Insufficient Artificial Bid
#1
Posted 2016-May-24, 11:57
Does same meaning mean the meaning the offender meant or the meaning his partner was told by the suit bid?
Ive read through several posts on substituting an insufficient artificial bid after e.g. asking for Aces where the offender meant to show x aces but where his insufficient bid showed y aces. He is allowed to correct that bid with a sufficient bid with the same meaning but is that the same meaning he meant x aces or the meaning his partner received y aces which will be a bid of a different suit from the insufficient bid?
#2
Posted 2016-May-24, 17:32
Quote
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#3
Posted 2016-May-25, 03:09
With regard to insufficient artificial bids, correct me if I am wrong (as I often am):
1. If after an insufficient artificial bid the offender makes a sufficient bid which had the same meaning / conveyed the same information to his partner (e.g. showed he held two aces when he only held one) the auction continues without rectification (no penalty).
2. If after an insufficient artificial bid the offender makes a sufficient bid which does not have the same meaning / does not convey the same information to his partner (e.g. it showed he held one aces when his IB showed he held two) . . . penalty - his partner must throughout i.e. he can do it but his partner must then pass throughout (which of course would be suicide).
#4
Posted 2016-May-25, 04:46
London UK
#5
Posted 2016-May-25, 05:01
Since a layer is not supposed to hear partner's explanation, he should, if you allow a change of call under 27B1b, he has to replace the call by one that has the same meaning according to him.
#6
Posted 2016-May-25, 06:47
sanst, on 2016-May-25, 05:01, said:
Since a layer is not supposed to hear partner's explanation, he should, if you allow a change of call under 27B1b, he has to replace the call by one that has the same meaning according to him.
This question cannot be answered from the given information alone. However:
If 4NT was an opening bid I would tend to rule that 4♥ was probably intended as a response to a 3NT opening bid. In that case the responder would find himself in trouble as 4♥ would (probably) have been intended as natural, and there appears to be no replacement call that would not bar partner for the rest of the auction.
If the 4NT bid occurred within an auction (quite likely as Blackwood) I would similarly tend to rule that 4♥ was a misspull for 5♥. A 5♥ bid would now be "more precise" than the insufficient 4♥ bid as the latter would not have any meaning at all.
Note that these are just two options among a wide variety of insufficient bid situations.
#7
Posted 2016-May-25, 08:41
pran, on 2016-May-25, 06:47, said:
The translation in the Norwegian laws of "mispull" must be wildly inaccurate.
#8
Posted 2016-May-25, 09:06
pran, on 2016-May-25, 06:47, said:
If the 4NT bid occurred within an auction (quite likely as Blackwood) I would similarly tend to rule that 4♥ was a misspull for 5♥.
In the first case I would ask the bidder what he intended 4♥ to mean. In the second, the bidder would have to meet the criteria for a Law 25A ruling.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#9
Posted 2016-May-25, 12:26
Vampyr, on 2016-May-25, 08:41, said:
I don't see why?
A Director may rule mispull if he is convinced that the player never intended to make the call.
This doesn't automatically lead to a Law 25A rectification but it may lead to a sensible ruling on the replacement call after an unaccepted insufficient bid.
Law 27B1b: When there is no reasonable meaning for the insufficient bid had it been legal then any replacement call will necessarily be "more precise" than the insufficient (meaningless) bid).
#10
Posted 2016-May-25, 12:58
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#11
Posted 2016-May-25, 13:31
blackshoe, on 2016-May-25, 12:58, said:
Why is that? If the bid had no meaning, then it shows literally any hand. A replacement bid surely shows some subset of all the hands, which is fully contained within the set of all hands.
#12
Posted 2016-May-25, 16:57
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#13
Posted 2016-May-26, 01:32
blackshoe, on 2016-May-25, 16:57, said:
In this context it could be that the meaning is "it could be any hand at all". In which case any specific meaning is more precise.
London UK
#14
Posted 2016-May-26, 10:16
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#15
Posted 2016-May-26, 11:20
blackshoe, on 2016-May-26, 10:16, said:
Because the intention of the law is to let play proceed as much as possible, providing they don't gain from the infraction. The "equity" principle so disliked by Nigel!
London UK
#16
Posted 2016-May-26, 11:20
blackshoe, on 2016-May-26, 10:16, said:
What is the probability that an insufficient bid was not unintended when it would have been completely meaningless had it been sufficient? My answer is that it must be very close to zero.
Normally such a bid should qualify for a law 25A rectification and thus cause no problem. However, in the unlikely case that some technicality prevents a rectification under Law 25A I see no problem allowing a replacement by a meaningful call on the ground that it definitely is more precise than any meaningless bid.
#17
Posted 2016-May-26, 12:38
pran, on 2016-May-26, 11:20, said:
Normally such a bid should qualify for a law 25A rectification and thus cause no problem. However, in the unlikely case that some technicality prevents a rectification under Law 25A I see no problem allowing a replacement by a meaningful call on the ground that it definitely is more precise than any meaningless bid.
In my experience most insufficient bids are brief mental lapses, thus not appropriate for 25A rectification.
#18
Posted 2016-May-26, 12:40
blackshoe, on 2016-May-26, 10:16, said:
The problem is Law 25B. It is not legal to have any agreement or meaning at all for an insufficient bid.
#19
Posted 2016-May-26, 15:48
Vampyr, on 2016-May-26, 12:38, said:
I think so, too. In most cases the card is pulled quite consciously. After 2NT 2♣ or 4♥ as answer to 4NT. These were the situations that were given as an example when I was training as TD in 2007 in which a change of call under 25B1b was allowed. But I've no idea how you can gather that from the text. It's clear that the lawmakers wanted to allow a change which would not lead to a wild shot, since the insufficient bid doesn't give any extra information. I'm wondering whether in the next edition this law will be reformulated.
#20
Posted 2016-May-26, 15:52
sanst, on 2016-May-26, 15:48, said:
And in these trivial cases there is no problem with the "meaning of the insufficient bid had it been legal".