Insufficient 3C

[Nick Whitten]

I had to rule on this situation earlier this year.
Bidding went:
N E S W
pass pass 3S X
pass 3C
IB not accepted

For the benefit of viewers outside NZ (which appear to be the majority) we are a land of Gerberphiles. I know of several partnerships (who otherwise seem quite rational) whose agreement includes “4C is always ace-asking” (with the implied rider “including situations where it is totally illogical for that to be the case”)

Anyway I first took West away from the table and asked her what her partner would bid if she wanted to ask for aces. She confirmed it would be 4C
I then took East away from the table and asked her what she would have bid from legal alternatives, telling her that her partner would interpret 4C as asking (something she didn’t agree with). She chose to play in 4D (holding 4 diamonds and 5 clubs) which from memory was down 3 or 4 (non-vul) for a poor result. 3S would have made, 4C would be down 2 (which is quite good for EW unless doubled (highly unlikely).

Was that the best way to rule?
I felt the need to protect NS against someone getting to play in 4C when they wanted to but couldn’t. Of course if West had said 4C is NOT asking in that situation I would have to accept that and allow a correction to 4C and bidding continues normally.

[Chris]

What a very interesting situation Nick. I'm not sure that you can prevent them from bidding 4C even though it now becomes an artificial bid (Gerber) and my feeling would be that because the bid now has a different meaning, that partner is barred from the remainder of the auction.

If, at the end of play, you judge that N/S have been damaged because of the IB - and it sounds as though they were - I would adjust the score back to 3S making. Once again I will be glad to hear what the guru Ed has to say on this one.

By the way, we are Gerberholics here too and a lot of our players have the understanding that 4C is ALWAYS Gerber unless there have been genuine club bids previously.

[Ed Reppert]

All you can really do is tell West what the law says, let her make her choice, and then deal with that.

In my opinion, 4C is not "incontrovertibly not conventional" (since EW disagree as to whether it would be), so Law 27B1[a] doesn't apply.

I doubt there's a call which would have the same or a more precise meaning that the IB, so 27B1[b] doesn't apply either.

This leads us to 27B2 — whatever call West chooses, East must pass for the rest of the auction, and the lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply. If the TD decides that West "could have known" that his choice would damage the opponents, Law 23 may apply. I don't think I would have told West how East would take 4C - if you're going to do that, what was the point of taking them both away from the table to ask about it? Absent that information, if West chose 4C, knowing it would bar his partner, one would have to consider whether Law 23 applies. This is not easy - clearly, after having the laws explained, West not only could know, but would know that the opponents might be damaged by East's enforced pass of 4C. But could he have known that when he bid 3C? I think I would want to be at the table to make that determination.

You can't just adjust because there was damage - you have to have a legal route to the adjustment. Note that Law 27D only applies if we have applied part of Law 27B1, while in this case we applied 27B2. So we can't use 27D to arrive at 'adjust the score'. Also, if you decide that 23 does not apply, I don't think you can use 12A1 to still adjust. To me, that's tantamount to saying "I'm going to adjust the score, whatever the laws say".

[Chris]

I have read through all those Laws again and you are 100% correct - why would I even think for a moment that you would not be !

Sooooo ... without seeing the hands or knowing the players involved - it is possible that EW can bid the 4C (partner is barred) and they go on and make 8 tricks which turns out to be a good result for them (3S is making by NS) and there is no further rectification?

Durn .. just when I thought I had worked out the "damage to opponents" thing.

[Ed Reppert]

Well, I could be wrong about 12A1 not applying. If so, that would allow a score adjustment on the grounds that the laws do not indemnify NS. I'll ask around.

[Nick Whitten]

The NZ Manual says in the part on interpretation of Law 27 “the TD is advised to err on the side of applying 27B1(b) ie attempt to get a normal bridge result” (if unclear whether to apply B1 or B2). I believe Australia is the same.

So perhaps that was the best thing for the TD to do in this case, allow West to bid 4C and East may continue bidding (after all West is a passed hand and hardly needs to ask for aces, but then EW are Gerberholics )
Then at the end adjust using 27D if appropriate. 27D does not require the “could have known” condition which Law 23 does.

I am thinking if West had decided to risk passing 3Sx (rather than bid an ambiguous 4C or anything higher) and if 3S and 4C would both go down. Now EW would have had a better result than without the IB but there would be no grounds for adjustment. Would there?

If I was South I would be tempted to condone the IB and have another go at 3S and let nature take its course, especially if playing against palookas wouldn’t want to force palookas to guess as that would give them a better chance of getting it right.

[Chris]

You know, the more I think about this incident the more stupid it seems that EW would take 4C for Gerber. East has initially passed, ops have bid an admittedly weak 3S, then West doubles for take-out. Bid your best suit partner. Why on earth would East go looking for Aces, and why would West think it was Gerber - it doesn't make sense - even if they do have the agreement that 4C is Gerber. Surely their agreement wouldn't apply in this situation. I think I'd be more than a little tempted to allow the bid to be changed to 4C and everyone get on with it with no further restriction.

I had a situation a few months ago where ops opened 1S - P - 2H - P, 3S - P - 3C (responder had thought partner bid 2S and she was fishing for NT). I think in this instance changing the bid to 4C would definitely be Gerber and partner would be barred and contract played in 4C. Disaster!

Back to your incident Nick, I think NS probably should have accepted the insufficient bid and re-bid 3S.

[Ed Roggeveen]

Nick, Perhaps it's just the way its written, but I wonder about the wording of your question to W. Would a better question be "What would you understand / take from your partner's bid of 4C in this sequence?" If W had said Ace Asking then okay, don't allow 4C. But if they say it's natural (and I agree with Chris, it HAS to be) then allow 4C and everybody continue.
However, If I was S I would probably be tempted to accept and rebid the 3S (and if I had a 4 card supporting diamond I would bid 3D instead).

[bluejak]

It does not matter what would be better for the players to have done, it is a question of how do we rule. First we take East away from the table, ask him what 4C would be. When he says Gerber that is an end of Law 27B1A: it does not apply, and taking West away from the table is pointless and causes trouble.

As for Law 27B1B, what call can be made that shows the same hand or a more precise hand than 3C? Gerber? Be serious! Yes, I know the NZ manual and the Australians have followed the WBFLC in saying allow Law 27B1B when in doubt, but there is no doubt whatever in this situation, none whatever: there is no call that shows the same hands, or a subset, of those that would have bid 3C.

It is illogical for 4C to be Gerber? Do you think that medium to mediocre club players work their system out on logic? Of course not, they have agreements, they stick to them, if they do not work in a situation, tough. If 4C is always Gerber, then 4C is Gerber.

So we are left with Law 27B2. East calls whatever he likes, West is silenced.

Now people want to adjust. Why? Because they got a good score? Oh dear. Well, perhaps it is time they read Law 12B2. You certainly cannot use Law 12A1 because the Laws do cover the situation.

How about Law 23? Yes, this is the only possibility, could West have known that 3C would benefit his side at the time he bid it? You know, in a kind of way he could. But unless he is a really sneaky player, I would not go down that path. If you are confident that such ideas never occur to him, leave him with his good result.

Incidentally, I do not understand the part of the ruling "telling her that her partner would ..." This seems to be a TD helping illegal communication between partners!!!!!! You never tell a player how his partner would take anything!