EBU Panel Weekend

The EBU TD panel consists of those TDs the EBU will use to direct at its events, including trainees who serve a probationary period before “donning the purple” blazer, or not. (We no longer have purple/maroon blazers, so I guess it should be “donning the red polo”). Every two years, the panel meets for a weekend away to share best practice and remind ourselves how to sit in a bar until “a bit after two”. Some topics come up two-year after two-year, and a workable and consistent approach to Law 27 is such a topic.

One more go at Law 27 (2007)

It is getting to the stage the new Law 27 is no longer new and in a few years will become the old Law 27. We (EBU TDs) continue to oscillate about what the different players at the table should be told about the options available to the offender in replacing his insufficient bid. I think the truth is that we do things differently depending on the auction and the experience of the players at the table. We also continue to discuss particular cases of what calls constitute “rectification calls” under Law 27B1(b) — that is, calls that will not silence offender's partner. Here again we oscillate between a more or less liberal interpretations of the law. But there seem to be nothing much to be learnt as general principle, but just to look at each case separately.

The case we looked at was 1NT –(3♦)– 2NT; with responder holding ♥AJxxxxx. The point of the exercise was to distinguish the application of Law 27D (after Law 27B1) from the application of Law 23 (after Law 27B2). But we had to know whether a replacement bid of 3♥ would silence partner.

Responder intended 2NT as Lebensohl but was confused about what auction he thought he was bidding Lebensohl in, so it was not clear if his intended 1NT –(2X)– 2NT – 3♣ – 3♥ was to play or invitational. It was also not clear whether the partnership had an agreement as to whether 1NT –(3♦)– 3♥ was invitational or forcing. So we were forced to conclude that 3♥ as a replacement for the insufficient bid did not necessarily have the same meaning as 3♥ after the insufficient Lebensohl and so did not have the same-or-more-precise meaning as the insufficient Lebensohl.

We concluded that 3♥ would only be a non-silencing replacement bid, if responder knew what strength of 3♥ bid (to play, invitational or forcing) he was intending to show via Lebensohl, if the partnership (in particular, opener) knew what strength was shown by the proposed 3♥ bid, and if those two meanings (in terms of strength) co-incided. This all requires a lot of investigation by the TD during a live auction, possibly wanting to ask questions of both members of the non-offending side independently and without giving information to other players to which they may not be entitled.

WBF have another go with Law 27 (2017)

Meanwhile (in another part of the forrest) the WBF laws draft subcommittee are considering how to fix/improve this law. Any radical redrafting has been rejected: for instance suggestions that the insufficient bid should be an unauthorised withdrawn call (see open season on law 27). It is possible that the “meaning” of the insufficient bid, instead of being the “intended” meaing, becomes the “apparent” meaning (or the information conveyed by the insufficient bid). So the TD does not need to ask the offender what he was trying to do, instead he has to decide what it looks like he was trying to do. It is also possible that any unauthorised information generated by the offender (for example, “oops, I thought he had passed”) will be wound in to the restrictions on offender's partner.

We shall have to wait patiently and see what happens.

Coming up

So, there may not be much more to say here on Law 27 for a few years. At the panel weekend, I lead a session on scoring and we (again) recognised the value of sharing our experiences with the different scoring systems. So I might try and write up some details of scoring system problems and achievements over the last year and post them here.

Plans for the New Year 2013

Get a new laptop — this one still has problems with angle brackets (<, >) and (semi)colons, which makes writing HTML a bit tricky. I could type “&lt” for < in the last sentence, but the semicolon at the end still has to be cut-and-pasted. The computer is also falling apart in other ways — I had to borrow a different one for the last event of 2012 and it did not have all the right hardware drivers.

A number of county and national events coming up in the first few months of the year, in between I have to fit in a trip to Bad Honnef – Germany for the EBL Tournament Director's course.

The EBU is planning to revise the Tangerine/Orange/White books this year. The obvious areas to be addressed are regulations for alerting/announcements and permitted conventions, but they also want to ensure that the documents only contain material that is accurate and relevant. I am helping by reviewing some of the material in the write book — to see if some of the material can be reduced by a third (or a half).

Last year, I responded to the open invitation from the WBF LC and sent in suggested changes for sixteen or so laws, all from issues that had come up in this blog. In many cases I was just suggesting changes to the wording of the laws to enable the law to operate as intended (this was the sort of changes WBF LC said they were looking for); but I did suggest changes to completely change the law, so that it could operate at all (for example, law 27).

