[schulken]

---

Club Game. ACBL. Limited masterpoint section (499).

I was called to the table and (limited by our software at BBO) W had bid 2♦ over S's 2♠ overcall. Following W's insufficient bid, N alerted her partner's 2♠ bid, which was described as showing ♠ and a minor. At the table, I ruled that because of N's failure to alert, W could withdraw her insufficient bid without penalty (L21B.1.(a)). After considerable pause for thought, W passed, as did N. E then bid 3♥. S was concerned that E had improperly used information from W's withdrawn call. While in the given auction E clearly had such a bid, I advised S that since E-W were the non-offending side, information from the withdrawn call was authorized (L17D.1.). S passed, W raised to 4♥ which was passed out. E made 5.

After additional consideration, I am concerned that my ruling may have been improper. L21B.1.(a) gives the director the ability to allow a player to change a call when "the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by the misinformation" (failure to alert, in this case). However, the failure to alert did not cause the insufficient bid. Had I told W that she could bid freely but that her partner would be required to pass (doubting their agreement would have 3♦ being a transfer to ♥ or that they had anything else in their bag of tricks that would meet the requirements of L27B.1.(b), thus taking any recovery away), she may have bid 3♥, or even taken a chance on 3 NT, which also makes. Regardless, I can't see giving the contract to S at 2♠, which should go off one. In polling experienced players and directors at the game, all believed that the failure to alert by N was paramount, allowing W to recover without penalty from her error. I'm not convinced. However, I don't know what the adjusted score for N-S should be, although I need to come up with one if I am going to call a L82C. error on myself. The best for N-S would be 3♥ making 5, but I tend to like 3 NT by E making 3.

[mink]

An insufficient bid is never influenced by a failure to alert. Therefor applying Law 21B was a director's error (Law 82C). The correct ruling would have been simply applying Law 27.

Treating both sides non-offending after that would result in W 3♥+1 for for N/S and W 4♥= for E/W. I agree that it is unlikely that West would have passed if told that East must pass for the rest of the auction, so South can never play 2♠.

I guess that only 10 tricks will be made by West if he is declarer, because North will lead his partner's suit, ♠, and I cannot see a way for South to avoid 3 tricks in the black suits now.

[campboy]

I would expect there to be a 27B1b replacement available. 2♦ shows 5+ hearts but says very little else, so almost any call that shows 5+ hearts (such as 3♥ for most people) has a more precise meaning and so would not silence partner.

[PhilKing]

If you swap the West and North hands, it shows that East did not "clearly have a bid," since 3♥ would now go for 800 or more.

That is by the by - West should have been forced to guess the contract.

[Vampyr]

PhilKing, on 2013-May-07, 14:13, said:

If you swap the West and North hands, it shows that East did not "clearly have a bid," since 3♥ would now go for 800 or more.

That is by the by - West should have been forced to guess the contract.

I agree with you, but the law is what it is, and as pointed out by Campboy, it is likely that 27B1b could have been applied.

[aguahombre]

mink, on 2013-May-07, 02:22, said:

An insufficient bid is never influenced by a failure to alert. Therefor applying Law 21B was a director's error (Law 82C). The correct ruling would have been simply applying Law 27.

Treating both sides non-offending after that would result in W 3♥+1 for for N/S and W 4♥= for E/W. I agree that it is unlikely that West would have passed if told that East must pass for the rest of the auction, so South can never play 2♠.

I guess that only 10 tricks will be made by West if he is declarer, because North will lead his partner's suit, ♠, and I cannot see a way for South to avoid 3 tricks in the black suits now.

I agree that the adjustment from the table ruling would make West declarer and making only ten tricks in hearts. But, it would be a 4H contract applied to both sides. West will bid hearts either directly or through lebensohl and it would not be remotely possible for East to pass.

[PhilKing]

When West was told they could bid what they liked, they passed, presumably in the expectation that partner would pass as well. Why do we think they would bid differently with FEWER options?

