[jmcw]

At a recent club duplicate game. EAST made an insufficient bid

NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
---P-------P-----1♦------1N
---2♦-----2♣

The director was called. South did not accept the 2♣ and the bid was made sufficient 3♣, the auction continued as below

NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
---P-------P------1♦-----1N
---2♦-----3♣-----P------3♥
---P-----4♥------AP


Following play N/S objected to WEST's call of 3♥. Clearly EAST had intended to bid STAYMAN and WEST's call of 3♥ seemed based on UI. WEST's hand.

---

Could you please comment on the WEST bid. I want to know if it should have been allowed as per the ruling TX

[WellSpyder]

A good question - I, too, would like to be clear how the TDs on this forum tackle this sort of case.

What you say about the 3♥ bid being based on UI seems sensible. However, my understanding is that the laws actually state that the fact that East wanted to bid 2♣ over 1N is actually AI for West! The only scope for adjustment is then if the TD decides that this allows EW to reach a contract they would not otherwise have reached by normal means - and I think to judge that we need to see the East hand as well as the West one....

[jnichols]

What was E/W's agreed meaning for 3♣?

[aguahombre]

WellSpyder, on Mar 19 2010, 10:12 AM, said:

However, my understanding is that the laws actually state that the fact that East wanted to bid 2♣ over 1N is actually AI for West!

really? If 2C would have been Stayman and 3C is natural, then I don't see how the TD could have done anything else but rule 3D to be an acceptable replacement call under the new Law --but any other call (including 3C) to bar the overcaller.

[gordontd]

Under which Law did the TD allow East to replace the 2♣ bid with a 3♣ bid?

If 2♣ was intended as Stayman, then the conditions of L27B1a were not met and the substitution should not be thereby allowed.

If 3♣ is played by them as Stayman (or something similar) in competition then the conditions of L27B1b might have been met, but I think that would be most unlikely.

Otherwise, L27B2 would have required West to be silenced by the 3♣ bid for the rest of the auction.

[pran]

Assuming that 2♣ was intended as Stayman (very likely) then East should be allowed (without any consequence for West) to replace his insufficient bid with any call that after the intervening bid of 2♦ would have the same (or a more precise) meaning as the 2♣ bid would have had without the intervening bid.

I would request some evidence that for instance a double would have had such meaning, I am very reluctant to believe that 3♣ would have.

East may of course replace his insufficient bid with any legal call at his own choice, the question is whether or not West shall be forced to pass for the rest of the auction.

[blackshoe]

WellSpyder, on Mar 19 2010, 11:12 AM, said:

A good question - I, too, would like to be clear how the TDs on this forum tackle this sort of case.

What you say about the 3♥ bid being based on UI seems sensible.  However, my understanding is that the laws actually state that the fact that East wanted to bid 2♣ over 1N is actually AI for West!  The only scope for adjustment is then if the TD decides that this allows EW to reach a contract they would not otherwise have reached by normal means - and I think to judge that we need to see the East hand as well as the West one....

The problem here is that there seems to have been director error, so it's not at all clear that the UI question is relevant to this case. If, however, both 2♣ (had it been sufficient) and 3♣ (given the 2♦ overcall) are Stayman, then the change of call is permissible under 27B1b, which says in part

Quote

…the auction proceeds without further rectification…

which is apparently to be interpreted as saying that 16D does not apply — although 27B1b doesn't actually say that, where 27B1a does.

I note in passing that if this pair plays the quite common (standard?) agreement that a cue-bid of an overcall is Stayman, then a correction to 3♦ would be permissible under 27B1b.

In the actual case, it appears that the correction to 3♣ should not have been permitted under 27B1 at all, and so opener should have been required to pass throughout. Since apparently the TD did not rule that way, he must adjust the score [Law 82C]. Of course, in order to be certain of this, we need to know precisely how the TD ruled at the table, and why, and in order to know to what to adjust, we need all four hands.

Note that the OP didn't actually say how the TD ruled, only that 2♣ was corrected to 3♣.

[jmcw]

The "offending" side are not experienced and had no agreement or discussion regarding interference. The director made no attempt to establish whether or not the partnership had such an agreement (presumably because they are newish).
At the table the Advancer (3♥) said "well it has to be STAYMAN because my partner can't bid 2♣". However, I remain convinced that the illegal 2♣ made it absolutely clear what his partner's intent was.

[aguahombre]

jmcw, on Mar 20 2010, 10:17 AM, said:

The "offending" side are not experienced and had no agreement or discussion regarding interference. The director made no attempt to establish whether or not the partnership had such an agreement (presumably because they are newish).
At the table the Advancer (3♥) said "well it has to be STAYMAN because my partner can't bid 2♣". However, I remain convinced that the illegal 2♣ made it absolutely clear what his partner's intent was.

That clears it up for me. The director needs some guidance. And the "newish" players need to get proper rulings (for and against), so they won't be encouraged to try using insufficient bids to clarify their holdings. That is not an accusation.

[blackshoe]

Agree, in principle at least, with Aqua. However...

Quote

The "offending" side are not experienced and had no agreement or discussion regarding interference.

Quote

The director made no attempt to establish whether or not the partnership had such an agreement (presumably because they are newish).

These two facts appear to be in conflict. If the TD made no attempt to determine whether there was an agreement, how do you know there wasn't? Note: I'm not letting them off the hook, just trying to clarify the situation.

For a "newish" player who's never considered what to do after interference over a 1NT opening, advancer's self-serving statement may well be reasonable - but it's still self-serving, so I will discount it.

[jmcw]

Reading through the replies it seems that the Director should have

1. Established East's intent (2♣) It was intended as STAYMAN
2. Enquired if E/W had a agreements for a STAYMAN call over 2♦ and if they did allow that bid to be substituted without penalty
3. If E/W had no such agreement allow East to PASS OR make the bid sufficient, effectively barring WEST for the remainder of the auction.

That clears it up for me. The director needs some guidance. And the "newish" players need to get proper rulings (for and against), so they won't be encouraged to try using insufficient bids to clarify their holdings. That is not an accusation.

BUT a good point, I would be more concerned about non "newish" players benefitting from insufficient bids.