the subsequent 3♣ bid by opener, bidding 3♦ which is also Stayman but shows a ♦ stopper according to their card? Should this be allowed? If it's not allowed, and the offending side is somewhat endplayed into bidding 3♦ but it turns out that they have a ♦ stopper, should their be any further ramifications to the offending side considering they've given misinformation on the alert of the 3♦ bid?

[Mbodell]

It isn't a misinformation, it is a misbid. I don't know if you are allowed to misbid intentionally because of trying to avoid a penalty on partner.

[jdonn]

I don't think you can allow any change because a weak hand with both majors can be ruled out. You can only allow it if they had the (very strange?) agreement to only bid stayman in unopposed auctions on invitational or better hands.

[NickRW]

jdonn, on Jul 15 2009, 05:20 PM, said:

I don't think you can allow any change because a weak hand with both majors can be ruled out. You can only allow it if they had the (very strange?) agreement to only bid stayman in unopposed auctions on invitational or better hands.

I don't think that is what the law says.... Law 27B1b

"if ... the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director’s opinion has 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) the auction proceeds without further rectification..."

Therefore, the cue asking for a major, denying a stop and promising values, should be allowed as it is a more precise and fully contained meaning compared to simple stayman.

I am sure I did read somewhere that the WBF was asking for a reasonably lenient interpretation of this rule - but, even if so, I don't see how a Lebensohl 2NT can be allowed as, although the exact meaning of the cue will become clear, more precise and fully contained on the next round, the 2NT is itself, not a more precise bid and fully contained meaning as compared with normal stayman. This would be taking leniency too far I think.

Nick

[peachy]

As an aside, cuebids are generally not alertable in ACBL so when the player bids 3D (to replace the insufficient 2C bid), the 3D should not be alerted.

As far as I understand the new law, he is not allowed to bid 2NT first and then cuebid as Stayman because the 2NT (Lebensohl) does not have the same or more precise meaning as a 2C (Stayman) has.

Some people do not play Garbage Stayman so their 2C would always have been 8HCP (invitational) or better and those pairs are certainly allowed to bid 3D because it has the same meaning as 2C would have had. Those who also play Garbage Stayman, I don't know.

All responses here so far - including mine - are from people who are mostly operating on "feelings" which have little or none to do with law. Before forming an opinion, I would want to see blujak or blackshoe or someone clearly knowledgeable about the new law to answer.

[NickRW]

G_R__E_G, on Jul 15 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

In regards to the changes in this area, I had an interesting scenario come up at a club game recently (this is in ACBL land). Dealer opened 1NT and his LHO overcalled 2♦ (not alerted, as it was natural). Opener's partner did not see the 2♦ bid and bid 2♣. The offending side has on their convention card that they play Lebensohl. So, had he seen the 2♦ bid, 3♦ would be Stayman denying a ♦ stopper. I'm sure most anyone would agree that under the new laws a correction of the 2♣ bid to 3♦ would be legal. But....what about allowing a correction to 2NT and then over the subsequent 3♣ bid by opener, bidding 3♦ which is also Stayman but shows a ♦ stopper according to their card? Should this be allowed? If it's not allowed, and the offending side is somewhat endplayed into bidding 3♦ but it turns out that they have a ♦ stopper, should their be any further ramifications to the offending side considering they've given misinformation on the alert of the 3♦ bid?

If the director rules (as I think I would) that a direct cue (denying a stop) would be allowed, but a Lebensohl 2NT would not be, and, as a result of this, offender (who has a stop) decides to use the cue anyway, then I think law 23 might apply if this leads to damage for the non offending side - so there could be an adjusted score.

"LAW 23 - AWARENESS OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the nonoffending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*.

* as, for example, by partner’s enforced pass."

I think that knowingly misusing the cue comes under the category of "offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the nonoffending side" and cannot be waived away as a psyche or gambling bid.

Nick

[jdonn]

NickRW, on Jul 15 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

Therefore, the cue asking for a major, denying a stop and promising values, should be allowed as it is a more precise and fully contained meaning compared to simple stayman.

That's my point, it's not fully contained in the meaning of stayman on an unopposed auction. People bid stayman on many weak hands unopposed, but not in competition. So, no correction allowed unless they generally pass 1NT with weak hands with 4-5 in the majors, 4441, etc.

[NickRW]

jdonn, on Jul 15 2009, 07:14 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 15 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

Therefore, the cue asking for a major, denying a stop and promising values, should be allowed as it is a more precise and fully contained meaning compared to simple stayman.

That's my point, it's not fully contained in the meaning of stayman on an unopposed auction. People bid stayman on many weak hands unopposed, but not in competition. So, no correction allowed unless they generally pass 1NT with weak hands with 4-5 in the majors, 4441, etc.