To an extent the motivation behind the blog has been satisfied by the responses to the WBF LC, and there has been less to say on the “new” (2007) laws as the years have gone by. I intend to continue to document the ups and downs of being a TD and some of technical and practical issues. I am constrained by avoiding maligning or embarassing players or TD colleagues whose actions I might describe unfavourably. The EBU TDs have a new code of conduct which requires that internet discussion does not disclose identities. The problem is that incidents that are interesting are rare, and in the small world of English bridge it is difficult for the events and the partipants not to become known.

Open season on Law 27

An “open invitation” response on Law 27.

Proposed text for Law 27B

1. If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call. Then the auction proceeds without further rectification but see D following.
2. If the offender attempts to replace one insufficient bid with another, then the LHO may accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows. If the LHO does not accept the substituted insufficient bid, the Director rules as in 1.

Proposed text for Law 27D

According to Law 16D, the insufficient bid and any other withdrawn calls are unauthosied to offender's partner and Law 16B applies.

Alternative text for Law 27B

If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (but see 3 following). Then:

1. if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination the auction proceeds without further rectification (regardless of the meaning of the insufficient bid or the correction), but see D following.
2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 16 and Law 23.
3. if the offender attempts to substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid the attempted call is cancelled. The offender must replace it as the foregoing allows.
4. if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another, then the LHO may accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows. If the LHO does not accept the substituted insufficient bid, the Director rules as above.

With the same revision for Law 27D.

Brighton Focus - Insufficient Bids

The TDs wrote some article for Brighton Focus. Inevitably I sounded off about Law 27.

Insufficient Bids

by Robin Barker

Insufficient bids used to be easy and reasonably well understood: you could make an insufficient bid good or otherwise partner would be silenced. Of course, your Left-hand Opponent could accept the insufficient bid, and there were some restrictions on “making it good”, so the TD had to be called; and sometimes the opponents would be damaged by the insufficient bid, and the TD had to adjust the score.

But since 2008 the new laws have opened up a whole can of worms. As well as “making it good”, there are other calls that do not silence partner: these so-called “rectification” calls are anything that has the same or a more precise meaning as the insufficient bid.

But what is the meaning of your insufficient bid? Your partnership can not have an explicit agreement, so we have to ask you (away from the table) what the bid meant.

And how do we understand “same or more precise meaning”? Well, the law makers have changed their mind to allow a more liberal interpretation, and internationally some jurisdictions are even more liberal, so you may have to discuss it with the TD (away from the table).

All this leads to bobbing up and down for you, difficulty in making themselves understood for the TDs, and bewilderment for the other players at the table.

So try not to make insufficient bids and, if they happen, please listen and believe the TD while he/she sorts it out.

Insufficient unauthorised information

Ranked masters

I had two insufficient bid rulings at the Ranked Masters: neither involved the quagmire of Law 27B1, but rulings under other parts of Law 27, and both involved unauthorised information (without explicit reference in the laws).

1NT – 1NT

I quickly established that overcaller did not see the initial 1NT, and attempt to give my spiel. But LHO was interested in accepting 1NT, as long as the initial 1NT was authorised. I guess he was worried that if he accepted the second 1NT, this would cancel the first 1NT and he would not be able to double, as that double would be based on the values opener had shown. I explained that whatever happened, the first 1NT would be authorised, but if (say) the second 1NT was replaced by Pass (under Law 27B2) then the second 1NT would not be authorised to offender's partner: who would have to pass throughout but would still have to avoid using unauthorised information as a defender.

1♥ – Pass – 1♦/2♦

Responder attempted to correct to 2♦ after attention was drawn to the insufficient bid. I established that 1♦ was not unintended (for Law 25), so LHO could accept 1♦ and embarked on my spiel. Again LHO wished to accept the insufficient bid (and bid 1♠) as permitted by Law 27C, but the question of unauthorised information from 2♦ arose. I admitted (perhaps reluctantly) that information from the 2♦ bid was unauthorised: the fact that offender was willing to correct to 2♦ might suggest extra values; but for many players correcting to 2♦ (if permitted) would be an automatic reaction, showing no more than a desire not to silence partner.

I looked for a reference to Law 16 in Law 27B2 (which explicitly references Law 23 and Law 26) and in Law 27C, but there is none. In contrast, Law 27B1 states explicitly that Law 16 does not apply.

Late night rulings

Wednesday evening was peppered with phone consultations: two interesting unauthorised informations rulings, and one ruling where there was little to do because the players had effectively ruled at the table. Inevitably, it was this last one that appeared on the internet, as Misboarding in Teams Match. The question arose during the consultation, and again in the online topic, whether we should attempt to apply Law 86D. In consultation, we had rejected Law 86D: we both took the attitude that we would not attempt to apply that law unless there was just one non-offending side. This attitude was cemented by some discussions at the EBU panel training weekend and is based on the phrase “the non-offending side” at the end of Law 86D. Online, there were those who wanted to apply Law 86D with two (equally) offending sides.