Without restrictions, West potentially had available 2NT lebensohl (different meaning). With restrictions the only choice would be to pass or bid 3♥(which East would raise) or punt 3NT. But West chose none of those, despite them being available under the table ruling. E/W were given more ways to reach 4♥ legally, but they could only manage to do so with some blatant behaviour.

The bottom line is that West was given a chance to bid and did not, and East's 3♥ should have been disallowed.

[iviehoff]

PhilKing, on 2013-May-08, 05:34, said:

E/W were given more ways to reach 4♥ legally, but they could only manage to do so with some blatant behaviour.

The bottom line is that West was given a chance to bid and did not, and East's 3♥ should have been disallowed.

No, it was the director's fault not East's fault. E would have been prevented from calling 3H if a correct ruling had been made in relation to W's call, because that would have made EW an offending side and the withdrawn 2D call would have been UI. Given the ruling actually made that EW was a NOS, then the withdrawn 2D was AI and E's call was perfectly within his rights.

[jallerton]

campboy, on 2013-May-07, 03:13, said:

I would expect there to be a 27B1b replacement available. 2♦ shows 5+ hearts but says very little else, so almost any call that shows 5+ hearts (such as 3♥ for most people) has a more precise meaning and so would not silence partner.

I think you'd need to find out more details about the E/W methods before reaching such a conclusion. Many people have alternative ways to show particular hands with hearts after a 1NT opening, for example 1NT-(P)-3♥ is often used to show a single-suited slam try. After a 2♠ overcall, there are fewer bids available, so a 3♥ bid (if played as natural and forcing) has to cover both possibilities.

[aguahombre]

Can a combination of bids be used as a 27B1 replacement? Lebensohl comes to mind, where the heart suit is only revealed next round.

[blackshoe]

No.

[mycroft]

No, explicitly because if it goes 1NT-(2♠)-2♥ replaced by 2NT!-(3♠), opener has additional information that partner has hearts that she wouldn't have in a "real" auction; and that information is more than the "slight" leeway we've been suggested by the WBFLC to give, by a long shot.

[gnasher]

Another good reason to play Rubensohl.

[blackshoe]

Rigal recommended Rubensohl when not forced (e.g. as responder to 1NT-(2X)) and Lebensohl when forced (e.g. (2M)-X-(P)). Seems to have merit, but what do I know?

[Zelandakh]

I think the rule is that you use Rubensohl when distinguishing between a forcing bid and a non-forcing one, but use Lebensohl when differentiating between 2 non-forcing ranges.

[blackshoe]

Seems reasonable.

[lamford]

I think it is better to play Lebensohl over insufficient bids, but Rubensohl otherwise. If you want to use Rubensohl you do not accept the IB. Doesn't everyone play that way?

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2013-May-10, 09:16, said:

I think it is better to play Lebensohl over insufficient bids, but Rubensohl otherwise. If you want to use Rubensohl you do not accept the IB. Doesn't everyone play that way?

What happened here? What auction would you be referring to when it is the NT bidder's partner who has made the insufficient bid?

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2013-May-10, 09:45, said:

What happened here? What auction would you be referring to when it is the NT bidder's partner who has made the insufficient bid?

I thought the thread had moved on to discussing the relative merits of Rubensohl and Lebensohl, and had not been moved elsewhere by blackshoe as he was participating in it. If the auction goes 1NT-(1S), then I think 1NT should be Lebensohl, but if it goes 1NT-(2S) then I think Rubensohl is better.

It is illegal anyway to have a different agreement consequent to your own infraction, and illegal in some jurisdictions consequent to the opponents' infraction. So, I was hardly recommending that, as I suspect you knew. Or did you think Zelandakh's comments also referred to the actual auction? I think gnasher's comment was a slightly tongue-in-cheek claim that Rubensohl was better in case you make an insufficient bid!

[aguahombre]

It got sidetracked when I asked whether the IB offender himself could use lebensohl as a start under 27B1 replacement rules....