[blml] Insufficient rebid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Alain Gottcheiner asserted:

>Voluntarily condoning the insufficient call by
>bidding directly is disallowed.

Richard Hills:

Incorrect.  The Laws specifically allow a
player to bid directly over an irregularity
without drawing attention to it.

The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws says:

"When these Laws say that a player 'may' do
something ('any player may call attention to
an irregularity during the auction'), the
failure to do it is not wrong."

And, of course, the word "may" also appears
in Law 27A:

"Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated
as legal) at the option of offender's LHO. It
is accepted if that player calls."

Eric Landau noted:

>>Indeed, most ACBL players do seem to think
>>that it *is* illegal to condone an
>>insufficient bid.  How else can one explain
>>the fact that most insufficient bids in the
>>ACBL are followed, immediately upon being
>>noted, by a correction to a sufficient bid,
>>without the director first being called or
>>any other allowance made for the possibility
>>that the opponents might choose to condone
>>it?

Richard Hills:

There are similar immediate correction habits
amongst Aussie bunnies.

At my table West started an attempt to correct
his insufficient bid to 2H before I stopped
him, informing him that I accepted his 1H bid.

But at least in Australia bunnies are in fact
aware that a condonation of an insufficient
bid is legal.  It is just that Aussie bunnies
are locked in the mindset that accepting an
insufficient bid "must" be poor strategy - why
give an opponent a free shot at more bidding
room? - not realising that more bidding room
might sometimes be useful for the non-offending
side.

Since an Aussie bunny would never condone an
insufficient bid, an infracting bunny opponent
naturally falls into a habit of saving time by
automatically and immediately correcting their
insufficient bid.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285