Another year, another Club TD course (Book Rulings), and more problems with Law 27. See RMB Bridge Laws: Some Law 27 examples with club TDs
The general instructions to EBU TDs is to take the offender away from the table to establist the "meaning" of the insufficient bid and to establish which bids will not silence partner ("rectification" bids). This is a lot of faff for a (playing) club TD, who does not expect to have to collect this sort of information before making a mechanical ruling, and does not expect to have to talk to players away from the table.
As last year, I used the example of 1NT-(Pass)-1S, where 1S was intended as an opening bid. The offending side's responses to 1NT are: Stayman, Transfers, 2S is something artificial related to the minors, 3suit is natural GF. On the course, we see that there is no correction under Law 27B1a and (with prompting) we need to look at 2H and 3S under Law 27B1b. The insufficient bids shows spades and opening values: does this apply to 2H/3S? 2H does not show opening values, so is not a "rectification bid". 3S does show spades and opening values, so looks like it has a more precise meaning than 1S; but would all hands that bid 3S have opened 1S? Some 3S responses to 1NT might have opened an Acol 2S — but this is probably a negative inference that the "liberal interpretation" encouraged by the WBF LC means we should ignore. So 3S is a "rectification" bid (phew!)
At club level, I think we need to simplify the approach to be taken by TDs. Short of ignoring Law 27B1b, it is difficult to see how any simplification can avoid having to talk to the offender away from the table. Even if the TD is prepared to rule on whether a call is covered by Law 27B1b at the table, the offender will not be prepared to make a "rectification" call without checking first with the TD whether or not his call will silence partner. All I can suggest is that the TD uses the spiel I suggested last year RMB Bridge Laws: Law 27: untested spiel and includes in the second option the calls he considers to be rectification calls. If the offender thinks there are other rectification calls only then will he need to have a discussion with the TD away from the the table.
Revised spiel
To offender: don't say anything about why you made the insufficient bid, it may only make things worse.
To LHO: you will have the option of accepting the insufficient bid but first you should hear what happens if you do not accept.
TD decides whether Law 27b1 applies, and whether there are rectification calls under Law 27B1b; based on the existing auction, the convention card and questions at the table about offending side's agreements.
To offender:
- You have as many as three options: the first two, if applicable, will not silence partner, the third option will. We can discuss these options away from the table.
- Firstly, as the insufficient bid and lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination are not artificial, then you have the option of making that sufficient bid and partner will not be silenced.
OR ... as the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination is artificial, then you do not have this option.- Secondly, if there is a sufficient bid, pass, double or redouble which means the same as, or is more precise than, the insufficint bid, then you have option of making any such call and partner will not be silenced.
These calls are ... OR But there are no such calls.- Finally, you can make any other sufficient bid or pass and partner must pass for the rest of the auction.
To LHO: Do you wish to accept the insufficient bid? You can ask the opponents about their system, but you are not entitled to ask the intended meaning of the insufficient bid.
(If necessary, talk to the offender away from the table, determining which calls will or will not silence partner.)
Allow offender to call, and announce whether partner is silenced. Wait for the end of the auction and ask to be called back if there is a problem.