How likely is likely?

Another interesting online topic concerned the word “likely” in Law 69: How likely is likely?. I had noticed this change in wording when the new laws appeared, but this is the first real case I have seen where the change was relevant.

Updated spiel

I first produced a “spiel” for Law 27 in 2008, and revised in 2009. The EBU approach agreed at the TD meeting last year requires a further update to the spiel, which is now closer to the 2008 original. There is now no need for the TD to make a stab at whether or how Law 27B1 (a) and (b) apply, he just reads out the law.

Take offender away from the table and ask how the insufficient bid occured: this stops the player blurting something out at the table. Depending on what they say, it may now be a Law 25A case. If not, ask the meaing of the insufficient bid (if it isn't already obvious).

[Where possible in what follows, do not say “the insufficint bid” and “the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination” but name the actual bids; denoted as IB and LSB.]

To LHO:

You will have the option of accepting IB but first you should hear what happens if you do not accept.

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, if IB and LSB are not artificial, then you have the option of bidding LSB and partner will not be silenced.
• Secondly, if there is a sufficient bid, or pass, or double/redouble [if admissible] which means the same as, or is more precise than, IB then you have option of making any such call and partner will not be silenced.
• 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 IB? 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, to give a decision as to 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 apply lead penalties if the offending side are defenders.

Ask to be called back if there is a problem (Law 23 or Law 27D, as applicable).

Insufficient competence

I wonder if this blog should change its name to “RMB Bridge Law 27”. Some of the other new laws have their problems, but when I look back at a bridge event or a training course it is always the insufficient bids that stick in my mind.

EBU Panel TDs Meeting

There was a session advertised as “The New Laws” but the speaker always intended a title of “The New Law 27”. There was some sort of concensus on two points that are at odds with my previous practice.

1. The TD should take the offender away from the table to ask how the insufficient bid happened. The answer may not affect the ruling but:

   • it saves the offender blurting out this information at the table and creating unauthorised information;
   • it may help the TD to decide the meaning of the insufficient bid (for the purposes of Law 27B1(a) and (b));
   • it is possible that Law 25A still applies, for example if the offender thought they should not say anything once the infraction was drawn attention to.

2. The other players at the table should not be told which replacement calls by offender will not silence offender's partner (including a Law 27B1(a) correction). The TD should explain Law 27B to offender's LHO and offer the opportunity to accept the insufficient bid; but the TD will not give a ruling on the meaning or artificiality of the insufficient bid or possible corrections, only on the actual replacement call chosen by offender if the insufficient bid is not accepted.

   This continues to cause some not inconsiderable awkwardness in giving the actual rulings, especially given the convoluted language in Law 27: “not incontrovertibly not artificial”, etc. But we already have examples of the TD doing the wrong thing in prematurely divulging the intended meaning of the insufficient bid.

Does 4NT have the same or more precise meaning as 3NT?

I weighed in to a forum topic, Insufficient Bid; where the question was similar to an earlier blog post: Can 4NT be “incontrovertibly not artificial”. The auction was 3♠ –(4♥) – 3NT: so the questions were whether 4NT was “incontrovertibly not artificial” and whether calls (e.g. 4NT) had “the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than” 3NT. If the TD is convinced that a replacement bid of 4NT is to play, then 4NT will not silence opener (but he will pass). If the TD rules that 4NT will silence opener then offender can bid 4NT to play (but then Law 23 will have to be applied).

We really want to play in 3NT

I was a TD at the EBU National Swiss Teams Congress last weekend and had two insufficient bid rulings (amongst others). The first auction started with a strong, artificial 2♣ and I was called because opener and then responder had both bid 3NT. Responder told me she thought opener had bid 3♠ and she intended 3NT to play. I embarked on explaining the position to the defender who might accept the insufficient bid, without saying that 3NT was to play or what 4NT (for example) might be.

If 3NT is not artificial and 4NT is not artificial then [she] can bid 4NT without silencing partner. If [she] makes a bid that means the same as, or is more precise than, 3NT then [her] partner will not be silenced. ...

At some point, I was put out of my misery by the defender accepting the (second) 3NT bid. It was no surprise to anyone that 3NT became the final contract. It occurs to me that if the insufficient bid was replaced with Pass, I do not know if opener would be silenced (if, for instance, fourth hand doubled). Does a Pass of 3NT show the same as bidding 3NT (over an imagined 3♠)?

