[spuit111]

NS are playing Benjamised Acol.

2♣ is 8 playing tricks - usual relay (if no positive bid) is 2♦
2♦ is game forcing - usual relay (if no positive bid) is 2♥

W   N    E    S
                   P
(P)  2♦  (P)  2♦


South presumably intended to relay 2♥. He certainly is not making a game forcing bid as a passed hand.

South does not notice his error.

All others do notice.

The director is called....


1) What do you decide should happen, and which law(s) apply?

2) If West passes over (the second) 2♦ bid, and it is now North's turn to bid.... can he call director to point out his partner's error, or should he just bid as he would originally have intended? (His rebid would have been 2N showing 23+ balanced.)

[bluejak]

If, when he notices his error, he immediately attempts to change it then I check to see whether it is a Law 25A case, and allow a change if I judge it is.

Otherwise I apply Law 27, offering Law 27A to the next player, otherwise allowing a change under Law 27B1B or Law 27B2.

If East passes over 2♦ the auction is now legal and should continue, preferably without superfluous chat.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on Aug 17 2010, 07:35 AM, said:

If East passes over 2♦ the auction is now legal and should continue, preferably without superfluous chat. 

I assume you, and OP mean West, not East.

This could make for some interesting follow-up bidding, depending on what E/W are allowed to know. They probably haven't discussed what 2H by opener would mean. Is Opener supposed to rebid as if responder bid 2H? Is responder supposed to rebid as if Opener had bid 2C? Even absent "superflous chat", subsequent alerts might be a problem.

OP already established that responder did not notice (nor attempt to change) his 2D call, so 25A seems long gone.

[PeterE]

aguahombre, on Aug 17 2010, 08:55 AM, said:

OP already established that responder did not notice (nor attempt to change) his 2D call, so 25A seems long gone.

oh oh, this is the "normal" mis-interpretation of Law 25A.
As long as South isn't aware of his 2♦ bid, he (obviously) can't (attempt to) change it
So, we are still "in time" for a possible Law 25A application.

[wank]

no reason to think 2D wasn't deliberate. 2D is the normal negative to 2C. He may simply have forgot which his partner opened.

[aguahombre]

PeterE, on Aug 17 2010, 08:43 AM, said:

As long as South isn't aware of his 2♦ bid, he (obviously) can't (attempt to) change it
So, we are still "in time" for a possible Law 25A application.

Was referring to the point where:

The director has come to the table.
The next person has already been given, and chosen, the option to accept 2d.

Is there not a point where the insufficient bidder has had enough time to claim he pulled the wrong card out of the box by mistake?

[PeterE]

Yes, sure
But when someone writes "did not notice" in the same sentence as "Law 25A expired", I become suspicious ...

[Gerben42]

Assuming we are not in time for 25A and West does not accept the insufficient bid, South may replace 2♦ by any sufficient bid with the same or more precise meaning, which in this case is 2♥.

If West passed over the 2nd 2♦, the bid is accepted and opener can bid what he likes. He cannot point out his partner's mistake, if he does that pointing out is UI to partner. No doubt the best solution is to bid 2NT without making weird faces.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on Aug 17 2010, 02:55 PM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 17 2010, 07:35 AM, said:

If East passes over 2♦ the auction is now legal and should continue, preferably without superfluous chat. 

I assume you, and OP mean West, not East.

This could make for some interesting follow-up bidding, depending on what E/W are allowed to know. They probably haven't discussed what 2H by opener would mean. Is Opener supposed to rebid as if responder bid 2H? Is responder supposed to rebid as if Opener had bid 2C? Even absent "superflous chat", subsequent alerts might be a problem.

They are allowed to know what the auction is, same as with any other auction [with possible very rare exceptions].

Opener is not "supposed" to rebid as anything: when it is his turn to call he should try and describe his hand by his bids as with any other sequence.

Yes, I copied East from the OP. No doubt West was meant.

[mjj29]

bluejak, on Aug 17 2010, 11:51 AM, said:

They are allowed to know what the auction is, same as with any other auction [with possible very rare exceptions].

I thought you were arguing in the other thread that opener wasn't allowed to know what the auction was

[mrdct]

spuit111, on Aug 17 2010, 09:28 PM, said:

South presumably intended to relay 2♥.  He certainly is not making a game forcing bid as a passed hand.

