[dickiegera]

When [lets say North] bids a bid that is insufficient, what is the correct procedure to follow?

#1 can anyone [ including South] call the director?
#2 Can East just ignore the bid and bid as he wishes without calling the director?

#3 does it make a difference if
a. bid was wrong card pulled by North?
b. Bid was a cue bid of an opponent?
c. bid was conventional?

What happens too often is that someone says "insufficient bid" and North changes bid without director being called

[Hanoi5]

1. There's no dummy so anyone playing at the table can call the Director.
2. I bet he can but I suppose he shouldn't. The correct procedure after an irregularity is to call the Director.
3. It does make a difference:
a. North might be able to change his/her call if it was inadvertent and s/he noticed right away.
b.& c. There are rectifications to be made in the case of a conventional bid.

[chasetb]

1.) Yes, but why would you call the director on your partner and possibly bar yourself from bidding?
2.) Yes - if East bids (s)he has accepted the bid, but again why would you when you could bar RHO from the bidding and/or get a better score by calling the director?
3a.) If North realizes immediately (I give 1-2 seconds) that it wasn't the bid (s)he wanted to make, then it usually can be changed (provided not changing to pass or gives Unauthorized Information).
3b & 3c) There are penalties and possible lead and/or score adjustments to be made.

[blackshoe]

#1

Quote

Law 9A1: Unless prohibited by law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

Quote

Law 9B1(a): The director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

#2

Quote

Law 27A1: Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender’s LHO. It is accepted if that player calls.

However, see response to #3a below.

#3a.

Quote

Law 25A1: Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate law.

The "pause for thought" is measured from the time the player realizes that the call he made was unintended.

#3b and c.
The same Laws apply.

dickiegera said:

What happens too often is that someone says "insufficient bid" and North changes bid without director being called

The statement calls attention to an irregularity. Law 9 applies.

Quote

Law 9:
A. Drawing attention to an irregularity
1. Unless prohibited by law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.
2. Unless prohibited by law, declarer or either defender may draw attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period. For incorrectly pointed card see Law 65B3.
3. When an irregularity has occurred, dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. Any player, however, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).
4. There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partner’s apparently mistaken explanation).
B. After attention is drawn to an irregularity
1. (a) The director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.
(b) Any player, including dummy, may summon the director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.
© Summoning the director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled.
(d) The fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does not affect the rights of the opponents.
2. No player shall take any action until the director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.
C. Premature correction of an irregularity
Any premature correction of an irregularity by the offender may subject him to a further rectification (see the lead restrictions in Law 26).

The emphasis within Law 9 is mine.

[blackshoe]

chasetb, on 2011-May-10, 16:05, said:

1.) Yes, but why would you call the director on your partner and possibly bar yourself from bidding?
2.) Yes - if East bids (s)he has accepted the bid, but again why would you when you could bar RHO from the bidding and/or get a better score by calling the director?
3a.) If North realizes immediately (I give 1-2 seconds) that it wasn't the bid (s)he wanted to make, then it usually can be changed (provided not changing to pass or gives Unauthorized Information).
3b & 3c) There are penalties and possible lead and/or score adjustments to be made.

Calls for the director are not calls "on" anybody. They are requests for assistance in playing the game according to the rules.

Wrt 3a, you are not applying the law correctly.

Wrt 3b and c, there are almost always such considerations, whether or not the IB was conventional, but they are the director's purview. Call him and let him deal with the situation.

[bluejak]

chasetb, on 2011-May-10, 16:05, said:

1.) Yes, but why would you call the director on your partner and possibly bar yourself from bidding?
2.) Yes - if East bids (s)he has accepted the bid, but again why would you when you could bar RHO from the bidding and/or get a better score by calling the director?

Players call the TD to report an irregularity, not "on" someone. Many players will do so even if it is to their own disadvantage either because their personal ethics demand it or out of ignorance.