Let's all create unauthorised information

1♠ – (2♦) – 1NT. “I didn't see 2♦”, I am told, away from the table. Explain options to LHO: 1NT not accepted. I explain options to offender, about to ask if she wants clarification away from the table, but she says “Can I bid 2♠? It shows the same point range.” I explain that 2♠ will silence partner and she bids it anyway. LHO passes and waves at the table as if to indicate that (he thinks) the auction is over. I explain that opener is silenced (and may have unauthorised information from the question) and overcalled has unauthorised information from the gesture. Both pass anyway and I am not called back.

Things we know that we know

Answers to Known Unknowns

This post is in reponse to Paul's request that I lift some of the fear, uncertainty and doubt in the previous post, and give some guidance on how best to handle the known difficulties detailed in that post. I will also take the liberty of describing how the laws might be changed.

Insufficient bids — what can LHO know?

I rule on the basis that LHO is allowed to know as much about the options available to the insufficient bidder that does not reveal what the insufficient bid was intended to mean nor what is in the insufficient bidder's hand. So LHO is allowed to know whether there is a Law 27B1a correction because the TD can usually determine if the insufficient bid is incontrovertibly not artificial and can determine if the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination is (incontrovertibly) not artificial by reference to the offending side's system. But LHO is not allowed to know whether there are Law 27B1b corrections (rectification calls), nor what they are, just that there may be (other) calls that do not silence offender's partner.

This is consistent with what I did under the previous laws, and although it sometimes put a non-offending player in a difficult position, it is an approach that can be operated consistently.

How do we adjust for two non-offending sides in Law 86D?

The only approach I can recommend is AVE+ to both sides: I do not have to do anything else because Law 86D talks about the non-offending side.

The alternative approach of giving an assigned score for both sides, and so giving one non-offending side less than AVE+, is not explicitly required by the laws; and is not one that I can justify to the side who would get the bad score.

When declarer becomes dummy is dummy still dummy?

I would rule that dummy is not dummy when the opening lead is out of turn, until the options in Law 54 have been exercised. I would not rule that either player of the declaring side was in error in drawing attention to an irregularity when there is an opening lead out of turn, until dummy has been spread.

What does Law 21B2 mean for the players?

Obviously, there is no need to make a great deal of this: the outcomes is likely to be the same. The only real approach is to read the law as written, explain to the players that they can use the information from the withdrawn call; but there may be an adjustment at the end of the hand. In many circumstances, it may be more practical to tell the players nothing or to tell the players to treat the withdrawn call as unauthorised information (because that is what the TD will have to do later)!

The real answers - what the laws should say

Insufficient bids

There are a number of workable solutions to the insufficient bid law.

• Offender's partner is silenced, whatever the correction;
• Offender's partner is not silenced, whatever the correction;
• Offender's partner is not silenced if the correction is the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, regardless of the meaning of the insufficient bid or the correction;
• In any case, the insufficient bid is unauthorised information and there can be lead penalties;
• If offender's partner is silenced, Law 23 applies;
• The insufficient bid can still be accepted.

Two non-offending sides in Law 86D

In Law 86D, give any non-offending side the better of an assigned score from a favourable result and AVE+, and give any non-offending side the worse of an assigned score from an unfavourable result and AVE-.

When dummy is dummy

Dummy becomes dummy (is subject to the limitations in Law 43) when his hand is spread. If declarer starts to expose his hand after an opening lead out of turn, declarer becomes dummy and presumed dummy is not subject to the limitations in Law 43.

What does Law 21B2 mean?

I do not know what historical reasons have created Law 21B2 in its current form, but it should be changed so that Law 16D applies to the misinforming side's changed call. The withdrawn call is unauthorised information during the auction and play.

Known unknowns

Donald Rumsfeld (former United States Secretary of Defense) famously discussed the boundaries of knowledge and ignorance: There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. ...; and was, in my opinion, wrongly ridiculed. The discussion of various laws has reached the point where we can identify some "defined areas of doubt and uncertainty". These are some discussions I have contributed to.

Insufficient bids — what can LHO know?

We discussed at Brighton that we do not know what the offender's LHO is allowed to know before deciding whether to accept the insufficient bid. A colleague tried to get an answer to this question at Sanremo and got four different answers from members of the WBFLC. To continue a rant I delivered at Brighton, ...

IBLF: Aug 24 2010, 10:19 AM

Whatever the laws in general say or should say, Law 27 as it stands should be treated as a special case or should explicitly state what information should be available to which players during the process of operating the law. The law as it finally appeared in the "2007" Law Book is not operable in line with principles elsewhere in the laws, and no amount of subsequent "interpretation" by WBFLC has changed that.

