L27 Insufficient & Director's Opinions - fm Zone 7 Australia

New Laws 27 Insufficient & Director's Opinion

Some interesting challenges arise dealing with "in the Director's opinion" combined with WBF exhortaion to be flexible in considering replacement calls for insufficient bids- when the replacement call is not precisely or entirely contained within the intended meaning of the insuficient bid.

Case 1 uncontested auction 1H 3H
4H 4C
Insufficent bidder thought he was asking for Aces with Simple Gerber
Consider replacement by 4NT Blackwood asking for Aces not Keycards will satisfy 27B.1(b) to allow parner to bid on.

Case 2 uncontested auction 1H 3H
4H 4C
Insufficent bidder thought he was aasking for Aces with Simple Gerber.
Consider replacement by 4NT Roman Key Card Blackwood asking for Keycards does not satisfy 27B.1(b) as keycard inquiry is clearly not included within simple Gerber and hence TD will rule to ban partner from further bids.

This case has been divisive with opinion in local director ranks about 50% 50%

Case 3 uncontested auction 1H 3H
4H 4C
Insufficent bidder thought he was checking for Aces with Roman Keycard Gerber
Consider replacement call of 4NT Roman Keycard Blackwood asking for Keycards satisfy 27B.1(b) to rule his partner may bid on.



We do not consider a view that 4NT Roman Key card as a more detailed question than simple Gerber should satisfy L 27B.1(b). What do you think of these cases?

I think case 1 and case 3 are easy. I would allow the correction without further rectification in both of these cases.

Case 2 is a bit more interesting. I would again allow the correction without further rectification based on the following reason. 4 (Gerber) and 4NT (any flavor of Blackwood) both contain the same information about the bidder's hand - Slam interest with a question to partner. It is the responses to the various flavors of Blackwood that differ, and they are not at issue here.

That seems right. While the effect of the bids may differ, the information to partner is not really changed - and that is the basis of Law 27B1B.

As jnichols says, what is at issue is what information about the Gerber/Blackwood bidder's hand is included in the 4C/4NT bids.

The biggest difference between the two bids is that bidding 4C with hearts agreed allows you to stop in 4H opposite the first two responses, and to stop in 5H opposite any response. Bidding 4NT with hearts agreed commits you to the 5-level, and to the 6-level opposite some possible responses.

Thus it seems to me that a Gerber bid, of whatever flavour, says

"I am interested in your aces/keycards and I am strong enough to force to at least the 5-level opposite some respones"

while 4NT, of whatever flavour, says

"I am interested in your aces/keycards and I am strong enough to force to at least the 5-level and sometimes the 6-level"

The second is a subset of the first i.e. has a more precise meaning, and so thus all three cases are included as permitted replacements in 27b1b without having to be particularly liberal in one's interpretation.

The way I understand L27 a partnership may not enter L27B1(b) territory by simply "inventing" a new partnership agreement on the fly.

So in these particular cases I feel that a very important question for the Director to ask is: "What exactly is the partnership agreement on the 4NT call in the sequence 1 - 3 - 4 - 4NT?"

My experience is that many partnerships using Gerber have a different use of the 4NT bid in such auctions?

Only if the 4NT bid over 4 according to already existing partnership understandings will have the same or a more precise meaning than a 4 bid over 3 in the same situations can the partnership "save" into L27B1(b) by replacing the 4 IB with 4NT.

regards Sven

Like Sven I would need to be convinced that if 4 was Gerber a 4NT replacement would be Blackwood (or perhaps the other way around), but those seemed to be givens in the OP.

Not sure I really understand the point that is being made here. It seems entirely plausible that a pair may have an agreement that if 4 is available as Gerber then 4NT is not BW. But 4 is not available as Gerber in the auction under discussion since it is an IB. I think it is very unlikely that a pair player Gerber will not be playing BW in this sort of auction.

Not sure I really understand the point that is being made here. It seems entirely plausible that a pair may have an agreement that if 4 is available as Gerber then 4NT is not BW. But 4 is not available as Gerber in the auction under discussion since it is an IB. I think it is very unlikely that a pair player Gerber will not be playing BW in this sort of auction.

Well, that is precisely what must be ascertained!

If they can prove that they have BW as backup for Gerber then fine, if they cannot (only Gerber mentioned as ace-asking convention on their CC) then "so sorry".

Sven