Writing issue
A bid is written on a pad but unfortunately is not clear and is misinterpreted by partner. Partner has NOT made a mistake in interpreting a conventional bid - they have simply misread a somewhat scrawled bid. Maybe 4S was written, but as with more than one person's handwriting, the lower curve on the 'S' is not distinct, and partner reads it as 4C. They don't ask for a clarification because to them it clearly says 4C. Let's say they take it as Gerber, and answer it with 4D or 4H. Now there are issues about an insufficient bid as well as the information conveyed about Ace holdings. Or maybe, before partner responds, they are asked what the bid means, and they respond "Gerber" or "it's a splinter (or some sort of cue bid)", both of which would be correct interpretations of a 4C bid in this partnership. Is the offender with the scrawly handwritting allowed to explain the correct way the bid should be read?
Latest Posts on this Thread
- NICK WHITTEN12 May 2026 at 12:44PM
Hi Joe
Wow this is tricky.
Basically an unclear bid is an infraction and if the opponents are damaged a rectification is required.In the Lawbook 20A says a player may ask about a bid which is not clear (“may” meaning nothing wrong if they don’t)
But the Manual says “should”. A bit of a contradiction there.I’m with the Manual here.
I don’t think a player should let an unclear bid go hoping to benefit from the opponents screwing up, and then seek an adjustment if they themselves get damaged.If asked immediately what the bid means and told Gerber I think the offender should pipe up and say “I bid 4S not 4C”. That clarifies it without any unauthorised information.
Otherwise if an insufficient response is made the normal IB rules (Law 27) should apply. And note 27D which says if the offending side benefits the Director should try to recover the probable outcome had the infraction not occurred.
I would like to see other views
You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.
Click here to log in.