It is wrong that the basis for a ruling (the meaning of the insufficient bid) is determined by the word of an offender, given away from the other players. It is wrong that the TD's judgement on which calls by offender will not silence partner is made available to the offender (but not other players) before the offender selects his call (above and beyond having Law 27B1b read to the offender). If the provisions of Law 27 are not substantially changed, then we need clear statements on how the law should operate and the exceptional way that information is made available to both sides during the operation of the law.

How do we adjust for two non-offending sides in Law 86D?

I rewrote this post as a blog entry, so I shall only quote the first line.

IBLF: Jul 20 2010, 11:26 PM

Time for me to emerge from the bushes on this topic. I don't think we know how to apply Law 86D.

When declarer becomes dummy is dummy still dummy?

IBLF: Sep 4 2010, 05:18 PM

South is supposed to be declarer, but East leads face-up, and South (also brain cramping) starts to put down her hand as dummy ---getting a few cards exposed.

1. Does North have a right to stop things, calling attention to the irregularity? He is supposed to be dummy, but is he yet?
2. Does the first card hitting the table from South constitute excercising the option to be dummy, whether intended or not?

I did not contribute to this thread but there seems to be a point when both players might be dummy and neither can draw attention to an irregulatiry. There is a more fundemental issue: dummy becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced, so even when the opening lead is out of turn dummy can not draw attention to that (or any other) irregularity. I think dummy should become dummy when his hand is spread, and should regain his rights as "not dummy" if declarer spreads his hand (Law 54A).

What does Law 21B2 mean for the players?

South has bid 2♥ and then corrected his earlier explanation (failure to alert). East changes his call because of the changed explanation and South changes his 2♥ bid. To find out the status of South's withdrawn 2♥ and the restrictions on North, we refer to Law 21B2.

IBLF: Sep 1 2010, 05:18 PM

I am completely surprised at the wording of Law 21B2.

When a player elects to change a call because of misinformation (...), his LHO may then in turn change any subsequent call he may have made, without other rectification unless at the end of the hand the Director judges his withdrawn call to have conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side in which case Law 16D applies.

So during the auction and play, 2♥ is not UI; but at the end of the hand, we now say 2♥ was UI (Law 16D) and see if RHO used UI (Law 16B) and adjust as if 2♥ had been UI.

What does the TD tell RHO? It is not illegal for you to use information from 2♥ but nevertheless if you do use information from 2♥ in a way that would be illegal if 2♥ were UI then I will adjust the score as if 2♥ had been unauthorised information.

How is this any different in practice than saying the information from the changed call is unauthorised?

Is there anywhere else in the laws that information becomes unauthorised at the end of the hand and we retrospectively apply Law 16B/D?

Robin rants on rectification

Brighton - Day 5

There were a number of claims today where players had miscounted or apparently forgotten trumps. Continuing the move towards claims fascism, we rejected all the claims for extra tricks: refusing to allow them to take finesses or draw trumps. The players said we were being harsh; perhaps, harsh but fair.

Law 27 - Is this how it is supposed to work?

There was an insufficient bid in an (uncontested) auction that started with 2♣ strong/artificial, and an ace/control showing response. The insufficient bid was 4♥ in response to 4NT asking for kings. The offender was try to respond to 4♣, Gerber for kings. The TD was satisfied that they played both Gerber and Blackwood, and both would ask for kings when there had been a control-showing response to 2♣. So the TD allowed a "rectification bid" of 5♦ also showing one king, a call that would not silence partner. I am sure this ruling is in accordance with our current interpretation/procedure, but I'm sure the opponents might think the offender was getting two chances to get over his "one king" message.

At breakfast, we discussed how to teach club TDs how to deal with insufficient bids. It really does seem best for them to able to ignore Law 27B1b and operate the laws much as they had been before 2007. If there approach turns out to be wrong, the TD can always rule "Director's Error".

Composed and posted from the stage of the Senior's Swiss Teams in the half-hour before the start of play.

A bit like hard work!

Brighton - Day 2

Day two at Brighton was a bit like hard work. We hardly stopped taking rulings, being consulted, delivering rulings, writing appeals forms and running appeals. We also managed other TD duties such as scoring, putting out boards, dealing with lost property and changing table cloths when players spilt their drinks.

I nearly had another Law 27 ruling but another TD beat me too it. The ruling showed what can go wrong if you don't reveal the right bits of information at the right time. North opened 2NT and South (in turn) bid 2♦. The TD arrived and South said she had made a mistake: away from the table South said her mind had been elsewhere, she either meant 2♦ as a response to 1NT, or she mistakenly thought 2♦ was the way to transfer to hearts over 2NT; either way 2♦ "was" a transfer, showing hearts.