With respect, I think you've got your wires crossed. As I understand the law I quoted, if the replacement bid is simply a subset of the possible meanings of the insufficient bid, then it is allowed. The fact that some hand types are ruled out, is not a reason to disallow the replacement call.

I realise that, assuming I'm right, it could be construed that the law has actually got it in reverse and that looser meanings should be allowed, while more precise ones disallowed - but - well - I didn't write the darned thing.

It could be me that has got his wires crossed too of course - but I don't see where?!

Nick

[jdonn]

Sorry about that, you're right its me, I'm thinking backwards for some reason.

[bluejak]

Quote

Before forming an opinion, I would want to see blujak or blackshoe or someone clearly knowledgeable about the new law to answer.

I read all articles in these forums, and generally post if they are going wrong. So if I do not post, you can assume I agree with the answers in general. Here, once jdonn got his thinking the right way round, I think the answers are just correct, except for the one about Law 23.

It has been decided that deliberately misbidding so as to avoid a penalty is legitimate, and knowing partner is likely to do so is and allowing for it is also legitimate. I do not like this at all, but that is what the WBF people are saying.

[mamos]

bluejak, on Jul 15 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

Quote

Before forming an opinion, I would want to see blujak or blackshoe or someone clearly knowledgeable about the new law to answer.

I read all articles in these forums, and generally post if they are going wrong. So if I do not post, you can assume I agree with the answers in general. Here, once jdonn got his thinking the right way round, I think the answers are just correct, except for the one about Law 23.

It has been decided that deliberately misbidding so as to avoid a penalty is legitimate, and knowing partner is likely to do so is and allowing for it is also legitimate. I do not like this at all, but that is what the WBF people are saying.

It is with some reluctance that I dare to post here, because if I get this wrong everyone will shout at me.

I think what we all need to bear in mind is Law 27D

Perhaps it's easier to explain in the context of "an controvertibly not artificial" situation. Law 27B1(a)

Say the auction goes

2♠ 1NT TD!

There are a range of reasons why this might have occurred

I didnt notice the 2♠ opening
I thought it was 1♠
I actually intended not to bid 2NT but bid 1NT

Other factors may affect this situation in particular the range for 1NT Openings, overcalls at the 1 Level and overcalls of at the 2 level
Let's assume 1NT Opening = 14-16
1♠ 1NT overcall = 15-17 or so
and 2♠ 2NT= 16-18 or so

Once the nice TD has explained all the options and LHO has asked for the insufficient bid to be cancelled I can replace 1NT with 2NT and the auctions continues without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply but we are referred to 27D

So my 2NT bid shows let's say 16-18. I can choose to bid 2NT with a balanced 14 count if I intended to open 1NT, a 15 count or indeed any count I like if I think that is better for my partnership than barring partner from the auction. Partner is also allowed to know that the auction has gone 2♠ 1NT cancelled and 2NT replaced. That's what "Law 16D does not apply" means. What partner is not allowed to know is why I bid 1NT, what I thought the auction was or what I intended. That would be Unauthorised Information.

So let's say I have 14 and I was opening 1NT so I decide to bid 2NT and hope for the best. Partner with ♦AKJxx and a blizzard decides it's worth a shot at 3NT and we hit the jackpot because Diamonds break 3-3 with the queen onside and 9 tricks roll in.

400/600 to the good guys and barrels of imps or MPs?

Not so, because the TD has to refer to Law 27D.

What would have happened if there had been no insufficient bid? I would have passed 2♠ and that perhaps would have been the most likely final contract. The TD should adjust, weighting scores where appropriate.

If I had a balanced 16 I would have overcalled 2NT and the outcome would have been the same. No need to adjust now.

Exactly the same considerations apply in Law 27B1b

I agree with those who have suggested that after 1NT 2♦ 2♣ that if 3♦ shows both majors with or without a stop it is a more precise call than 2♣ and I would allow it as a rectification bid. I would not allow 2NT which might in theory have many different meanings. A player might now chose to bid 3♦ even though it didn't quite fit his hand as his best shot at getting a good bridge score even though his hand deviated somewhat from partnership agreement. At the end of the hand the TD must ask does Law 27 D apply? Have the offending side reached a contract that they would not have reached without the assistance from the infraction.

Note that Law 27D specifically relates back to 27B1 and not to B2 or B3. If after 2♠ 1NT I have a beefy 18 count and decide what the heck I'll bid 3NT, partner is silenced and if I get lucky now with the Diamond break, I get to keep my good score.

Posted in trepidation by Mike Amos (who hopes he hasn't written anything controversial - or worse wrong here)

[helene_t]

Seems to me that it is ok to bid 3♦ as the best choice among bids that can be made without a penalty.