Players accept insufficient bids for all sorts of reasons, sometimes because they hope to gain, but also because of their opponents' condition, whether elderly, infirm, inexperienced or whatever. Also some accept it because it is the least troublesome.

[blackshoe]

In the course of a contested auction today, my partner raised my spades to 4. This was passed around to her RHO, who bid an insufficient 4D. Partner pointed out the irregularity, and RHO said "Oh" and reached for the bidding box. I quickly said "hold on" and called the TD. Partner accepted 4D and bid 4S again. This time the 4D bidder bid 5D. Oh, well, it was worth a try.

That was the second IB today in which an opponent tried to immediately make it sufficient.

[barmar]

One reason to accept an IB in an auction like that is that it makes a 4♥ cue bid available.

[blackshoe]

True.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2011-May-12, 23:00, said:

One reason to accept an IB in an auction like that is that it makes a 4♥ cue bid available.

You can also have different meanings for bidding 4♠, doubing and passing after accepting the insufficient bid.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2011-May-13, 20:08, said:

You can also have different meanings for bidding 4♠, doubing and passing after accepting the insufficient bid.

I think that depends on the RA. I think ACBL prohibits you from having specific agreements after an irregularity.

However, I think logical inferences are allowed. If you accept an IB, and then simply restate a bid from the previous round, it's reasonable to assume that you have a minimum and you're trying to buy the contract at the lower level.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2011-May-14, 10:44, said:

I think that depends on the RA. I think ACBL prohibits you from having specific agreements after an irregularity.

Then a partnership had better be careful not to encounter an insufficient bid twice, since the "logical inference", plus whatever discussion they had about the situation afterwards, will have become an agreement.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2011-May-16, 07:33, said:

Then a partnership had better be careful not to encounter an insufficient bid twice, since the "logical inference", plus whatever discussion they had about the situation afterwards, will have become an agreement.

I disagree. As long as you can figure out what's happening from general bridge logic each time, it's not a "special partnership understanding".

[Fluffy]

Very often when a low level insufficent call happens against an inexperienced pair, the best thing you can do is accept it. Otherwise the inexperienced pair will make the sufficent bid consuming your space, but showing the values they wanted to partner.

Directors won't like this, but it doesn't matter, no director will rule against an inexperienced pair for a subtle UI because they don't treat a call as if it was made 1 level higher.

[Cyberyeti]

It's a fairly normal agreement that if you've bid 3♦, and an opp bids an insufficient 2♠ that double is for takeout, and regardless of what double should be in a normal auction, over a correction to 3♠, double is for penalties. Sounds like this is illegal in the ACBL.

[mycroft]

Fluffy, on 2011-May-18, 17:00, said:

Very often when a low level insufficent call happens against an inexperienced pair, the best thing you can do is accept it. Otherwise the inexperienced pair will make the sufficent bid consuming your space, but showing the values they wanted to partner.

Directors won't like this, but it doesn't matter, no director will rule against an inexperienced pair for a subtle UI because they don't treat a call as if it was made 1 level higher.

Strangely enough, as long as you call the director, and when she offers you the option to accept, you do so, Directors won't really care.

Similarly, if you call the Director, and don't accept, she will give them the option to make the call sufficient, *and* show the values they wanted to partner, just like if you didn't call the TD. Of course, unlike in the no-call case, you will be protected by L27D. Witness the other three threads.

In other words, even if they're not inexperienced, the TD won't rule on the "subtle UI", she will rule according to L27D.

[jeffford76]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-May-19, 06:45, said:

It's a fairly normal agreement that if you've bid 3♦, and an opp bids an insufficient 2♠ that double is for takeout, and regardless of what double should be in a normal auction, over a correction to 3♠, double is for penalties. Sounds like this is illegal in the ACBL.

Funny, with the people I've talked about it with the normal agreement is that an immediate double was for penalty because there's no guarantee that they will make the bid sufficient.