[mrdct]

Scoring: MP

---

East opens 1NT (presumedly 16-18) and west responds insufficiently with 1♦. The playing director arrives and ascertains that EW play transfers after a 1NT opening. North declines the option to accept the 1♦ bid. How do you rule?

[RMB1]

Away from the table, I ask West what he meant with 1♦.
I image he will tells that he intended to transfer to ♥.
(I would not ask to see, or look at, his hand.)
I tell him that a bid that shows hearts will not silence partner.

I return to the table and say that Law 27B1 does not apply but Law 27B2 may apply without telling the table the intended meaning of 1♦.

At this point I give North the option of accepting 1♦. When he does not accept, West withdraws 1♦ and makes a legal call. If it is 2♦, I explain that East is not silenced and the auction continues. I mention Law 27D and ask to be recalled if NS feel damaged.

P.S. I do not think this is a practical procedure.

[duschek]

And this was not an instance for applying Law 25A?

[mycroft]

mispull/miswrite? That's *always* the first thing to ascertain. If West really thought he was responding to 0NT, well then.

I don't think I want to know why he chose to bid 1D. I think I do want to know whether he chose to bid 1D.

So yeah, I expect it would either be 25A or "go ahead, place the contract". And I'm almost certain (seeing the hand, which of course, I won't) it will be 25A.

[RMB1]

Was there an attempt to change the 1♦ without pause for thought?
I'm sure the OP would have mentioned it. So, no, its not a Law 25A case.

[mrdct]

There was no attempt to change the 1♦ bid.

The director asked east if they were playing transfers after a 1NT opening to which he responded "we are trying too".

The director did not ask any questions of west and did not look at west's hand (as he was yet to play this board).

He actually asked us to start the next board and then come back to this one after he'd had a quick read of the laws.

When the director came back after we'd finished board 2, he said that because 1♦ was a natural ♦ suit (having not actually looked at the hand) west could replace the insufficient bid with a "natural" 2♦ bid that east would not be obliged to treat as a transfer and the auction would proceed normally but if west chose any other call east would be barred.

I was a bit skeptical about this ruling but knew I would be protected if the insufficient bid result in us getting a bad score.

As it turned out, the auction continued 2♦:2♠:2NT:3NT so plus 150 for NS was a top board anyway.

[bluejak]

duschek, on Aug 5 2010, 06:14 PM, said:

And this was not an instance for applying Law 25A? 

Where does Law 25A come into it?

For Law 25A to take effect there must be a change of call, or an attempt to change the call. I know that ACBL TDs take players away from the table in such cases to see whether the IB was unintended. But I believe they are doing so based on a misreading of Law 25A: it requires more than the call to be unintended: it requires a change or attempt in time. If th player does not say anything then they are wrong to consider Law 25A.

Quote

The director did not ask any questions of west and did not look at west's hand (as he was yet to play this board).

Correct action, wrong reason.