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).

Matthew Hoskins

I was shocked and saddened by this news from Sussex County Contract Bridge Association

Very sadly, one of Sussex's top players, Matthew Hoskins, has died suddenly. Our thoughts are with Liz and family at this sad time.

I was only talking to Matthew on Sunday at the end of the National Swiss Teams: his team had been lying second going into the last match. Matthew has been an ever-present feature of bridge events in the the South-East and nationally, especially at Brighton, since I started directing twenty years ago. Even when opponents had done wrong, he was always pleasant and courteous to opponents and to directors; he will be missed.

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.

Use of unauthorised information is a serious error

I have just been consulted on a complicated case that threw up a new question: is the illegal use of unauthorised information (Law 16B) a serious error (in the sense of Law 12C1(b))?

South dealt and opened 1♥, West overcalled 2♣, and North bid 3♠, intended as a splinter, but not alerted. East asked about 3♠ and was told it was natural and preemptive, and then passed. The auction continued to 5♥ doubled, making when West lead a ♠.

The TD found there was misinformation from the failure to alert/explain the splinter, that North/South had used unauthorised information to stop in 5♥, and East/West had used unauthorised information in leading a spade. A club lead would defeat 5♥. Without the misinformation and the use of unauthorised information by North/South, they would reach 6♥ doubled. East may have been able to show spades and attract the disadvantageous spade lead, so the TD adjusted for North/South 50% 6♥X-1, 50% 6♥X-2. We decided the spade lead against 5♥ was illegal and a serious error and was responsible for conceding 5♥X= rather than 5♥X-1.

Result	Score	NS	EW
5♥X=	+650	133	3
...
5♥X-1 / 6♥X-1	-100	15	121
6♥X-2	-300	4	132

Adjustment for NS was 50%x15 + 50%x4 = 9.5MP

The damage due to the serious error was 118MP, so adjustment for EW was (50%x121 + 50%x132) - 118 = 8.5MP

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?

Irrelevant unauthorised information

I had got involved in a discussion about whether you can adjust the score when a player used an overheard remark to make a successful play on a board that was not the board that the overheard remark related to. I deleted my final post because I had got fed up with the discussion and my reaction was getting too personal and rehtorical. I know how I would rule, and I think my ruling would be lawful and what would be expected of me. The thread involved some interesting discussion of that is meant by "information". There was also discussion of "extraneous information" as opposed to "unauthorised information", which the laws do not seem to distinguish, but explains my use of UI/EI below.

This is what I deleted.

I must admit to being perplexed by this discussion. Law 16A says nothing about information being relevant, useful or useable. Law 16A3 says he may not base a call or play on (any) UI/EI.

I do not understand the problem. If the player knows the UI/EI is not relevant he does not use it. If the player knows the UI/EI is relevant he must not use it. If he thinks the UI/EI relates to a board he will never play but is not sure, he notifies the TD and the TD confirms that the UI/EI is irrelevant and allows play to continue.

I do not expect a player to be in a position of having UI/EI and deciding to use it on a board he knows it does not relate to. I expect to have been notified by the player before he use he bases a call or play on what he has heard.

If, subsequently, it is suggested that a player gained UI/EI that was irrelevant but he did base a call or play on the UI/EI, and he did not did notify the TD in advance, then Law 16A3/4 allows me to adjust on the board. There will always be some doubt as to the source and information that was overheard (especially as it seems to only be heard by one player), so as a TD, I would urge on the side of caution and not assume the UI/EI was necessarilly irrelevant. I would expect that the other players and organisers would expect the TD to adjust in such circumstances.

Do you think that Law 16A3 does not apply to irrelevant information that is not authorised?