On what basis do you make the presumption that he intended to relay 2♥? Some investigation is required. Perhaps South didn't see the 2♦ opening and holds a GF opening himself!

The second sentance doesn't make sense. After a GF 2♦ opening, all bids by responder are GF irrespective of whether or not he is a passed hand.

In answer to your questions:

1. First the TD needs to give West the option to accept the insufficient bid (27A1) in which case the auction will continue "normally" but the non-offending side retain protection if the infraction leads to a good result for NS (27D). The director should explain to West the consequences of not accepting the insufficient bid before he chooses whether or not to accept it (81C2 & 84C). To work out what those consequences are, the TD will need to have a look at South's hand and possibly take him away from the table and ask him what he was intending to do. If South did, indeed, think he was making a relay response to a 2♣ opening, he would be allowed to change his bid to 2♥ and the auction would then proceed normally (27B1b). If the TD determines that both 2♦ and 3♦ would be "incontrovertibly not artificial" then a substituted call of 3♦ would be allowed and any other substituted call would bar North from the rest of the auction and lead restrictions may apply (27B1a & 27B2).

2. What a fascinating situation. So before the insufficient bid by South is rectified, East jumps in with a bid out of turn! The problem is that East doesn't have any right to accept South's insufficient bid (only West can do that). I think what needs to happen is first South gets an option to accept the bid out of turn, in which case the auction then proceeds normally from the 2♦ level. If South doesn't accept the bid out of turn, the bidding reverts to West and we would go back to dealing with the insufficient bid as outlined above. The difference now though is that Law 30 applies and West would not be allowed to double 2♦ or whatever substitute call is made and East must pass at his next opportunity

[bluejak]

mjj29, on Aug 17 2010, 11:36 PM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 17 2010, 11:51 AM, said:

They are allowed to know what the auction is, same as with any other auction [with possible very rare exceptions]. 

I thought you were arguing in the other thread that opener wasn't allowed to know what the auction was

Circumstances alter cases, but surely you knew that? Yes, I can dot every i and cross every t, and make all my posts five times as long as now, but do I really have to?

As a matter of Law, you are not allowed to use unauthorised information from partner. That is quite possibly relevant in the other thread. Why on earth do we need to argue that in this thread which is not on that subject at all?

Where partner has not given you UI, are you not allowed to use the auction? Why not?

So, rather than explain fully and bore everyone rigid, I post

Quote

They are allowed to know what the auction is, same as with any other auction [with possible very rare exceptions].

to simplify it, and now I have to explain. Do I really need to explain it in full?

Of course the situation is different when the situation is different.

When there is no UI you may use the information available on the table.

[mrdct]

spuit111, on Aug 17 2010, 09:28 PM, said:

2)  If West passes over (the second) 2♦ bid, and it is now North's turn to bid.... can he call director to point out his partner's error, or should he just bid as he would originally have intended?  (His rebid would have been 2N showing 23+ balanced.)

Was the second 2♦ bid alerted and described as anything?

During the auction, any player can draw attention to an insufficient bid and such action couldn't possibly be passing any "I" let alone "UI". Even after a player attempts to accept an insufficient bid (and unlike my previous post let's assume it's actually East who passes over the second 2♦ bid) an irregularity has still occured and it is entire appropriate for a director to be called as many players would be quite uncertain as to what they can and can't do in that situation.

[JanM]

mrdct, on Aug 17 2010, 04:51 PM, said:

1. First the TD needs to give West the option to accept the insufficient bid (27A1) in which case the auction will continue "normally" but the non-offending side retain protection if the infraction leads to a good result for NS (27D).

I think you are misreading 27D - it applies if the bid is not accepted, not if it is accepted.

[mrdct]

JanM, on Aug 18 2010, 03:36 PM, said:

mrdct, on Aug 17 2010, 04:51 PM, said:

1.  First the TD needs to give West the option to accept the insufficient bid (27A1) in which case the auction will continue "normally" but the non-offending side retain protection if the infraction leads to a good result for NS (27D).

I think you are misreading 27D - it applies if the bid is not accepted, not if it is accepted.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. My bad.