Yet another insufficient bid

[Coelacanth]

Sorry for another Law 27/Law 23 question.

 

South dealt and passed, West opened 2NT, North (me) passed and East bid 2♠. The director was duly summoned.

 

East held a (very) weak hand with long diamonds. In their methods, 2♠ over a 1NT opener is a relay to 3♣ for purposes of getting out in either minor.

 

I was not privy to East's away-from-the-table discussion with the Director, but based on his comments after the hand I think he said something like this: "I thought my partner opened 1NT and was attempting to sign off in 3♦. Over a 2NT opener, 3♠ is undiscussed, but I would have bid it anyway, hoping my partner would figure it out."

 

The director ruled that L27B1( b ) did not apply. Actually, he didn't state this explicitly, but he announced to the table that East could change his call to any sufficient bid (or a pass, I guess), but that West would be forced to pass for the remainder of the auction.

 

East bid 3♦, everyone passed, and this contract was defeated 1 trick. If East had made any sufficient call at his first turn, EW would have reached either 3NT or 4♦, either of which is booked for at least a 2-trick set.

 

Do you adjust? If so, is this a straightforward L27D situation or would you also invoke L23?

[blackshoe]

Yes. Yes. No. :)

[PeterE]

Yes. No. Yes :)

 

The TD applied Law 27 B2 as he judged (IMO correctly) that B1 does not apply. After any B2 application there is no way to Law 27 D (as you can read inside that law).

 

But the whole case is a classic example for the application of Law 23. The only way to play in a low ♦ contract is to barr partner.

[bluejak]

Ok, Peter, I see what you mean, but just answer me one question:

 

Why does Law 27B1B contain the words "... without further rectification, but see D below"?

[RMB1]

Why does Law 27B1B contain the words "... without further rectification, but see D below"?

Because (as Peter says) L27D only applies after L27B1(a.) or L27B1(b.).

 

To reiterate, having ruled that neither L27B1(a.) or L27B1(b.) applies, the TD ruled that L27B2 applied to 3♦. Because L27D only applies after L27B1(a.) or L27B1(b.), the TD does not apply L27D. Because L27B2 refers to L23, the TD can apply L23.

 

I guess I am missing the point of the question: L27B1(a.) or L27B1(b.) refer to L27D; L27B2 does not refer to L27D; L27D refers to L27B1.

 

Robin

[blackshoe]

It might have been better had the director actually specified under which law he was ruling. :lol:

 

Peter's right that 27D does not apply to a 27B2 ruling - and this appears to be a 27B2 ruling. And 27B2 directs us to 23. So, could East have known that EW would get a get result if his partner was barred? I dunno, probably he could have known just about anything. Could his partner have had a hand where being barred would lead to a bad result? Does that matter? Or is "could have known" so wide ranging that EW are screwed however the cards lay?

[bluejak]

Sorry for not reading carefully the little numbers: ignore my earlier post.

 

Law 23 is based on commonsense. If there is a position where there is some reasonable likelihood of a player working out it is to his advantage to infract, Law 23 applies. If there is a position where a miracle could occur and an infraction could work out to the player's benefit [which is basically any infraction] Law 23 does not apply.

 

Yes, Ed, anyone could think anything, but in practice is a player likely to know it could help him? Well, let me see, your partner opens 2NT, you have a very weak hand with long diamonds, you want to play in 3♦ but it is a transfer. If you make an insufficient bid and correct it to 3♦ you will silence partner and be able to play in 3♦. Not difficult to work out: sure it is a Law 23 case.

 

It is nothing to do with how the cards lay. Signing off in 3♦ might turn out to be the wrong thing, but since it seems likely to be best it is a Law 23 case.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps my problem is that I have difficulty thinking like a cheat. :)