[dickiegera]

Tonight at the local club we had back to back insufficient bids which were conventional.

My question is whether the rulings were correct?

A: bidding 2S-2NT-P-2D
Director allowed this to be corrected to 3D in that 3D had same meaning as 2D [both transfers to Hearts]

B: bidding 1D-4NT-P-4H
Director said that 5H would not have same meaning as 4H therefore partner will be bared after
4H bid is made sufficient by any bid. [Chose bid 6D]

Comments

[blackshoe]

A: Yes.

Quote

Law 27B1{b}: If, except as in (a) above, 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 below.

Quote

* The meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes.

Quote

Law 27D: If following the application of B1 above, the director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred.

B: Yes.

Quote

Law 27B2: Except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23.

[iviehoff]

Blackshoe is correct in the technical sense that the rulings are consistent with the judgments made by the directors. But we are not given the information on which the directors made their judgments, so it is hard for us to assess those judgments. I'm a bit surprised by the Director's judgment in case B. If his judgment is correct, he must have established that the 4H call was not an attempt to make a 3-step response to Blackwood.

[pran]

dickiegera, on 2011-January-10, 21:41, said:

Tonight at the local club we had back to back insufficient bids which were conventional.

My question is whether the rulings were correct?

A: bidding 2S-2NT-P-2D
Director allowed this to be corrected to 3D in that 3D had same meaning as 2D [both transfers to Hearts]

B: bidding 1D-4NT-P-4H
Director said that 5H would not have same meaning as 4H therefore partner will be bared after
4H bid is made sufficient by any bid. [Chose bid 6D]

Comments

First of all we need to know the meanings of the overcalls 2NT resp. 4NT?

To me the 2NT overcall looks like showing both minors in which case 2D is a natural preference for Diamonds like 3D would also be, and the correction to 3D is OK. If 2NT really shows a strong NT hand after which a transfer system is on I would also accept 2D to be corrected to 3D with both bids being transfers to hearts, but that agreement surprises me.

In the second case I have no understanding for 4NT being Blackwood (unless there is a typo: P missing between 1D and 4NT) so I cannot make any ruling here.

Blackshoe's summary of Law 27 is of course correct.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2011-January-11, 03:10, said:

To me the 2NT overcall looks like showing both minors

Really? What do you do with a strong balanced hand when your RHO opens a weak two?

[dickiegera]

2NT was 15-18 count balanced

4NT was blackwood

Bidding was 1D-P-4NT-P
4H

Sorry

[pran]

dickiegera, on 2011-January-11, 08:15, said:

2NT was 15-18 count balanced

4NT was blackwood

Bidding was 1D-P-4NT-P
4H

Sorry

In that case I would rule both OP corrections available without barring partner:
In a} as I noted it doesn't really matter whether 2D was natural (minor suit select) or transfer, because the replacement call will have the same or a more precise meaning in either case.

And in b} I would rule 4H a misbid that could have been corrected (to 5H) under Law 25A if it had been corrected in time for this; the apparent meaning of this bid appears to be 3 steps answer to a Blackwood bid. (What else?????)

[mycroft]

How about a 2-step response to Gerber? If they're a "Gerber when obvious" pair, it very likely is (at least it was when I had this ruling).

[pran]

mycroft, on 2011-January-11, 12:06, said:

How about a 2-step response to Gerber? If they're a "Gerber when obvious" pair, it very likely is (at least it was when I had this ruling).

In that case I believe a 5D response to 4NT should have the same or a more precise meaning as the 4H response to 4C and the Director is responsible for the offender to know this before selecting a call to replace the IB.

The Director should investigate what the offender believed (s)he did in order to make the correct ruling and help the offender avoid selecting an unfortunate alternative action.

[mjj29]

In the case of 2S-2N-2D it's not neccessarily correct to allow a replacement to 3D. If the IBer thought that the auction was actually 1S-1N, it's not immediately obvious that all hands which would transfer to 3H over 2NT would also transfer to 2H over 1NT. (although more so than if it were an opening).

Hence, as pran said, it's important for the TD to establish which particular mistake the IBer made.

[barmar]

Most players would transfer over both 1NT and 2NT with any hand containing 5+ hearts. Perhaps with a very weak hand they might not transfer over 2NT, for fear of being too high. But that makes the sufficient bid MORE specific than the insufficient bid, so the correction is allowed with no further rectification.