Comparable call after insufficient bid

South opens 1NT which is passed round to East who has 18 points and 5-5 in the majors. She bids 2C (Landy). West, with a 2-2-5-4 shape, bids 1D (insufficent) not accepted by North. West says that 1D was not natural (despite her diamond holding) but was meant to be 2D showing no preference in the majors. Does she now have any bid which keeps East in the auction? For instance can she bid a conventional 2D?

Comments

  • Saying that she meant to bid 2D strongly suggests that this is simply mechanical error: she meant to pull out 2D, complying with the convention, but inadvertently pulled out 1D. Allow the change with no further rectification.

    If you don't believe her and consider that she did mean to show her diamonds, up to the point where she realised that something had gone awry, then there is no reason to allow a 2D correction, since that is artificial and not showing diamonds.

  • At the moment Law 27B1(a) is ambiguous. Some TDs would allow the 2D purely because it is diamonds. It all depends what "specifies" means.

    On the other hand, if you disallow it because it "shows" (rather than "names") something different, then I can see no reading of Law 23A by which the 2D isn't a comparable call, as it shows equal length in the majors, and thereby satisfies L23A2.

  • My problem with LAW 23A is that all 3 heads refer to the meaning(s) or purpose 'attributable to the withdrawn call'. How do you decide the meaning attributable to 1!d, an insufficient bid?

  • As a TD, you have to ask her what she intended by bidding 1D, what was she thinking at the time?

  • @Tag said:
    As a TD, you have to ask her what she intended by bidding 1D, what was she thinking at the time?

    My understanding is that that is no longer the case in the 2017 laws. As long as the meaning attributable to 1D is plausible, as it is here, the correction can be made to 2D. Play will continue to a sensible bridge result without any UI. If there is a problem, the TD can adjust the score at the end.

  • I take your point, Steven, but a 2D bid showing no preference for either major is something I'd find hard to consider comparable to a 1D bid showing diamonds.

    I still find it easy here, though, to accept a suggestion of mechanical error.

  • But Tag, the insufficient bid doesn't necessarily "show diamonds"; there could be other attributable meanings, although I have to admit yours is the most likely one.

    I also find it difficult to "attribute" meanings to withdrawn calls, and I'm currently running a club TD course for the EBU, so I'm trying to teach directors how to apply this law. I know there are some who claim that it's common for offender to "get the level of the auction wrong" and so attribute whatever 2!d would have meant to the withdrawn call, in which case a correction to 2!d would not bar partner. I'm not entirely happy with that, but I tell my trainees that they should make their own decision, make a ruling and not worry to much if anyone disagrees.

    I agree with you that it could have been a mechanical error, and that's something the TD could try to find out, perhaps away from the table.

  • I love the idea of teaching Directors not to worry if anyone disagrees.
  • It reminds me of the old Judge Dredd... "I am the Law"

  • @ManchesterRambler said:
    My problem with LAW 23A is that all 3 heads refer to the meaning(s) or purpose 'attributable to the withdrawn call'. How do you decide the meaning attributable to 1!d, an insufficient bid?

    I think you just need to consider what meanings might be attributed to the call, which in this case seem to me to be either diamonds or equal length in the majors, and then allow a call that has either of those meanings.

    No need to ask the intention of the player who made the insufficient bid - you can ask that player’s partner any details of their system that you need to know. I think you should caution the IBer against saying what was their intention.

    However I do think you should offer the player the chance to talk to you away from the table if they think you have failed to identify a possible attributable meaning.

  • @Alan16248 said:
    I love the idea of teaching Directors not to worry if anyone disagrees.

    If I didn't do this the more nervous ones, perhaps the weaker players among the directors, wouldn't trust themselves to make any ruling at all. It's one of the situations where the director has to make a judgement on the spot, with little opportunity for consultation.

Sign In or Register to comment.