Actually, forget the insufficient 1D bid and East bids 2D natural over the 1NT. Can S still make his insufficient 1C bid as being Comparable (without objection from West).
@SteveMap said:
Hi, I’ve been following this thread as an observer, and the interesting thing is repeating the insufficient bid after it has been not accepted by West and then back to East who passes again, allowing the Insufficient bid to be re-made. (A Legal option it would appear).
However, if East does not pass and bids (say) 1D. At this point would South still be able to repeat the insufficient call of 1C, being legal and comparable. ? If so, would West then be allowed Not to accept this insufficient bid Or required to accept it ?
(If East bids 1D then he has made an insufficient bid - did you mean this? If you do then South has presumably accepted it if he makes an insufficient bid of 1C, since law 27A does not state that the call has to be legal.) Otherwise
No - Law 31 (in part)
If that opponent makes a legal8 bid, double or redouble, offender may make any legal call:
(a) When the call is a comparable call (see Law 23A), there is no further rectification. Law
26B does not apply, but see Law 23C.
(b) When the call is not a comparable call (see Law 23A), offender’s partner must pass when
next it is his turn to call. Laws 16C, 26B and 72C may apply.
So South has to make a legal call - if he makes an insufficient bid then we are back where we were - however the thing is: if he makes a call that is not comparable, partner is silenced for his next call. If he makes an insufficient bid and then corrects it with a non-comparable call then partner is silenced for the rest of the auction.
Thanks Gordon, I appreciate that; So say East bids 2D, South ideally wants to make a comparable call (so as not to silence his partner). My question is, is a second insufficient bid of 1C a Comparable bid ?
@SteveMap said:
Thanks Gordon, I appreciate that; So say East bids 2D, South ideally wants to make a comparable call (so as not to silence his partner). My question is, is a second insufficient bid of 1C a Comparable bid ?
If it is accepted then I would say that it was, since it presumably has "the same or similar" meanings as attributable to the original insufficient bid. If it is accepted. However I would find it hard not to consider it a deliberate infringement of the laws and subject to a PP.
If East bids 1D, that would be an insufficient bid, since the auction briefly reverted to North's opening 1NT. South has the right to reject the 1D bid by East, who is then subject to IB laws. I can easily see both North and West barred from bidding somewhere around here.
If South rejects East's 1D bid and East then chooses to pass, barring West from bidding, it gets more interesting. Is South then still obliged to repeat his 1C bid after East's pass, even though West must now pass it?
Certainly South would have to repeat the 1C call in this new and increasingly unlikely scenario, but although West would be obliged to pass he would not be obliged to accept the 1C call.
So we end up with a possible auction of...
1NT by North
1C, IB and OOT, by South, rejected by West
1D by East, rejected by South and replaced with Pass. West now barred from bidding
1C, required, by South, rejected by West and replaced with Pass. North now barred from bidding
Enforced Pass by West.
This whole flurry of activity simply recorded as 1NT-p-p-p.
Thanks All, I realise it’s a hypothetical and unlike scenario, but has helped me understand which and how the laws are applied in complex situations. I think part of the dilemma is due to the lack of explanation in the laws as to what exactly is the definition of an illegal bid (or maybe I can’t find it). So it appears an insufficient bid is illegal, but can be subsequently treated/accepted as legal by the offenders LHO. Law 27.A.1
@SteveMap said:
Thanks All,
I realise it’s a hypothetical and unlike scenario, but has helped me understand which and how the laws are applied in complex situations.
I think part of the dilemma is due to the lack of explanation in the laws as to what exactly is the definition of an illegal bid (or maybe I can’t find it). So it appears an insufficient bid is illegal, but can be subsequently treated/accepted as legal by the offenders LHO. Law 27.A.1
An insufficient bid is an infraction - interestingly it was only so stated in the 2017 laws. The laws define a sufficient bid in 18C (one that supercedes another - previously defined in18B) - and then an insufficient bid (18D). The inference is that since an insufficient bid is an infraction it cannot be legal. (Other calls are 'inadmissable' law 35 with subsequent laws specifying how to deal; with them)
Although "This whole flurry of activity simply recorded as 1NT-p-p-p" there are lead penalties - in other words the partner of the 1 !d overcaller may be forbidden from leading any one suit the first time they are on lead against 1NT (and of course the 1 !d call itself is UI)
I hope that the director's presence to deal with S's 1 !c IB was not sufficiently intimidating so as to contribute to E's hypothetical 1 !d IB!
Having explained the options to W, and having heard him decline to accept the IB, I would actually say to E: "OK, so the auction reverts to you and it is your call over N's 1NT opener" (plus statement that the IB is AI to him). In those circumstances I really wouldn't expect an IB from him.
I think one can go too far in inventing hypothetical scenarios that are most unlikely to arise.
@Abbeybear said:
I hope that the director's presence to deal with S's 1 !c IB was not sufficiently intimidating so as to contribute to E's hypothetical 1 !d IB!
Having explained the options to W, and having heard him decline to accept the IB, I would actually say to E: "OK, so the auction reverts to you and it is your call over N's 1NT opener" (plus statement that the IB is AI to him). In those circumstances I really wouldn't expect an IB from him.
I think one can go too far in inventing hypothetical scenarios that are most unlikely to arise.
I think it is possible that East's mindset could be switched to 'the last bid made was 1 !c ' - in other words East is overcalling South's insufficient bid. I don't know whether you should volunteer additional information as to the state of the auction (this isn't covered AFAICS) - after all, all the players can see the state of the auction (the 1NT call by North)
I freely admit that the scenario is highly unlikely but, as noted above, it does show how quickly a little confusion can cause the the non-offending side to find itself being the offending side and thence suffering lead restrictions and holding of UI. Meanwhile, the original offending side comes out with advantages.