The TD returned to the table, and said that West could accept 2♦ but if they did not South could bid 3♦ that would not silence partner. West did accept 2♦ and passed, and now North had information that 2♦ meant the same as a sufficient 3♦, that is, it showed hearts. This was information that North (and East/West) were not entitled too and had been generated by the TD.

North/South duly bid to the usual 6♥ contract and East/West felt damaged. We were forced to rule "Director's Error" (Law 82C) and awarded North/South the result at the table and East/West a percentage of NS not bidding slam. Without the information from the TD, North would have to guess what 2♦ showed and sometimes this would involve North/South having uncertainty as to level or strain.

Oops!

Serious Error, Wild or Gambling - the shudder test

I did have an unauthorised information ruling that gave a non-trivial example of the calculations in Law 12C1b (an article that now forms part of the EBU White Book).

W	N	E	S
		1NT	P
2♦	X	2♥	P
P	2♠	3♥	P
P	P

1NT was weak, South's first pass was after an agreed hesitation, 2♦ was a transfer, X showed diamonds ("lead directing"), and 3♥ was not a good bid (down 3). One TD described the "shudder test" for an action to be considered "a serious error, wild or gambling": if when you describe the action, someone physically recoils, then it can be considered SEWoG. We ruled that Pass was a logical alternative to 2♠ (and to the Double) and these actions were suggest over Pass by the hesitation. We also ruled that the 3♥ bid had contributed to EW's bad score and without it, NS would play in 2♠+1.

So the offending side, NS, got an adjusted score of 2♥-2. EW got the score for 2♥-2 less the damage due to bidding 3♥. 2♥-2 (NS +100) scored 52:54 match points, 2♠+1 (NS +140) scored 77:29 MPs, and 3♥-3 (NS +150) scored 100:6. So the damage due to the 3♥ bid was 23 MPs and so NS got 52 MPs and EW got 54 - 23 = 31 MPs.

Oh we do like to be beside the seaside

Brighton - Day 1

I hope to post each day from Brighton. For the first week my role will mostly be scoring so most of the rulings will be second hand. But I did give a ruling today and it was on my favourite new law.

A table near the scoring table called for the TD, I was not busy and nobody else looked free. 1♦ - Pass - 1♠ - 2♥ - Double - 2♦. According to my "spiel", I took the 2♦ bidder away from the table, and asked what he intended with 2♦: I was intending to make an unassuming cue-bid raise of hearts; I checked the 3♦ would be an unassuming cue-bid and told him that if he was allowed to change his bid to 3♦ that would not silence partner.

Back at the table, I explained to LHO that she could accept 2♦ and otherwise if offender replaced 2♦ with a call the showed the same (or more precise) then offender's partner could bid again. I told LHO that she could ask about the opponents' system before deciding [but I would not tell her what 2♦ meant]. LHO did not accept 2♦, offender bid 3♦, and I told the table that the bid did not silence offender's partner (LHO said she thought it probably would not).

There was some level of bemusement, and as I left the table I remarked that I had expressed my opinion of this procedure in the last couple of days. [I had written something marginally disparaging of Law 27 on bridgebase forums, earlier in the week.]

As an afterthought, I returned to the table with my law book and read some words from Law 27D: if the offending side have been advantaged from the assistance gained from the insufficient bid then the non-offending side may be entitled to an adjusted score. More bemusement.

Club TD approach to insufficient bids

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.

Can 4NT be "incontrovertibly not artificial" ?

Another more interesting insufficient bid from Devon!

W	N	E	S
1S	2H	X	3H
X	4H	5D	P
4NT
5NT

North pointed out that 4NT was insufficient, and West said something like "oh dear, well I can make it good" and bid 5NT, someone suggested it wasn't as simple as that and the TD was called. I (the TD) decided that I should talk to West away from the table, and she told me that she intended 4NT as natural (to play). I decided that I would err on the side of allowing the auction to continue, prepared to fall back on Law 27D if the other side were damaged. So I ruled that if North did not accept 4NT, the correction to 5NT must stand (Law 27C) but would not silence partner. I thought I was ruling under Law 27B1(a) that 4NT was "incontrovertibly not artificial" but perhaps I was ruling under Law 27B1(b) that 5NT had "the same meaning as" 4NT.

5NT ended the auction and was destined to go off. I told the table to call me back and left the table.

But it's never that simple.

I returned to the table to point out that if I had ruled that 4NT or 5NT was artificial, then East would be silenced anyway. Meanwhile, West had explained that there had been a misexplanation. The first double had been explained as take-out, showing the minors, and the second double had been explained as take-out, equal length in the minors; but West had intended the second double as penalties. The misexplanation did not appear to damage North-South but I guess there was heaps of unauthorised information.

