[Ant590]

3♠ -- pass -- 2NT

Responder blames his poor eyesight and says that he thought the opening was 2♠ and the 4th player does not accept 2NT.

(1) If the pair play an enquiry after a weak two (say Ogust, or similar), then is responder allowed to replace his bid with 3NT without barring opener?

(2) What if responder did not mention that he thought the opening was 2♠?

[RMB1]

If we know that 2NT was a response to 2♠ then 2NT is artficial and so L27B1(a.) does not apply, 3NT is not an artificial response to 3♠, so 3NT is not a rectification bid under L27B1(b.), indeed it is most likely that no response to 3♠ has the same or more precise meaning as a 2NT response to 2♠, so there are no rectification calls under L27B1. So any bid or pass will silence partner.

If we do not know what 2NT was intended as, we would still rule that it may be artificial but it is possible that (say) 3NT is a rectification bid under L27B1(b.). (I would expect to discuss this with the offender away from the table.)

Robin

[aguahombre]

this is interesting to me. We have an offense where I guess partner will be barred, no matter what we do, but a 3S bidder is very rarely invited to participate further anyway(s).

So responder bids what he wants to bid and that is final unless responder bids again after competition. In theory, 3S is a better defined bid than 2S, and it sounds like responder had a spade fit because he didn't make an insufficient new suit response.

the only problem for the offending side is when responder is interested in slam. I guess even 4NT cannot lawfully elicit a response --even though the insufficient 2NT bid has caused no UI to partner (he was asking for info, not giving any)--and that is unfortunate, because it has the same effect as a meaningless revoke: penalty to the offending side just because it is the rules. (I am expecting the usual, "If you don't like the rules, try to change them or shut up.")

One could argue that 4NT is an artificial call with a more specific meaning than 2NT, which is also an artificial call --and should be allowed under current rules.

However, if the opponents ever get into the auction, the knowledge that responder has "stuff" and a likely fit is UI which might matter, and the 3S opener definitely has to shut up if responder simply placed the contract.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on Dec 27 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

this is interesting to me. We have an offense where I guess partner will be barred, no matter what we do, but a 3S bidder is very rarely invited to participate further anyway(s).

But I think most play that a new suit below game is forcing, so if partner opens 3M, it's not usually possible to pull to 4m and play it there, and you can't pull 3♥ to 3♠ to play. But if you start with an insufficient bid, you could then substitute one of these bids and partner would be forced to pass.

I think this is the canonical example of 27D damage.

[aguahombre]

reiterating that does not apply here, because the 2NT almost certainly has a fit in spades, and whether true or not made no attempt to bid a new suit --remember he stated he thought opening call was 2S.

[RMB1]

I don't think this can be right.

barmar, on Dec 27 2009, 10:10 PM, said:

...  But if you start with an insufficient bid, you could then substitute one of these bids and partner would be forced to pass.

I think this is the canonical example of 27D damage.

If partner is forced to pass, the new (substituted) call is governed by L27B2; and L27D does not apply. Law 27D only applies to new calls allowed by L27B1 (a. and b.) and then partner is free to act. If partner is silenced under L27B2 then L23 may apply.

For example:
3S-3D corrected to 4D, where 3D and 4D are natural. Partner is not silenced. L27D applies.

3S-3C corrected to 4C, where 3S-4C is artifical (e.g. Gerber ). Partner is silenced. L27D does not apply, L23 may apply.

Robin

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2009-December-28, 04:53

[Vampyr]

I think that there has got to be a better way to apply the new Law. The impression that the IBer had of what the auction was, and what he was "intending" with his bid, are irrelevant and should not be a matter of law.

[barmar]

RMB1, on Dec 27 2009, 07:11 PM, said:

I don't think this can be right.

barmar, on Dec 27 2009, 10:10 PM, said:

...  But if you start with an insufficient bid, you could then substitute one of these bids and partner would be forced to pass.

I think this is the canonical example of 27D damage.

If partner is forced to pass, the new (substituted) call is governed by L27B2; and L27D does not apply. Law 27D only applies to new calls allowed by L27B1 (a. and b.) and then partner is free to act. If partner is silenced under L27B2 then L23 may apply.

For example:
3S-3D corrected to 4D, where 3D and 4D are natural. Partner is not silenced. L27D applies.

3S-3C corrected to 4C, where 3S-4C is artifical (e.g. Gerber ). Partner is silenced. L27D does not apply, L23 may apply.

Robin

You're right. It seems like 27D is just a more specific version of 23, but is redundant.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on Dec 28 2009, 03:47 PM, said:

I think that there has got to be a better way to apply the new Law. The impression that the IBer had of what the auction was, and what he was "intending" with his bid, are irrelevant and should not be a matter of law.

While this view is not unreasonable, it is not the way TDs are told to rule. Robin has described the method we are required to follow.