[euclidz]

27B1b if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director’s opinion has the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification,

Does same meaning mean – the ‘meaning’ the offender meant or the ‘meaning’ his partner was told by the suit bid?

I’ve read through several posts on substituting an insufficient artificial bid after e.g. asking for Aces where the offender meant to show ‘x’ aces but where his insufficient bid showed ‘y’ aces. He is allowed to correct that bid with a sufficient bid with the same meaning but is that the same meaning he meant ‘x’ aces or the meaning his partner received ‘y’ aces which will be a bid of a different suit from the insufficient bid?

[blackshoe]

Quote

Footnote to Law 27B1{b}: The meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes.

[euclidz]

It is clear that a simple insufficient bid 2♥ over 2♠ can be corrected to 3♥ without penalty. It is not quite as clear (for me) when the bid is artificial.

With regard to insufficient artificial bids, correct me if I am wrong (as I often am):

1. If after an insufficient artificial bid the offender makes a sufficient bid which had the same meaning / conveyed the same information to his partner (e.g. showed he held two aces when he only held one) the auction continues without rectification (no penalty).

2. If after an insufficient artificial bid the offender makes a sufficient bid which does not have the same meaning / does not convey the same information to his partner (e.g. it showed he held one aces when his IB showed he held two) . . . penalty - his partner must throughout i.e. he can do it but his partner must then pass throughout (which of course would be suicide).

[gordontd]

It's often unclear what the meaning is of an insufficient bid, which is where the "opinion" of the TD comes into play. We are also counselled to take a "liberal" approach in applying this law, so in general we will allow a change if we don't think the pair will have any more information from the insufficient bid corrected by the replacement call than they would have had if they had made the replacement call initially.

[sanst]

This law is notoriously difficult to apply, which the WBFLC knows, given the commentary by Ton Koopman. The RA's are advised to apply the law with a liberal interpretation. But what is the meaning of 4NT-(p)-4♥? A mispull can be rectified under 27A, but what to do if the player doesn't claim that? What is a liberal interpretation here?
Since a layer is not supposed to hear partner's explanation, he should, if you allow a change of call under 27B1b, he has to replace the call by one that has the same meaning according to him.

[pran]

sanst, on 2016-May-25, 05:01, said:

This law is notoriously difficult to apply, which the WBFLC knows, given the commentary by Ton Koopman. The RA's are advised to apply the law with a liberal interpretation. But what is the meaning of 4NT-(p)-4♥? A mispull can be rectified under 27A, but what to do if the player doesn't claim that? What is a liberal interpretation here?
Since a layer is not supposed to hear partner's explanation, he should, if you allow a change of call under 27B1b, he has to replace the call by one that has the same meaning according to him.

This question cannot be answered from the given information alone. However:

If 4NT was an opening bid I would tend to rule that 4♥ was probably intended as a response to a 3NT opening bid. In that case the responder would find himself in trouble as 4♥ would (probably) have been intended as natural, and there appears to be no replacement call that would not bar partner for the rest of the auction.

If the 4NT bid occurred within an auction (quite likely as Blackwood) I would similarly tend to rule that 4♥ was a misspull for 5♥. A 5♥ bid would now be "more precise" than the insufficient 4♥ bid as the latter would not have any meaning at all.

Note that these are just two options among a wide variety of insufficient bid situations.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2016-May-25, 06:47, said:

If the 4NT bid occurred within an auction (quite likely as Blackwood) I would similarly tend to rule that 4♥ was a misspull for 5♥. A 5♥ bid would now be "more precise" than the insufficient 4♥ bid as the latter would not have any meaning at all.

The translation in the Norwegian laws of "mispull" must be wildly inaccurate.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2016-May-25, 06:47, said:

If 4NT was an opening bid I would tend to rule that 4♥ was probably intended as a response to a 3NT opening bid.

If the 4NT bid occurred within an auction (quite likely as Blackwood) I would similarly tend to rule that 4♥ was a misspull for 5♥.

