[aguahombre]

The auction:

1NT (P) 1H.

At this point, the NT opener states that the bid is a transfer. 4th chair says, "really?", and opener says, "Oops, insufficient bid."

The 1H bidder smartly keeps her mouth shut, and 4th chair calls for the director.

Director first states that if the IB is not accepted, responder can make the bid sufficient with no restrictions, then realizes 2H would be a transfer and calls responder away from the table.

Upon hearing whataver responder told him, he again states that responder may make the bid sufficient in hearts with no restrictions and adds that any other action will bar opener.

I will save what responder actually did for a good laugh later. Under what circumstances would the director's ruling be correct?

P.S., they don't play xfer responses to 1m.

[mrdct]

The relevant test under Law 27 is whether or not both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial (my emphasis added).

I think it would be hard to argue that a substituted 2♥ bid is "incontrovertibly not articial" as the scenario could easily be that she intended to bid 2♥ but pulled the wrong card out of the bidding box. I believe "incontrovertibly" is a pretty strong test.

Accordingly, I'm going to rule that the 1NT opener must pass for the rest of the auction, essentially forcing the insufficient bidder to decide now what the final contract is going to be.

[aguahombre]

Interesting. I thought if the substituted bid or call carried the same or even clearer meaning than the IB, it was ok even though the IB was natural and the substituted call was artificial (like substituting a neg double for a 1H bid after a spade overcall --even though irrelevent, here).

edit: keep thinking of questions...wouldn't a 2D xfer keep the "offending side" in action?

[LH2650]

We need to know what responder intended. If it was intended as a transfer, then it can be changed to 2♥. If it was intended as an opening or a response to a minor, the transfer (which could be made on zero points) would not have the same or a more precise meaning than the intended action.

[mrdct]

I'm not 100% sure that intent is relevant to question of "incontrovertibly not artificial". Also, if we take account of intent, the ruling could generate potenital UI for the 1NT in the event that the offending side wind-up defending.

[blackshoe]

There are five parts to Law 27's provisions for changing an IB:

1. If both the IB and the lowest sufficient bid are "incontrovertibly not conventional", the change is allowed and there is no further rectification (Law 27B1a).

2. If the IB is changed to a call that in the TD's opinion has the same meaning as or a more precise meaning as the IB, the change is allowed and there is no further rectification (Law 27B1b).

3. If, except as provided in 1 or 2, the IB is changed to a sufficient bid or a pass, the offender's partner must pass throughout the rest of the auction (Law 27B2).

4. If, except as provide in 2, the offender attempts to substitute a double or redouble, that call is cancelled, the offender must choose a legal replacement, and his partner must pass throughout the rest of the auction (this applies, btw, even if the legal replacement is made under 1 above) (Law 27B3).

5. If the offender attempts to substitute another IB for the original IB, this new IB may be accepted by LHO (as in Law 27A). Otherwise, 4 above (Law 27B3) applies (Law 27B4).

Note that "incontrovertibly not conventional" is irrelevant except in case 1. Also, the law says that it is the director's opinion that governs ("…and in the director’s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial…") The intended meaning is not relevant — the agreed* meaning, or what in the director's opinion the agreed meaning would have been if the bid had not been insufficient, is.

*In the partnership in question.

In making a ruling, the director should specify under which law he is ruling.

[aguahombre]

So, if the director forsakes #2 of the above list (after determining responder intended to respond 1H to 1m), it would be because a 2D transfer might be much lighter than a 1H response showed?

Or must he allow 2D for the purpose of the immediate auction and concern himself about the strength implication UI only if it becomes an issue? (And explain that before the transfer would be allowed)

[bluejak]

I am not sure what you mean by forsakes, but if he judges that all hands that would bid 2♦ now would have bid 1♥ originally he allows the change. The "strength issue" is covered by this remark. It does not matter if 1♥ shows more hands.

Many of the responses to this thread are confusing Law 27B1A and 27B1B: you must consider them completely separately.

As for whether 1♥ is incontrovertibly not artificial, common sense suggests this can never reasonably be satisfied for an insufficient bid. However, statements by the WBFLC make it clear that they are not following the dictates of common sense and are assuming that insufficient bids have a meaning. Stupid that may be, but we have to rule on that basis. If the player convinces the TD away from the table that 1♥ was a transfer, the TD can assume it was.

