[mrdct]

Scoring: BAM

---

I had an interesting situation last night playing board-a-match. RHO deals and opens 1♣ (better minor) and holding a very attractive 2650 I bid 2NT showing ♦ and a major intending to bid-on even if partner bids 3♦ or 3♥ and to make a slam-try if he bids 3♠.

Partner unfortuntely pulled out an insufficient 2♥ bid which my RHO did not accept.

Having regard to Law 27B1:

Quote

(a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director’s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply but see D following.
(b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director’s opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following.

Do you think the auction can proceed normally without penalty if 2♥ is substituted with a sufficient bid of 3♥?

Off-topic, what do you think the best line is after the defence starts with ♠AKQ and either no signals or no reliable signals from west?

[bluejak]

May I presume that 2♥ and 3♥ are pass or correct? In which case it looks like Law 27B1B, ie yes.

[aguahombre]

I would think you have to bid on when pard bids 3H, if that was your intention to start with. Otherwise you have one of those "insufficient shows weakness" things to worry about. So, if you mean by "Proceed normally" that you will raise 3H to 4, yes.

Not good at quoting section and verse, but I know it pisses me off when an insufficient bid is allowed to be made sufficient, and the perp has weakness ---causing his pard to go low.

[pran]

bluejak, on Sep 23 2010, 02:56 AM, said:

May I presume that 2♥ and 3♥ are pass or correct? In which case it looks like Law 27B1B, ie yes.

I agree, but I would even (under the same presumption) allow it under law 27B1A.

In what way could either 2♥ or 3♥ be considered artificial when they both expressed "pass or correct"?

[gordontd]

pran, on Sep 23 2010, 08:36 AM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 23 2010, 02:56 AM, said:

May I presume that 2♥ and 3♥ are pass or correct?  In which case it looks like Law 27B1B, ie yes.

I agree, but I would even (under the same presumption) allow it under law 27B1A.

In what way could either 2♥ or 3♥ be considered artificial when they both expressed "pass or correct"?

With two hearts and four spades you would bid 3♥ rather than 3♠, wouldn't you? That sounds artificial to me.

[WellSpyder]

gordontd, on Sep 23 2010, 08:53 AM, said:

With two hearts and four spades you would bid 3♥ rather than 3♠, wouldn't you? That sounds artificial to me.

Indeed. I've always been led to believe pass or convert bids should be alerted as artificial.

[pran]

WellSpyder, on Sep 23 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

gordontd, on Sep 23 2010, 08:53 AM, said:

With two hearts and four spades you would bid 3♥ rather than 3♠, wouldn't you? That sounds artificial to me.

Indeed. I've always been led to believe pass or convert bids should be alerted as artificial.

From "definitions" (in the Laws):

Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named;

(Emphasizes are mine)

I cannot understand other than that a "pass or correct" bid shows willingness to play in the denomination named?

Whether the call is alertable is a matter of regulation and not of law. Here we are discussing Law 27B1A.

[gordontd]

pran, on Sep 23 2010, 11:00 AM, said:

WellSpyder, on Sep 23 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

gordontd, on Sep 23 2010, 08:53 AM, said:

With two hearts and four spades you would bid 3♥ rather than 3♠, wouldn't you? That sounds artificial to me.

Indeed. I've always been led to believe pass or convert bids should be alerted as artificial.

From "definitions" (in the Laws):

Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named;

(Emphasizes are mine)

I cannot understand other than that a "pass or correct" bid shows willingness to play in the denomination named?

It does show willingness to play in the denomination named, but it also conveys other information about the spade suit - spades might be longer than hearts, hearts won't be longer than spades.

[WellSpyder]

gordontd, on Sep 23 2010, 11:31 AM, said:

It does show willingness to play in the denomination named, but it also conveys other information about the spade suit - spades might be longer than hearts, hearts won't be longer than spades.

Personally, I don't think it actually does show willingness to play in the denomination named. It only shows willingness to play in that denomination if partner has that suit. As such, it is quite different from giving preference when partner has shown two suits.

[gordontd]

mrdct, on Sep 23 2010, 02:51 AM, said:

Off-topic, what do you think the best line is after the defence starts with ♠AKQ and either no signals or no reliable signals from west?

In what contract?