Can opener now cater for his p possibly not having the diamond stopper he promises? I would think he can.

[peachy]

mamos, on Jul 16 2009, 06:16 AM, said:

[snipped]

I agree with those who have suggested that after 1NT 2♦ 2♣ that if 3♦ shows both majors with or without a stop it is a more precise call than 2♣ and I would allow it as a rectification bid.

[snipped rest]

Out of curiosity: Who has suggested that a Stayman (or the 3D bid that serves as Stayman in the auction 1NT-(2D)-3D ) shows both majors? I know of nobody who has the agreement that Stayman (or its equivalent) shows both majors.

I am starting to wonder if I misread your post. But I gave it a second and third reading and there it still is.

[bluejak]

While what mamos has written is correct, I do not think it is clear in one way. Consider this example:

2♠ 1NT corrected to 2NT

1NT opening is 12 to 14, 2NT over 2♠ is 16 to 18.

Responder decides with his 21 points to bid 6NT because he expects partner to hadve 12 to 14 points, not 16 or more. Does the TD adjust under Law 27D?

No. An adjustment is only given under Law 27D where the TD feels the insufficient bid has helped them to get to a contract they would not have otherwise. Note to English/Norwegian/ACBL readers: this is a different approach from the last Law book. Note to French/Dutch/EBL readers: no, it isn't! Different interpretations applied previously in different places.

So if the TD is happy that the bidding, starting 2♠ Pass/Dbl [depending on the hand] would still be quite likely to get to 6NT he does not adjust. Knowledge of the 1NT bid was AI [authorised information] and Law 27D does not kick in.

[mamos]

helene_t, on Jul 16 2009, 06:44 AM, said:

Seems to me that it is ok to bid 3♦ as the best choice among bids that can be made without a penalty.

Can opener now cater for his p possibly not having the diamond stopper he promises? I would think he can.

Yes

But there is the same constraint that if the partnership now reaches a contract that they would not have reached without the insufficient bid the TD should comsider 27D

[mamos]

bluejak, on Jul 16 2009, 07:46 AM, said:

While what mamos has written is correct, I do not think it is clear in one way.  Consider this example:

2♠ 1NT corrected to 2NT

1NT opening is 12 to 14, 2NT over 2♠ is 16 to 18.

Responder decides with his 21 points to bid 6NT because he expects partner to hadve 12 to 14 points, not 16 or more.  Does the TD adjust under Law 27D?

No.  An adjustment is only given under Law 27D where the TD feels the insufficient bid has helped them to get to a contract they would not have otherwise.  Note to English/Norwegian/ACBL readers: this is a different approach from the last Law book.  Note to French/Dutch/EBL readers: no, it isn't!    Different interpretations applied previously in different places. 

So if the TD is happy that the bidding, starting 2♠ Pass/Dbl [depending on the hand] would still be quite likely to get to 6NT he does not adjust.  Knowledge of the 1NT bid was AI [authorised information] and Law 27D does not kick in.

Now I've started posting I suppose I've got to go on

This is my understanding

IN any situation where we apply 27 B 1 we need afterwards to consider if the outcome of the hand would be without the insufficient bid.

It might be clearer to make up hands but then we'll start arguing about the merits of hypothetical cases

In Bluejak's last example we might need to consider if 7NT was a possible outcome in an auction where there was no insufficient bid

After talking to David, I don't think we have any real differences but we both have some concerns that the guidance notes produced by the WBF suggest a more lenient approach to the insufficient bidders than the Law itself.

It would be interesting to see some real examples from play.

As a player I'm sure it means that the introduction of "rectification calls" often means that the right thing to do is to accept the insufficient bid

1NT 2♦ 2♣ In 1997 Laws it would have been foolosh to accept
Same auction 2007 it must often be best to accept especially if you are in a position to bid 3♦ yourself

Mike

[awm]

Slightly off-topic, but it seems very strange to me that if partner makes an insufficient bid he can then correct it to a bid in the same strain but with different agreed meaning with regard to strength and length (although both natural), and then the insufficient bid is authorized information!

Of course, there is law 27D which prevents really extreme advantage to the offending side due to the insufficient bid, but it seems extremely strange to me that 16D (UI from withdrawn call) is deemed not to apply. And it does seem to create situations where making an insufficient bid and then correcting creates substantial advantage for the offenders (although obviously if this is done intentionally PPs may apply).

[bluejak]

If it is done intentionally then you can adjust under Law 23 as well as penalise under Law 90.

I agree it is strange: barking mad woudl be my description. But we have this strange Law now, and if you want to get rid of it 2017 looks your best chance: we shall have it until then!