Did I get a correct ruling?

[iamdavej]

LHO opens 2NT, partner passes, RHO bids 2♦ (insufficient). I say "it appears we have an insufficient bid, I think we need to call the director." RHO offers to explain what my partner's (!) options are, I decline (causing exasperated noises from RHO, but that's a different matter) and summon the director.

 

Director explains that I may accept the bid (which I do not) or that RHO may replace the bid with a sufficient bid and that if it's anything other than ♦, there would be further information to come.

 

This seems like the right ruling only if 2♦ was not a conventional bid. After it was corrected to 3♦, LHO announced "transfer". So, shouldn't director have asked (away from the table?) what RHO meant by 2D and then proceeded under 27(B)(2)("If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination may have been conventional or if the bid is corrected by any other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call ").

 

 

Thanks.

Dave

San Diego

[aguahombre]

Yes, the TD should have done what you say. Even if both 2D/1NT and 3D/2NT are transfers, there might be hands which, in their style would not have transferred with 2D over 1NT but must over 2NT. So, opener might have more information from the IB+correction than he would have from just the 3D transfer...making it incorrect to allow 3D without barring opener. The TD can only find these things out by talking to the IB'r.

[Vampyr]

This seems like the right ruling only if 2♦ was not a conventional bid. After it was corrected to 3♦, LHO announced "transfer". So, shouldn't director have asked (away from the table?) what RHO meant by 2D and then proceeded under 27(B)(2)("If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination may have been conventional or if the bid is corrected by any other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call ").

 

The director did go about things in the wrong order and the ruling may, as in the post above, have been incorrect. The director does seem to have been using the 2007 Laws though, not the 1997 as quoted above.

[Mbodell]

Usually in the acbl transfers are allowed as non-baring corrections. It might be trickier if it was 2♣ versus 3♣ and the former was stayman with the latter puppet stayman.

[aguahombre]

HereContained in the below paragraph would be a case where the transfer correction should be barring:

 

The pair plays Texas, so starting with 2(xfer) over 1NT, then bidding 4 would be a mild slam try. But, responder bids 2D/2NT; if allowed to correct to 3D, he will be making a slam probe in continuation (whatever methods they have). But opener knows from the IB that responder has a slam try opposite a mere 1NT opening and that slam will absolutely be reached. That is too much information.

Edited June 14, 2012 by aguahombre

[campboy]

Some of the replies suppose that RHO bid 2♦ because he thought the opening bid was 1NT. In fact this is extremely unlikely, especially since he did not attempt to announce 1NT. It is probable that he was trying to make the cheapest bid in diamonds opposite a 2NT opening, but got confused. Of course the TD should have established this rather than assumed it.

 

As Vampyr says, OP seems to be looking at an old copy of the laws. The 2007 laws allow a correction without silencing partner if both calls are "incontrovertibly not artificial" (27B1a) or if the correction has "the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than, the insufficient bid" (27B1b).

[RMB1]

It is possible that you got the correct ruling, even if the TD's approach is not one we would recognise as always arriving at a ruling we would agree with.

 

It is certainly possible that local interpretation is to assume that insufficient red suit bid is a transfer, and that any transfer has the same meaning as a sufficient transfer to be a non-barring call under Law 27B1(b).

[blackshoe]

Here would be a case where the transfer correction should be barring:

 

The pair plays Texas, so starting with 2(xfer) over 1NT, then bidding 4 would be a mild slam try. But, responder bids 2D/2NT; if allowed to correct to 3D, he will be making a slam probe in continuation (whatever methods they have). But opener knows from the IB that responder has a slam try opposite a mere 1NT opening and that slam will absolutely be reached. That is too much information.

I see no evidence that the responder bid 4♥ after the transfer.

[aguahombre]

I see no evidence that the responder bid 4♥ after the transfer.

I was giving a situation.

 

Maybe you were confused by the introduction to the hypothetical "Here would be...." followed by a colon, then the hypotetical. I have edited it for clarity.

[barmar]

HereContained in the below paragraph would be a case where the transfer correction should be barring:

 

The pair plays Texas, so starting with 2(xfer) over 1NT, then bidding 4 would be a mild slam try. But, responder bids 2D/2NT; if allowed to correct to 3D, he will be making a slam probe in continuation (whatever methods they have). But opener knows from the IB that responder has a slam try opposite a mere 1NT opening and that slam will absolutely be reached. That is too much information.