In the first case I would ask the bidder what he intended 4♥ to mean. In the second, the bidder would have to meet the criteria for a Law 25A ruling.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2016-May-25, 08:41, said:

The translation in the Norwegian laws of "mispull" must be wildly inaccurate.

I don't see why?
A Director may rule mispull if he is convinced that the player never intended to make the call.

This doesn't automatically lead to a Law 25A rectification but it may lead to a sensible ruling on the replacement call after an unaccepted insufficient bid.

Law 27B1b: When there is no reasonable meaning for the insufficient bid had it been legal then any replacement call will necessarily be "more precise" than the insufficient (meaningless) bid).

[blackshoe]

If an insufficient bid has no meaning, then the meaning of any replacement bid is not "fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid", and 27B1{b} does not apply.

[jeffford76]

blackshoe, on 2016-May-25, 12:58, said:

If an insufficient bid has no meaning, then the meaning of any replacement bid is not "fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid", and 27B1{b} does not apply.

Why is that? If the bid had no meaning, then it shows literally any hand. A replacement bid surely shows some subset of all the hands, which is fully contained within the set of all hands.

[blackshoe]

"No meaning" is not the same thing as "every meaning".

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2016-May-25, 16:57, said:

"No meaning" is not the same thing as "every meaning".

In this context it could be that the meaning is "it could be any hand at all". In which case any specific meaning is more precise.

[blackshoe]

"Could be"? Why are we trying to find an excuse to let the offender get off scot free?

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2016-May-26, 10:16, said:

"Could be"? Why are we trying to find an excuse to let the offender get off scot free?

Because the intention of the law is to let play proceed as much as possible, providing they don't gain from the infraction. The "equity" principle so disliked by Nigel!

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-May-26, 10:16, said:

"Could be"? Why are we trying to find an excuse to let the offender get off scot free?

What is the probability that an insufficient bid was not unintended when it would have been completely meaningless had it been sufficient? My answer is that it must be very close to zero.

Normally such a bid should qualify for a law 25A rectification and thus cause no problem. However, in the unlikely case that some technicality prevents a rectification under Law 25A I see no problem allowing a replacement by a meaningful call on the ground that it definitely is more precise than any meaningless bid.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2016-May-26, 11:20, said:

What is the probability that an insufficient bid was not unintended when it would have been completely meaningless had it been sufficient? My answer is that it must be very close to zero.

Normally such a bid should qualify for a law 25A rectification and thus cause no problem. However, in the unlikely case that some technicality prevents a rectification under Law 25A I see no problem allowing a replacement by a meaningful call on the ground that it definitely is more precise than any meaningless bid.

In my experience most insufficient bids are brief mental lapses, thus not appropriate for 25A rectification.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2016-May-26, 10:16, said:

"Could be"? Why are we trying to find an excuse to let the offender get off scot free?

The problem is Law 25B. It is not legal to have any agreement or meaning at all for an insufficient bid.

[sanst]

Vampyr, on 2016-May-26, 12:38, said:

In my experience most insufficient bids are brief mental lapses, thus not appropriate for 25A rectification.

I think so, too. In most cases the card is pulled quite consciously. After 2NT 2♣ or 4♥ as answer to 4NT. These were the situations that were given as an example when I was training as TD in 2007 in which a change of call under 25B1b was allowed. But I've no idea how you can gather that from the text. It's clear that the lawmakers wanted to allow a change which would not lead to a wild shot, since the insufficient bid doesn't give any extra information. I'm wondering whether in the next edition this law will be reformulated.

[pran]

sanst, on 2016-May-26, 15:48, said:

I think so, too. In most cases the card is pulled quite consciously. After 2NT 2♣ or 4♥ as answer to 4NT. These were the situations that were given as an example when I was training as TD in 2007 in which a change of call under 25B1b was allowed. But I've no idea how you can gather that from the text. It's clear that the lawmakers wanted to allow a change which would not lead to a wild shot, since the insufficient bid doesn't give any extra information. I'm wondering whether in the next edition this law will be reformulated.

And in these trivial cases there is no problem with the "meaning of the insufficient bid had it been legal".