[dickiegera]

---

North bids 2NT

East says insufficent and while in process on director being called North now Doubles.
Director allows double to stand.
Is this correct? If not what should have been the ruling?

Thank you

[RMB1]

dickiegera, on 2012-January-13, 10:24, said:

East says insufficent and while in process on director being called North now Doubles.
Director allows double to stand.

This is Law 27C: East should be given the option of accepting 2NT, otherwise the TD applies Law 27B to the double.

If the double shows the same as or more precise than 2NT then the double stands and South is not silenced (Law 27B1b). It is possible that double is usually made on a balanced hand but it does not seem likely that it only shows hands that would rebid 2NT (over a 2♦ response, or a 2M overcall). But local interpretation of Law 27B1b may be different for the OP.

If the double is not permitted by Law 27B1b then the double is cancelled, North must make a sufficient bid or Pass and South must pass throughout (Law 27B3).

[schulken]

RMB is correct. I would offer a few amplifications and examples from ACBL-land. If the insufficient bidder cannot convince the TD that X has the same or more precise meaning as allowed under L27b1(b), the attempted call is cancelled under L27B3.

An example where I would probably not allow the substitution of X would be following 1♣ - 1♣ where the offender believed that a takeout double could be substituted. I believe that the hand that would either open 1♣ or make a takeout double following RHO's opening of 1♣ would be rare, but I would at least hear the argument and look at the hand before saying no.

An example where I would probably allow X to stand would be in the sequence 1♣ - 1♠ - 1♥. If the offender argued that he would use a negative double in this sequence, I would be inclined to allow the substituted X to stand. Another would be 1NT - 2♣ - 2♣ and offender argued that X means a stolen bid in their agreement. The difference here is that I would want to see the agreement marked on their convention card. Note that this response could be considered following an overcall of ♦, ♥ or ♠ as the case may be. Finally, I would never suggest the use of X but I believe that the burden of proof that it has the same or more precise meaning rests with the offender.

[mycroft]

schulken: I like your examples of when "insufficient bid replaced by double" could stand. But I don't feel that your example of when it isn't is the right logic.

To recap: you have (1♣)-1♣. It doesn't matter what the hand actually is, just what the potential meaning of 1♣ (assuming pass first, of course) and the actual meaning of double are. The law says "[a] call that in the Directors opinion has the same meaning* as or a more precise meaning* than the insufficient bid", not a hand that would make both calls. The idea is that if being allowed to make "both calls" would show fewer hands than making the legal, correct call - that there were "some" hands that would make the double that wouldn't open 1♣, in this example, so with the (authorized*, as we use L27D, not L16) knowledge that partner would have bid 1♣ and now doubled, that restricts (quite strongly, I would think) the hands that partner could have - then we don't allow it.

In the ACBL we are told to take a somewhat liberal view of this, especially in situations where partner is a limited hand (so, for instance, 2NT-2♣, we're expected to allow a 3♣ "standard Stayman" replacement, even though there are definitely hands that would bid 3♣ that would not bid 2♣ after 1NT (say, a random 4=2=4=3 5-count, which would pass); but we won't allow a 3♣ "puppet Stayman" replacement, because the hands that would bid 3♣ that would not bid 2♣ after 1NT are non-trivial.

In other jurisdictions, other opinions of the Law and the footnotes apply.

Sure, listen to the arguments. But the hand's irrelevant, and it's highly unlikely that "all" hands that would open 1♣ would have a takeout double of 1♣!

[blackshoe]

Let me see if I have the sequence of events correct: The insufficient bid is made by North, is pointed out by East, East calls the director, and while the table is waiting for the director to show up, North corrects his IB with a double. Is that right?

[blackshoe]

It's virtually impossible that all hands that would open 1♣ (in (1♣)-1♣) would double 1♣ for takeout. However, there are some such hands, particularly if the pair are playing short club, or don't really understand what a takeout double is.

[schulken]

In reference to my 1♣ - 1♣ sequence, I think we're saying the same thing. If an offender wants to replace 1♣ with X, I would ask him why and if he believed his hand had the characteristics that his partner would expect for a takeout double. I would also look at the hand. At this point, the assessment is whether X is the same or more precise than 1♣. If I judge that it is, I allow the call to stand. If not, he's cooked. He can't bid 2♣ since that would most likely be Michaels and any other number of ♣ would probably be artificial. Barring your partner in this auction may not be a bad thing. Plus, let's not forget that although L16D does not apply, L12B1 does.

[blackshoe]

It is not a question of whether X is "more precise" on this hand. It is a question of whether double is more precise according the their agreements. If you look at his hand before you make your ruling, you might as well tell him to show it to everybody.

I don't see what 12B1 has to do with anything, until you have a legal route to a score adjustment.

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-13, 18:23, said:

It is not a question of whether X is "more precise" on this hand. It is a question of whether double is more precise according the their agreements. If you look at his hand before you make your ruling, you might as well tell him to show it to everybody.

I don't see what 12B1 has to do with anything, until you have a legal route to a score adjustment.

Indeed, the problem here is that if we allow a correction to X then partner knows they have the (only?) hand which would both open 1C and double 1C. Hence, we shouldn't allow the correction. An allowable example would be something like 1H-(2C)-1S/X, here, bidding 1S (when you thought there was a pass) shows 4+ spades and 6+ HCP. Doubling 2C shows 4 spades and 8+ HCP. Now, knowing that parter would reply 1S to 1H and hence has 4+ spades and 6 HCP isn't useful, because we know he has exactly 4 spades and 8+HCP, because he doubled 2C. This is an example of 'more precise'.

We are told to be somewhat liberal (everywhere that has applied the WBF minute, not just the ACBL), but that's usually just excluding very unusual hands, or being a bit flexible on the strength.

As blackshoe says - all these ruling should be made without looking at any hands!

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-13, 16:44, said:

It's virtually impossible that all hands that would open 1♣ (in (1♣)-1♣) would double 1♣ for takeout. However, there are some such hands, particularly if the pair are playing short club, or don't really understand what a takeout double is.

I assume that by "short" you mean as short as zero. Otherwise the cancelled call obviously contains information that is not in the substituted call.

[blackshoe]

Yes.