While it's true that the ensuing auction would be different, but the Law asks us only to compare the meaning of the original and corrected bids by themselves. A transfer at the lowest legal level simply shows 5+ in the suit being transferred to, any point range. So the replacement, viewed alone, has the same meaning as the original.

 

The fact that the player originally tried to make an IB is UI to his partner, isn't it? So he can't make inferences about later bids in the auction based on this. So if it goes 2N-3♦-3♥-4♥, opener must treat this as a hand that would invite slam over 2NT, NOT one that would invite over 1NT (and hence is probably inviting a grand over 2NT). If he acts on the inference, we should adjust. And we should warn him about this UI when explaining the options after the IB, so if he clearly acts on the UI I think it would be worth a PP in addition to the adjustment.

[Vampyr]

The fact that the player originally tried to make an IB is UI to his partner, isn't it?

 

It is my understanding that it is not. THis is one of the main problems with this Law.

[bluejak]

The director did go about things in the wrong order and the ruling may, as in the post above, have been incorrect. The director does seem to have been using the 2007 Laws though, not the 1997 as quoted above.

If he suggested that 2♦ could be corrected to 3♦ without penalty and without finding out the meaning of the bids, that is nothing like 1997 or 2007. I reckon a 1940s Law book is closer.

 

Of course, it is quite clear he did not use any Law book whatever.

[aguahombre]

While it's true that the ensuing auction would be different, but the Law asks us only to compare the meaning of the original and corrected bids by themselves. A transfer at the lowest legal level simply shows 5+ in the suit being transferred to, any point range. So the replacement, viewed alone, has the same meaning as the original.

 

The fact that the player originally tried to make an IB is UI to his partner, isn't it? So he can't make inferences about later bids in the auction based on this. So if it goes 2N-3♦-3♥-4♥, opener must treat this as a hand that would invite slam over 2NT, NOT one that would invite over 1NT (and hence is probably inviting a grand over 2NT). If he acts on the inference, we should adjust. And we should warn him about this UI when explaining the options after the IB, so if he clearly acts on the UI I think it would be worth a PP in addition to the adjustment.

That is not my understanding. When the replacement bid is a convention the replacement bid must not only be the same or more concise than the IB, but must also have been a bid which the responder would have made with the given hand if (in this case, 2♦ were sufficient.

 

It doesn't seem to matter whether partner uses UI from the IB or not. If the information available from the IB+the correction is more than the information from just the correction, it is not allowed.

[jeffford76]

Yes, the TD should have done what you say. Even if both 2D/1NT and 3D/2NT are transfers, there might be hands which, in their style would not have transferred with 2D over 1NT but must over 2NT. So, opener might have more information from the IB+correction than he would have from just the 3D transfer...making it incorrect to allow 3D without barring opener. The TD can only find these things out by talking to the IB'r.

 

Although this is true, in practice correcting a transfer made one level too low is always going to be allowed. This is a law that is applied mostly by custom and by instruction from above, not according to a literal reading of it which would allow far fewer corrections. In the ACBL essentially corrections are allowed if they are "close enough", with the caveat that the score can always be adjusted later if somehow the insufficient bid helped.

[jeffford76]

HereContained in the below paragraph would be a case where the transfer correction should be barring:

 

The pair plays Texas, so starting with 2(xfer) over 1NT, then bidding 4 would be a mild slam try. But, responder bids 2D/2NT; if allowed to correct to 3D, he will be making a slam probe in continuation (whatever methods they have). But opener knows from the IB that responder has a slam try opposite a mere 1NT opening and that slam will absolutely be reached. That is too much information.

 

I would think that if you had a mild slam try over a 1NT opening you would be forcing to slam over a 2NT opening, so it's not much going to matter whether opener has UI from your insufficient bid. Now maybe the knowledge helps you reach grand...

[RMB1]

The fact that the player originally tried to make an IB is UI to his partner, isn't it? ...

It is my understanding that it is not.

 

If the insufficient bid is accepted (Law 27A) it becomes part of the legal auction, and is authorised.