@Tag said:
I freely admit that the scenario is highly unlikely but, as noted above, it does show how quickly a little confusion can cause the the non-offending side to find itself being the offending side and thence suffering lead restrictions and holding of UI. Meanwhile, the original offending side comes out with advantages.
The lead penalties only arose because they became defenders. Under different circumstances the original offending side would have had the lead penalties imposed. Although not pertinent in this exact situation the laws do state that after rectification the OS can take whatever actions are most appropriate even if they appear to gain from their infraction. (Subejct to qualification regarding16B 72C and 27)
@weejonnie said:
I think it is possible that East's mindset could be switched to 'the last bid made was 1 !c ' - in other words East is overcalling South's insufficient bid. I don't know whether you should volunteer additional information as to the state of the auction (this isn't covered AFAICS) - after all, all the players can see the state of the auction (the 1NT call by North)
I don't really think that it is going beyond my Law 10C1 duty to explain the options available. Certainly I would hope to clarify the position if anyone at the table appeared still to be confused notwithstanding my best efforts at explanation. At the very least I would tell E that it was now his turn to call only after I had seen that S had returned the 1 !c bidding card to his box.
Comments
(If East bids 1D then he has made an insufficient bid - did you mean this? If you do then South has presumably accepted it if he makes an insufficient bid of 1C, since law 27A does not state that the call has to be legal.) Otherwise
No - Law 31 (in part)
(a) When the call is a comparable call (see Law 23A), there is no further rectification. Law
26B does not apply, but see Law 23C.
(b) When the call is not a comparable call (see Law 23A), offender’s partner must pass when
next it is his turn to call. Laws 16C, 26B and 72C may apply.
So South has to make a legal call - if he makes an insufficient bid then we are back where we were - however the thing is: if he makes a call that is not comparable, partner is silenced for his next call. If he makes an insufficient bid and then corrects it with a non-comparable call then partner is silenced for the rest of the auction.
If it is accepted then I would say that it was, since it presumably has "the same or similar" meanings as attributable to the original insufficient bid. If it is accepted. However I would find it hard not to consider it a deliberate infringement of the laws and subject to a PP.
OK - since it isn't legal - it can only be "(treated as legal)" as per 27A
accepted if that player calls.
If East bids 1D, that would be an insufficient bid, since the auction briefly reverted to North's opening 1NT. South has the right to reject the 1D bid by East, who is then subject to IB laws. I can easily see both North and West barred from bidding somewhere around here.
If South rejects East's 1D bid and East then chooses to pass, barring West from bidding, it gets more interesting. Is South then still obliged to repeat his 1C bid after East's pass, even though West must now pass it?
Certainly South would have to repeat the 1C call in this new and increasingly unlikely scenario, but although West would be obliged to pass he would not be obliged to accept the 1C call.
So we end up with a possible auction of...
1NT by North
1C, IB and OOT, by South, rejected by West
1D by East, rejected by South and replaced with Pass. West now barred from bidding
1C, required, by South, rejected by West and replaced with Pass. North now barred from bidding
Enforced Pass by West.
This whole flurry of activity simply recorded as 1NT-p-p-p.
I realise it’s a hypothetical and unlike scenario, but has helped me understand which and how the laws are applied in complex situations.
I think part of the dilemma is due to the lack of explanation in the laws as to what exactly is the definition of an illegal bid (or maybe I can’t find it). So it appears an insufficient bid is illegal, but can be subsequently treated/accepted as legal by the offenders LHO. Law 27.A.1
An insufficient bid is an infraction - interestingly it was only so stated in the 2017 laws. The laws define a sufficient bid in 18C (one that supercedes another - previously defined in18B) - and then an insufficient bid (18D). The inference is that since an insufficient bid is an infraction it cannot be legal. (Other calls are 'inadmissable' law 35 with subsequent laws specifying how to deal; with them)
Although "This whole flurry of activity simply recorded as 1NT-p-p-p" there are lead penalties - in other words the partner of the 1 !d overcaller may be forbidden from leading any one suit the first time they are on lead against 1NT (and of course the 1 !d call itself is UI)
I hope that the director's presence to deal with S's 1 !c IB was not sufficiently intimidating so as to contribute to E's hypothetical 1 !d IB!
Having explained the options to W, and having heard him decline to accept the IB, I would actually say to E: "OK, so the auction reverts to you and it is your call over N's 1NT opener" (plus statement that the IB is AI to him). In those circumstances I really wouldn't expect an IB from him.
I think one can go too far in inventing hypothetical scenarios that are most unlikely to arise.
I think it is possible that East's mindset could be switched to 'the last bid made was 1 !c ' - in other words East is overcalling South's insufficient bid. I don't know whether you should volunteer additional information as to the state of the auction (this isn't covered AFAICS) - after all, all the players can see the state of the auction (the 1NT call by North)
I freely admit that the scenario is highly unlikely but, as noted above, it does show how quickly a little confusion can cause the the non-offending side to find itself being the offending side and thence suffering lead restrictions and holding of UI. Meanwhile, the original offending side comes out with advantages.
The lead penalties only arose because they became defenders. Under different circumstances the original offending side would have had the lead penalties imposed. Although not pertinent in this exact situation the laws do state that after rectification the OS can take whatever actions are most appropriate even if they appear to gain from their infraction. (Subejct to qualification regarding16B 72C and 27)
I don't really think that it is going beyond my Law 10C1 duty to explain the options available. Certainly I would hope to clarify the position if anyone at the table appeared still to be confused notwithstanding my best efforts at explanation. At the very least I would tell E that it was now his turn to call only after I had seen that S had returned the 1 !c bidding card to his box.