[campboy]

So, if the IB happened because responder did not see the 1NT bid, or thought it was something else, the director's ruling is incorrect. If he did see it, and intended to bid hearts as a transfer, but somehow bid at the wrong level then it is correct. Either of these is quite plausible.

If the director determines that 1♥ was intended as a response to 1♣, say, then 2♦ would not meet the requirements for 27B1b, since as you say there are hands which would bid 2♦ which are too weak to respond. A natural and forcing 3♥ bid might be ruled not to silence partner, however, as it shows hearts and the values to respond (and presumably, rather more than that). Similrly I would think that a 4♦ Texas transfer might be permitted without silencing partner under 27B1b.

[dburn]

bluejak, on May 28 2010, 05:35 AM, said:

I am not sure what you mean by forsakes, but if he judges that all hands that would bid 2♦ now would have bid 1♥ originally he allows the change. The "strength issue" is covered by this remark. It does not matter if 1♥ shows more hands.

Many of the responses to this thread are confusing Law 27B1A and 27B1B: you must consider them completely separately.

As for whether 1♥ is incontrovertibly not artificial, common sense suggests this can never reasonably be satisfied for an insufficient bid. However, statements by the WBFLC make it clear that they are not following the dictates of common sense and are assuming that insufficient bids have a meaning. Stupid that may be, but we have to rule on that basis. If the player convinces the TD away from the table that 1♥ was a transfer, the TD can assume it was.

For this purpose, one imagines that the player might take her hand with her to show the TD. If it contained five spades, the TD might accept that 1♥ was a transfer; if it did not, he might not.

[mink]

If the responder had recognized the 1nt opening and intended to transfer to Spades, he could have changed his call according to law 25. As he did not try to do so, I would probably not believe if he tells me now that it is was what happened. Therefore, only if he thought that 1 m was opened and they play transfer over 1 m in at least all cases in which they would have done so over 1 nt, I would allow him to bid 2 ♥ without silencing his partner.

Karl

[TimG]

blackshoe, on May 28 2010, 02:17 AM, said:

1. If both the IB and the lowest sufficient bid are "incontrovertibly not conventional", the change is allowed and there is no further rectification (Law 27B1a).

I think you are quoting from old Laws. There is no reference to "conventional" in the latest Laws, is there?

[Cyberyeti]

The responder thought the opener had opened a club or diamond, and responded with a 1H transfer to spades ?

[TimG]

aguahombre, on May 27 2010, 09:43 PM, said:

Upon hearing whatever responder told him, he again states that responder may make the bid sufficient in hearts with no restrictions and adds that any other action will bar opener.

Does "make the bid sufficient in hearts" include changing the call to 3♥? I would guess that responder showed her hand to the director and upon seeing 5+ spades the director was convinced that responder had intended to respond 2♥. Now the director is allowing a correction to 2♥ (or 4♥) and has been a bit sloppy in the wording of his ruling because he knows what call responder intends to make.

Or, perhaps responder intended to open 1♥ and will now respond 3♥ (natural and GF) to opener's weak NT.

Or, maybe opener was in error when he said "transfer" -- that is, this pair does not play transfer responses to 1NT.

[pran]

TimG, on May 28 2010, 01:33 PM, said:

I would guess that responder showed her hand to the director and upon seeing 5+ spades the director was convinced that responder had intended to respond 2♥.

Most important rule for the Director: He must never look at a player's cards (and never allow a player to show him his cards) before he shall make a ruling!

On making a ruling (implicitly) based on the knowledge of a player's cards he unevitably gives away important information about that hand to the other players at the table and thereby destroys the possibility to obtain a "normal" result on the board.

[bluejak]

TimG, on May 28 2010, 01:33 PM, said:

aguahombre, on May 27 2010, 09:43 PM, said:

Upon hearing whatever responder told him, he again states that responder may make the bid sufficient in hearts with no restrictions and adds that any other action will bar opener.