 

It is explicit in Law 27B1(a): "Law 16D does not apply ...".

 

It is probably deemed irrelevant in Law 27B1(b): because the AI from the replacement is the same (or more preciese than) any UI from the insufficient bid.

 

In Law 27B2 and Law 27B3, any UI from the insufficient bid is irrelevant during the auction, and there are lead penalties; but there is no explicit statement on UI from the insufficient bid.

 

This is one of the main problems with this Law.

+1

 

A more practical law would be much easier to formulate if the insufficient bid was unauthoried.

[barmar]

If he suggested that 2♦ could be corrected to 3♦ without penalty and without finding out the meaning of the bids, that is nothing like 1997 or 2007. I reckon a 1940s Law book is closer.

 

Of course, it is quite clear he did not use any Law book whatever.

It seems like he just made an assumption that 2♦ and 3♦ would both be transfers, since that's what nearly everyone plays. Unless his assumption was wrong, skipping this step probably doesn't make a difference.

[barmar]

Part of the problem is the old problem of defining the "meaning" of a bid. Does the transfer just show "5+ ♥, any strength", or should we treat it as "5+ ♥, any strength, EXCEPT the hands that would use Texas (or some other sequence)"? Hands that would use Texas are very different depending on whether the opening is 1NT or 2NT, which makes the replacement not "same or more specific" if we use that more precise definition. But as Jeff points out, we pretty much always allow this replacement, essentially adopting the first meaning.

[blackshoe]

It is my understanding that it is not. THis is one of the main problems with this Law.

An IB that is accepted is AI. An IB that is not accepted is not (Law 16D2), unless the correction is made under 27B1(a).

[mjj29]

Part of the problem is the old problem of defining the "meaning" of a bid. Does the transfer just show "5+ ♥, any strength", or should we treat it as "5+ ♥, any strength, EXCEPT the hands that would use Texas (or some other sequence)"? Hands that would use Texas are very different depending on whether the opening is 1NT or 2NT, which makes the replacement not "same or more specific" if we use that more precise definition. But as Jeff points out, we pretty much always allow this replacement, essentially adopting the first meaning.

I believe negative inferences such as these are what the WBF minute about more relaxed application of this law are designed to allow

[aguahombre]

I believe negative inferences such as these are what the WBF minute about more relaxed application of this law are designed to allow

You might be right about the WBF intent. We hardly ever IB, so it is not likely to come up. But, my partner and I have discussed transfers and Stayman in this context; and we both believe the TD's would probably not figure out to ask the right questions about our methods, and we would choose to give him/her the information that there are some hands which would bid the higher version but would not bid the lower one. We don't know whether the TD will use that knowledge when making the ruling.

[bluejak]

It seems like he just made an assumption that 2♦ and 3♦ would both be transfers, since that's what nearly everyone plays. Unless his assumption was wrong, skipping this step probably doesn't make a difference.

I don't play a 2♦ response to 2♣ as a transfer: do you?

 

The TD has not just presumed they play 2♦ over 1NT as a transfer, but he has also presumed the reason for the 2♦ bid is that the player bid it over 1NT. How does anyone know this without asking?

 

I had a long losing argument with Rich Colker and Bobby Wolff [onlookers said that was the only time that pair ever agreed with each other] about a 1♣ overcall over a 1♠ opening by a pair playing strong club. Wolff and Colker sid that ti was impossible for partner to bid sensibly since he knew the 1♣ bidder had 16+: I said how on earth did they know that was the reason for the 1♣ bid.

 

So skipping this step makes a major difference because you do not know whether it is a transfer unless you know why the IB was made.

[aguahombre]

I had a long losing argument with Rich Colker and Bobby Wolff [onlookers said that was the only time that pair ever agreed with each other] about a 1♣ overcall over a 1♠ opening by a pair playing strong club. Wolff and Colker sid that ti was impossible for partner to bid sensibly since he knew the 1♣ bidder had 16+: I said how on earth did they know that was the reason for the 1♣ bid.

Please assume Bluejak is joking. It will save a lot of space on the thread.

[bluejak]

Why on earth would I be joking?

[aguahombre]

OH, maybe because I thought you were aware 1C is not an overcall of anything and that the pair is playing a 16+ 1C opening bid style. My mistake.