I repeated my instruction to be called back but I heard no more: I guess 5NT went off.

Insufficient bids in Torquay

Good

A few natural insufficient bids passed off almost without mention of the new law. At least twice, a player had make an insufficient bid of a new suit in a competitive auction, I found myself saying

If you bid three hearts (or any other call that shows hearts) then partner can bid again, otherwise ...

Bad

There was a more complicated example:

W	N	E	S
1NT (12-14)	2C (nat)	2S *	3C
2NT

Nobody had asked about 2S, so I did: "balanced invitational or slam try". So if South had passed 2NT shows a minimum 1NT, I asked: "Yes". I ruled that 2NT was not artificial and that Pass would show the same as 2NT, so West could bid 3NT or Pass without silencing partner.

Ugly

I made the mistake (!) of hanging around for the rest of the auction.

W	N	E	S
1NT (12-14)	2C (nat)	2S *	3C
2NT/P	P	3S	End

So I intervened and reminded EW of their obligations, both thought that the explanation of 2S was (still) correct. Their card showed "Modified Lebensohl" (but this meant system on, with stolen bid doubles). East said he had made a mistake, and North asked if West was allowed to know that East had made a mistake. I answered "No" and asked NS to call me back; but the hand records showed 3S was three off, and I was not called back.

No surprises that East had a weak hand with five spades, it was more of a surprise that North had four clubs and five diamonds.

WBF LC documents on the 2007 laws

The World Bridge Federation Laws Committee has recently produced two documents with interpretation of the new laws (or advice on interpreting the laws).

• Minutes of a meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Beijing on Friday, 10th October, 2008.
• Commentary to the 2007 edition of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge by Ton Kooijman, Chairman of the WBF Laws Committee.

In particular, the Committee favour a liberal approach to Law 27B, noting that there is an inclination to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid. This "mildly liberal interpretation" will allow play to continue; with Law 27D being used at the end of the hand, if the offending side have gained through the insufficient bid.

This appears to mean that TDs will ignore negative inferences from potential meanings of the insufficient bid, inferences which would exclude hands from the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid, and so exclude some hands shown by a potential correction. So in the auction 1D-(1S)-1H, we would allow a correction to a double under Law 27B1(b), although some hands would not respond 1H (because they would bid a longer club, or spade, suit) but would nevertheless make a take-out double. If these negative inferences become relevant, the TD will adjust under Law 27D. As ever, we need to see more examples to see whether this liberalism will be for the best.

P.S. I have returned to work (see No posting in October), still with some medical issues to be played out. Hopefully, more bridge and directing in the coming months.

Insufficient examples in Brighton

I only had one law 27 ruling in Brighton. The auction was something like 1D-(P)-1H-(2C)-P-(2S)-2H.

• I suggested that 2H and a correction to 3H were probably natural [no disent];
• I gave the next player the option of accepting 2H, if not offender could bid 3H and perhaps some other calls that would not silence partner [not accepted];
• I spoke to offender away from the table: "What did you mean with 2H - had you not seen 2S?", reply: "oh yes, I had seen 2S, I have no idea what I was doing";
• Me: "Well I guess 2H showed hearts, would anything other than 3H show hearts?", reply: "Not really, I think I'll bid 3H";
• We returned to the table, offender bid 3H.

All a bit of a non-event. Throughout all of Brighton there seemed to have been insufficient insufficient bids to really test the new law.

Law 27: untested spiel

Law 27 seems more complicated that any other law including an opening lead out of turn, so perhaps I need a spiel as formulaic as the spiel for an opening lead out of turn ("you have five options, ..."). This is my first attempt, to be tested this weekend at Brighton.

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.

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, if 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.
• 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 notbe silenced.
• 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.

Take offender away from the table, determine which calls will or will not silence partner. Return to the table, allow offender to call, and announce whether partner is silenced. Wait for the end of the auction and asked to be called back if there is a problem.

Some Law 27 examples with club TDs

I looked at some examples of Law 27 with some club TDs this weekend. The examples were meant to illustrate ruling on the consequences of insufficient bids, not the choice of corrections under the new laws.

N:1S - E:1H - S:TD!

We weren't sure if East had meant to open 1H or if he was overcalling 1minor with 1H but we imagined that East told us (away from the table) that he meant to open 1H. The 1H insufficient bid and a correction to 2H were both natural, so a correction to 2H would not silence partner (Law 27:B.1.(a)). The only calls that show hearts are overcalls in hearts, so we looked at whether a 3H overcall would not silence partner (under Law 27:B.1.(b)):

• if 3H is weak it is not contained in a 1H opening, so a weak 3H would silence parnter;
• if 3H is intermediate (opening values, 6 card suit) it is more precise that a 1H opening and so would not silence partner;
• if 3H is strong, then it is not contained in a 1H opening, because some strong jump overcalls would be worth an Acol 2H opening, so a strong 3H would silence partner.

