[dovedan]

your opponent on your right bids 2 Hearts and, mistakingly, you bid 2 Diamonds. Realizing your error, you bid 2 No Trump. May your partner bid or is he forbidden to bid?

[wank]

dovedan, on 2013-July-02, 18:00, said:

your opponent on your right bids 2 Hearts and, mistakingly, you bid 2 Diamonds. Realizing your error, you bid 2 No Trump. May your partner bid or is he forbidden to bid?

your partner must pass for the rest of the auction. however this should be explained to you by the director before you chose what to do, so you might well decide to do something different than bidding 2NT, most likely gambling on 3NT.

[dovedan]

wank, on 2013-July-02, 18:33, said:

your partner must pass for the rest of the auction. however this should be explained to you by the director before you chose what to do, so you might well decide to do something different than bidding 2NT, most likely gambling on 3NT.

Thank you. Do you know were I could find this rule? Better could you post the rule?

[Stephen Tu]

http://www.acbl.org/...cate-Bridge.pdf

search for "insufficient bid"

If you correct to 2nt (different denomination), partner is barred. If you correct to 3d (same denomination, original and corrected bid both natural), partner is not barred, but may have unauthorized information about your high card strength, he would not be allowed to assume you meant to open 2d and have a weak hand, rather than overcalling 2H with 3d which normally shows a good hand, much stronger than an opening weak 2d.

If your original bid or the correction would be artificial, it gets more complicated; with more recent laws you can correct to different calls that roughly "conveys same information", or "more specific than" the original insufficient call.

[blackshoe]

dovedan, on 2013-July-02, 18:00, said:

your opponent on your right bids 2 Hearts and, mistakingly, you bid 2 Diamonds. Realizing your error, you bid 2 No Trump. May your partner bid or is he forbidden to bid?

Nobody knows until somebody calls the director.

[Vampyr]

I think that if, after the arrival of the director, the 2♦ bid is accepted, your partner is still barred due to your premature correction. However, I am not certain, because Law 27 is strangely mute on the question.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-July-02, 21:55, said:

I think that if, after the arrival of the director, the 2♦ bid is accepted, your partner is still barred due to your premature correction. However, I am not certain, because Law 27 is strangely mute on the question.

I do not see any basis in law for the position that partner would still be barred. Laws 27C and 27A1 seem clear that he would not be.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-02, 22:38, said:

I do not see any basis in law for the position that partner would still be barred. Laws 27C and 27A1 seem clear that he would not be.

It does not seem clear to me. 27A1 doesn't mention the intervention of a substituted call, and as for 27C, "as A allows" is cryptic. This is an example of the poor writing in the Lawbook; could they not have specified that if the original call is accepted, 27A applies, if that is what they meant?

[Zelandakh]

Hello Dan, welcome to the forums. I would recommend using the Simple Rulings forum for questions like this and avoid making duplicate posts. The simple answer is that your partner is barred if you correct an insufficient bid to a different denomination unless the replacement call has the same or a more precise meaning than the original one. As an aside, you should not try to substitute a sufficient bid until the TD has arrived and explained the situation.

[blackshoe]

"As A allows" means that you apply A. What else could it mean?

[Free]

LHO didn't have the opportunity to accept 2♦? Djeez! Just call the TD next time and avoid even more problems.

[VixTD]

The auction has gone 2♥ - [2♦ changed to 2NT]

The director should be called. Your LHO will be given the option of accepting the insufficient bid of 2♦. If they do so, the auction continues but the premature correction to 2NT will be unauthorized information for your partner. If they don't, the bid must be withdrawn and a sufficient bid or pass substituted.

wank, on 2013-July-02, 18:33, said:

...so you might well decide to do something different than bidding 2NT, most likely gambling on 3NT.

It's too late for that. A change was made in the last version of the laws so that a premature correction would have to stand (law 27C). Partner will have to pass throughout, except in the unlikely case that the replacement bid had much the same meaning as that intended by the insufficient bid.

Stephen Tu, on 2013-July-02, 19:15, said:

...partner is not barred, but may have unauthorized information about your high card strength, he would not be allowed to assume you meant to open 2d and have a weak hand, rather than overcalling 2H with 3d which normally shows a good hand, much stronger than an opening weak 2d.

No, partner is allowed to guess what you intended by your initial insufficient bid and base their actions on this guesswork. They are allowed to know that your 2NT call could have been made under constraints of the application of law 27 (i.e. that it could have been made in an attempt not to bar partner, or made in the knowledge that partner would be barred).

