[Sadie3]

Twice in the last week at the local clubs, I have encountered this bidding sequence.

1S (2D) 1NT....director

One case was a SAYC player. The other was a 2/1 player.

In both cases, the 1NT bidder did not see the 2D bid. Does that matter?

Is there any legal call in SAYC that could be made that would not bar the partner from bidding?

Is there any legal call in 2/1 (since 1NT is conventional, right?) that could be made that would not bar the partner from bidding?

[Chris3875]

In SAYC the 1NT bidder could bid 2NT - that would not bar partner who would be authorised to "know" that it could mean 6-10 pts.

[gordontd]

Sadie3, on Feb 16 2010, 12:41 AM, said:

Is there any legal call in 2/1 (since 1NT is conventional, right?) that could be made that would not bar the partner from bidding?

Actually the word used in the Law is "artificial", not "conventional".

[barmar]

Forcing NT is artificial, since it's not an offer to play in NT.

[Sadie3]

So I guess there just aren't any substitute calls here except 2nt in sayc? Which I don't think is an equal call, because it implies more than 6-9 and a stopper in the bid suit which 1NT does not. Does anyone else think that this law needs a whole lot of clarification? The old style was at least enforceable. This one is much too vague for me to enforce. I just hope the LHO accepts the insufficient bid and solves my problems for me.

[aguahombre]

Chris3875, on Feb 15 2010, 11:51 PM, said:

In SAYC the 1NT bidder could bid 2NT - that would not bar partner who would be authorised to "know" that it could mean 6-10 pts.

Certainly you are kidding about it being ok for opener to know and use the information that responder does not have 11 or 12 HCP.

However, in the case of 2/1 -a forcing NT could have 11-12 HCP, and I would think that substituting 2NT would be ok under the new LAW as being more descriptive than the insufficient 1NT would have been, as long as opener assumes it is 11-12 and bids accordingly.

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on Feb 18 2010, 07:07 AM, said:

Certainly you are kidding about it being ok for opener to know and use the information that responder does not have 11 or 12 HCP.

No, he's correct.

From the paper given by the Chief TD of the WBF to the EBL and to EBU directors, when the 2007 laws came in to effect:

Quote

Laws 27B1(a) and 27B1( work on the assumption that when the IB-er selects a call which does not silence partner, his hand actually conforms to the newly selected bid.

However, this will not necessarily be the case.  For example, it may make perfect bridge sense to make a slight misbid in order to keep the auction open rather than gamble on a final contract by making a call which silences partner.

It may also make perfect bridge sense for partner to assume that the IB-er may be ‘misbidding’, and to cater for (‘field’) this possibility.

All this is entirely legal – it is general bridge knowledge covered by Law 16A1(d).

This is why Law 27D exists.  If the player does misbid, or if his partner attempts to cater for it (regardless of whether there has been an actual misbid or not), then Law 27D may apply.

[gordontd]

Sadie3, on Feb 16 2010, 12:41 AM, said:

Is there any legal call in SAYC that could be made that would not bar the partner from bidding?

Is there any legal call in 2/1 (since 1NT is conventional, right?) that could be made that would not bar the partner from bidding?

In the first case, as has been stated by other posters, L27B1a allows a replacement bid of 2NT.

In the second case I think we need to look to L27B1b and ask the recommended question "Would all hands which might make the new call (the replacement bid) have also made the old call (the insufficient bid)?”

If we are satisfied that all hands that would have bid 2NT after 1S (2D) would also have started by responding 1NT in an uncontested auction, then we can allow the replacement bid of 2NT.

Since most jurisdictions are now, at the WBF's suggestion, taking a more liberal approach to these decisions, I would have thought it likely that it would be allowed.