E:1NT - S:1C - W:TD!

1C was (necessarily) a natural opening bid. (1NT)-2C would be Landy [both majors], so 2C is artificial, and Law 27:B.1.(a) does not apply. (1NT)-3C was poorly defined in NS system, but would be a different hand from a 1C opening and was not contained in a 1C opening. No call would not silence partner under Law 27:B.1.

S:1NT - W:Pass - N:1S - E:TD!

North told us that he intended to open 1S and NS responses to 1NT are stayman and transfers, with 2S meaning some artificial (not spades). Law 27:B.1.(a) did not apply. Law 27:B.1.(b) did apply to 3S which was natural with spades (but we failed to consider that an Acol two opening would exclude some hands from a 1S opening). The club TDs had to be prompted to consider a correction to 2H (transfer), this shows spades, but not opening values, so is not contained in the 1S opening bid and would silence partner under Law 27:B.1.(b). I wondered if North had said that 1S was a response to 1C (say), whether we would allow a 2H transfer to not silence partner.

We concluded that there was much to find out about the offending pair's system, even in apparently simple cases: do they play strong two openings, what hands are shown by a jump overcall. There are harder questions when the offending pair may not have clear agreements about what a rarely used call would actually show.

EBL recommended TD Law 27 procedure

The European Bridge Laws [EBL] held a seminar on the new laws and Max Bavin gave the presentation on Law 27. The presentation was posted to the Internet on Bridge Laws Mailing List [BLML], attached to http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2008-June/040747.html [www.amsterdamned.org is no longer working, see comment - RMB 2010-08-26].

This is the section on the recommended procedure for TD to adopt in ruling on Law 27.

Recommended Tournament Director procedure

1. Advise the offender to say nothing at the table which might indicate what it was he thought he was doing, as to do so may create Unauthorised Information [UI] for his partner (Law 16B refers).
2. Advise the left hand opponent [LHO] that he may accept or reject the insufficient bid [IB], explaining that if he rejects it the offender will have the following options:-
   • if the offender makes the lowest legal bid in the same denomination, and if neither call is artificial, then the auction will continue without any further rectification
   • if the offender makes a call (any legal call) which has either an identical meaning as the IB or has a more precise meaning (such meaning being already fully contained within the scope of the IB), then the auction will continue without any further rectification
   • otherwise, the offender can make any legal call he wishes other than a double or redouble, but his partner will be silenced throughout.
3. The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to guess!). However, he is entitled to know full details of his opponents system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) and he is entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification of the Law from the Tournament Director [TD]).
4. If the IB is rejected, the TD will need to establish what the offender was trying to do when he made it. He will almost inevitably need to do this away from the table in order that the other three players remain unaware of the reason. The TD then advises the player of his options (still away from the table) i.e. which calls, if any, will allow the auction to proceed without further rectification. If the correction is to be allowed under 27B1(b), this may well involve quite a detailed (and possibly skilled) discussion and analysis of the player’s system. The offender then selects his call at the table, and the TD advises the table as a whole whether or not partner is silenced throughout.
5. There may be Law 26 type lead penalties if the offending side become defenders. Please see this Law even in 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) cases.
6. At the end of play, the TD may need to examine whether there is any reason to adjust the score. In general terms (e.g. in the absence of Law 16B type UI), if the IB has been accepted then all should be well. Also, in general terms (e.g. in the absence of Law 23), if partner has been silenced throughout then all should be well. Note that ‘rub of the green’ or ‘just being lucky’ is perfectly acceptable when partner has been silenced throughout - Law 27D does not apply, do not even think about going there!

Now I understand the reasons for decisions in this procedure: that a practical approach is needed to ruling under Law 27. But I don't like that the meaning of the insufficient bid is to be determined by asking the offender; the law doesn't refer to the intended meaning of insufficient bid but to "possible meanings of the insufficient bid".

I also don't like that left hand opponent [LHO] does not know which replacement calls by offender will not silence offender's partner, when LHO has to choose whether or not to accept the insufficient bid. Previously, I used to determine whether the insufficient bid and the sufficient correction were conventional or not, before explaining the consequences of accepting or rejecting the insufficient bid. Now LHO has to work this out for themselves [I use "they" etc. as a gender neutral pronoun], based on questions about the opponents' system.

But this is all new territory and it is good to have a procedure that may be uniformly adopted across Europe for ruling on insufficient bids. I think we are all keen to see some real rulings and see how the law and the recommended procedure work in practice.