Does "make the bid sufficient in hearts" include changing the call to 3♥? I would guess that responder showed her hand to the director and upon seeing 5+ spades the director was convinced that responder had intended to respond 2♥. Now the director is allowing a correction to 2♥ (or 4♥) and has been a bit sloppy in the wording of his ruling because he knows what call responder intends to make.

To repeat, we need to clarify the difference between a Law 27B1A ruling and a 27B1B ruling. If a call is corrected under the former, 2♥ is the only possibility. But the latter allows a correction to any call, including a jump in hearts, that meets the requirements.

And I agree, pran, we do not look at the player's hand.

[aguahombre]

Responder told the director (away) that she somehow confused the 1NT card with the 1C card, and was responding 1H to 1C.

The director then determined that some hands which would transfer to hearts over 1NT would not have responded 1H/1m (those which were too weak).

As stated in the OP, the opponents are not using xfer responses to 1m.

As stated, he informed the responder that she could make the bid sufficient with a HEART bid, and if she did that partner would not be barred. But, if she bid anything else, partner would be barred. This seemed strange (after I found out she had intended to respond in hearts), since a bid of 2H has a meaning not related to hearts.

After carefully reading all of what Bluejak has written, I conclude that there is no sufficient bid, other than a natural 3H (because 2 and 4 are xfers), which would not have barred the opener. Am I reading it correctly?

Now for the laugh: responder, having been informed that partner would be barred if she did so, chose 2NT with her 3-4-3-3 nine-count, duly down one. A sane person would have chosen 3 or pass.

[campboy]

aguahombre, on May 28 2010, 03:03 PM, said:

After carefully reading all of what Bluejak has written, I conclude that there is no sufficient bid, other than a natural 3H (because 2 and 4 are xfers), which would not have barred the opener. Am I reading it correctly?

What about 4♦ (assuming that is also a transfer? It seems like any hand which would respond 4♦ to 1NT would also respond 1♥ to 1m, so that passes the test.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on May 28 2010, 04:35 AM, said:

but if he judges that all hands that would bid 2♦ now would have bid 1♥ originally he allows the change. The "strength issue" is covered by this remark. It does not matter if 1♥ shows more hands.

Camp: if I am reading the quote correctly, neither 4D nor 2D would pass the test, since some hands which would Texas, would have bid 3H instead of 1H/1C. but maybe that was not intended.

[dburn]

bluejak, on May 28 2010, 08:31 AM, said:

TimG, on May 28 2010, 01:33 PM, said:

aguahombre, on May 27 2010, 09:43 PM, said:

Upon hearing whatever responder told him, he again states that responder may make the bid sufficient in hearts with no restrictions and adds that any other action will bar opener.

Does "make the bid sufficient in hearts" include changing the call to 3♥? I would guess that responder showed her hand to the director and upon seeing 5+ spades the director was convinced that responder had intended to respond 2♥. Now the director is allowing a correction to 2♥ (or 4♥) and has been a bit sloppy in the wording of his ruling because he knows what call responder intends to make.

To repeat, we need to clarify the difference between a Law 27B1A ruling and a 27B1B ruling. If a call is corrected under the former, 2♥ is the only possibility. But the latter allows a correction to any call, including a jump in hearts, that meets the requirements.

And I agree, pran, we do not look at the player's hand.

This seems to be a mantra chanted by tournament directors three times daily while facing the Portland Club. It has no basis in law, nor in anything else (least of all sense).

In the case of a permitted correction to an insufficient bid under Law 27, it is inevitable that other players will receive information about the hand of the player who made the IB. For example, if the Director informs the table that 2♦ is a permitted correction, everyone will know that the player has five hearts (but everyone will know that anyway, because that is what 2♦ shows). If instead the Director informs the table that 2♥ is a permitted correction, everyone will know that the player has five spades (but they will know that anyway, however many hands the Director has or has not examined).

Does bluejak seriously advocate that a player should attempt to convince the Director that he meant to bid hearts to show spades, rather than bidding hearts to show hearts, without simply showing his hand to the Director (away from the table, of course) and saying "look - isn't it obvious what I meant?"

The idiotic ideas that insufficient bids cannot have a meaning and that directors never look at players' hands are mostly harmless, but in terms of the correct application of Law 27 they are not harmless at all, and they should not be offered as advice on a serious forum (or any other kind).