[gordontd]

WellSpyder, on Sep 23 2010, 11:47 AM, said:

gordontd, on Sep 23 2010, 11:31 AM, said:

It does show willingness to play in the denomination named, but it also conveys other information about the spade suit - spades might be longer than hearts, hearts won't be longer than spades.

Personally, I don't think it actually does show willingness to play in the denomination named. It only shows willingness to play in that denomination if partner has that suit. As such, it is quite different from giving preference when partner has shown two suits.

The reason it's different is that it shows reverse preference. When there's a disparity, you always bid the worse one. That's why they are sometimes known as "Paradox Responses".

[Trinidad]

pran, on Sep 23 2010, 11:00 AM, said:

WellSpyder, on Sep 23 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

gordontd, on Sep 23 2010, 08:53 AM, said:

With two hearts and four spades you would bid 3♥ rather than 3♠, wouldn't you? That sounds artificial to me.

Indeed. I've always been led to believe pass or convert bids should be alerted as artificial.

From "definitions" (in the Laws):

Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named;

(Emphasizes are mine)

I cannot understand other than that a "pass or correct" bid shows willingness to play in the denomination named?

Whether the call is alertable is a matter of regulation and not of law. Here we are discussing Law 27B1A.

A pass or correct bid doesn't show willingness to play in the suit.

It denies willingness to play at a higher level in the suit if partner is willing to play in the suit.)

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on Sep 23 2010, 03:15 PM, said:

A pass or correct bid doesn't show willingness to play in the suit.

It denies willingness to play at a higher level in the suit if partner is willing to play in the suit.)

Rik

Consider the following uncontested auction:

1♠ - 1NT
2♥ - 2♠

Will anybody rule that the 2♠ bid here is artificial? I shall definitely not.

But by the same logic as presented above this bid is artificial because it denies willingness to play at a higher level in he suit named.

The "if partner is willing to play in the suit" is irrelevant as a condition for a call not being artificial. The only condition is whether the player making the call is willing to play in the denomination named under the circumstances known to him at the time he makes his call.

[pran]

WellSpyder, on Sep 23 2010, 11:47 AM, said:

gordontd, on Sep 23 2010, 11:31 AM, said:

It does show willingness to play in the denomination named, but it also conveys other information about the spade suit - spades might be longer than hearts, hearts won't be longer than spades.

Personally, I don't think it actually does show willingness to play in the denomination named. It only shows willingness to play in that denomination if partner has that suit. As such, it is quite different from giving preference when partner has shown two suits.

In the auction:
1♣ - pass - 2♣ ?
where the partnership agreement is 5-cards major and 4-cards diamonds so the 1♣ opening bid can be anythiing from 2 cards up in clubs.

Is the 2♣ bid artificial because it only shows willingness to play in clubs if opener holds at least 4 and therefore is willing to play in clubs?

If the next bid from opener is say 2NT or even 3NT, is responder then still willing to play in clubs?

(Note that responder in this auction most likely will have at least 4 clubs!)

[nige1]

Duplicate sorry

[nige1]

[campboy]

In my mind the reason that this bid is artificial is that it suggests that you prefer whichever major partner has to diamonds, not just that you prefer hearts to diamonds. I think it does show willingness to play in hearts, but it also shows willingness to play in spades (at least, I can't think of a hand where I would bid 3♥ but return to diamonds if partner shows spades and diamonds).

However, not all pass-or-correct bids fit that pattern. Suppose it started (1♣) 2♣ showing spades and a red suit. One might advance 2♦, showing that one prefers diamonds to spades but saying nothing at all about hearts. I am not convinced that would be artificial, despite the superficial similarity.

[jdonn]

All these bids are obviously artificial to me. Partner has promised no suit in particular so bidding a short suit is artificial!

[mrdct]

In the the jurisdiction where this hand was played, pass/correct bids are explicitly alertable by regulation, although I would suggest that even in the absense of a specific regulation a pass/correct bid would be unambiguously artificial.

[aguahombre]

jdonn, on Sep 23 2010, 02:19 PM, said:

All these bids are obviously artificial to me. Partner has promised no suit in particular so bidding a short suit is artificial!

? 2NT did not show any particular two suits? Then, whatever. In my world it showed the reds.