Law 27B says that if an insufficient bid is corrected then law 16D (unauthorized information from withdrawn calls) does not apply, but that law 27D (an adjusted score may be awarded if the offenders got an unlikely advantageous result from the insuffient bid) does. Lead penalties may apply if the offending side become defenders (law 26).

[Vampyr]

VixTD, on 2013-July-04, 07:17, said:

Law 27B says that if an insufficient bid is corrected then law 16D (unauthorized information from withdrawn calls) does not apply,

Only if corrected as per B1(a).

[VixTD]

Vampyr, on 2013-July-04, 11:39, said:

Only if corrected as per B1(a).

You're right, if an insufficient bid is corrected to something that is not the lowest legal bid in the same denomination (both calls being natural), then the withdrawn call is unauthorized information for the offending side, but the fact that the replacement call was made under the constraints of law 27 is authorized for both sides, in England at least.

Quote

OB7D1(j): Under Law 40B3(d) a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity by either side, except that following its own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so that it is brought within the criteria of Law 27B1(b).

[jillybean]

OB7D1(j): Under Law 40B3(d) a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity by either side, except that following its own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so that it is brought within the criteria of Law 27B1(b).

Is there a similar law in the ACBL ? I have seen auctions such as (1♠) 2♣ (1nt) oops, okay 2nt where the opponents land in an
otherwise impossible 2N contract and are allowed to play there.

[pran]

jillybean, on 2013-July-08, 07:59, said:

I have seen auctions such as (1♠) 2♣ (1nt) oops, okay 2nt where the opponents land in an
otherwise impossible 2N contract and are allowed to play there.

If opener quite likely would bid 3NT after 1♠ 2♣ 2nt, and 3NT is down one then the Director should seriously consider using Law 27D and adjust the result to 3NT -1

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2013-July-08, 07:59, said:

OB7D1(j): Under Law 40B3(d) a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity by either side, except that following its own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so that it is brought within the criteria of Law 27B1(b).

Is there a similar law in the ACBL ? I have seen auctions such as (1♠) 2♣ (1nt) oops, okay 2nt where the opponents land in an otherwise impossible 2N contract and are allowed to play there.

pran, on 2013-July-08, 08:28, said:

If opener quite likely would bid 3NT after 1♠ 2♣ 2nt, and 3NT is down one then the Director should seriously consider using Law 27D and adjust the result to 3NT -1

Whether the OS in Jilly's case is "varying by prior agreement" the meaning of 2NT is not at all clear here, and in general we need evidence of a prior agreement besides just the bidding. Absent such an agreement, 2NT means what it means, but the opener's knowledge of his partner's holding is affected by his knowledge that his partner first bid 1NT. Let's say that in the auction 1♠-2♣-2NT the response shows 11-12 HCP and a club stop, and that in the auction 1♣-1♠-1NT the response shows 6-10 HCP, a balanced hand, and a spade stop. Just changing an insufficient 1NT in the first auction to 2NT is not evidence of a prior agreement to "vary the meaning" of 2NT, it's simply the best option, in the responder's opinion, given that he made an IB.

I agree with Sven that in his scenario score adjustment should be seriously considered. Absent any other evidence than is here now, I would adjust.

The relevant ACBL regulation (actually an election permitted under Law 40B3 is "A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its understanding during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question or any irregularity." This is Item seven in the list of elections in the back of the ACBL version of the law book.

[jeffford76]

pran, on 2013-July-08, 08:28, said:

If opener quite likely would bid 3NT after 1♠ 2♣ 2nt, and 3NT is down one then the Director should seriously consider using Law 27D and adjust the result to 3NT -1

It doesn't matter whether 1♠ (2♣) 2NT (all pass) is an impossible auction. It matters whether they would have been likely to reach 2NT on an auction without the sufficient bid. If, for example, a normal auction is for responder to pass, and bid 2NT in response to opener's reopening double, then the fact that they got to 2NT a different way is ok.

It is explicitly *not* UI to partner that when you correct an insufficient bid, you may have different strength than normal.

[pran]

jeffford76, on 2013-July-08, 12:12, said:

It is explicitly *not* UI to partner that when you correct an insufficient bid, you may have different strength than normal.

Quite true, but Law 27D can very easily kick in, and does indeed so if the Director judges that the final contract could well have been reached with assistance gained through the infraction and the non-offending side has consequently been damaged.

[mycroft]

likely could *not* have been reached without assistance, no? The Law reads, without the assistance, the outcome could well have been different, not that they got there with the IB.

I hate this Law, not because it's wrong (it isn't), but because the players either don't listen (and believe they have UI) or don't believe it. And also because many lower-level and playing TDs don't know how to apply 27D (which definitely involves staying for the entire auction and possibly post-hand review), never mind that they are supposed to.