Comparable call #2

[BudH]

Comparable call #2: 1NT-(2S)-2D (ooops!) using the 2017 laws.

 

You didn’t see the overcall and 2D was intended as a transfer to hearts. I will assume you play 4D as Texas and that 3D would be a natural and game forcing bid at this point.

 

You can bid 3H now as the “lowest sufficient bid specifying the same denomination”. It also is a comparable call because 2D showed 5+ hearts and any strength. The 3H bid shows 5+ hearts and more strength, therefore it defines the hand more precisely.

 

Could a 4D bid be used as a Texas transfer? It is not the "lowest sufficient bid specifying the same denomination", so it will need to be considered a "comparable call" to be allowed.

 

A 4D Texas transfer bid would show 6+ hearts, so the length is a subset (better defined). OK there.

 

What about strength? 2D showed 5+ hearts and any strength, so OK there.

 

Then there is what I call the "does partner know more about your hand than he is supposed to" test which might affect the possibility of a later adjusted score even if 4D is considered comparable. Partner most likely can tell you were either (1) going to transfer to 2H and bid 3H next invitational, OR (2) you were going to transfer to 2H and jump to 4H as a mild slam try, but the spade overcall made your hand look worse. None of the above information is partner “allowed” to know.

 

I would allow 4D Texas transfer as a comparable call. It is a subset of the 2D transfer, the previous paragraph not withstanding.

 

Any opinions on whether you would or would not consider a 4D Texas transfer to be considered comparable?

[weejonnie]

(Assuming the 2♦ call wasn't accepted...)

 

A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it:

 

1. has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or

2. defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or

3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call.

 

I see no reason at all why a 4♦ call showing 6+ hearts and game values should not be regarded as a subset of 2♦ (5+ hearts, any values)

Furthermore both 2♦ and 4♦ have the same purpose - a transfer bid to get partner to declare the contract.

 

Although I would be wondering why the player didn't bid 4♦ in the first place. It is very unlikely that in this scenario (The 1NT caller being limited and constrained) the UI would affect the position, and any restriction of information from the withdrawn call does not apply, you should always be aware of: -

 

 

27D. Non-offending Side Damaged

 

If following the application of B1 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.

 

(The last line is a very slight addition to law 23C)

[RMB1]

Is 1N(P)4♦ Texas for hearts?

If so, I would feel uncomfortable ruling that 4♦ was a comparable call, when the apparent meaning of 2♦ denied the meaning of 1N(P)4♦

[weejonnie]

Is 1N(P)4♦ Texas for hearts?

If so, I would feel uncomfortable ruling that 4♦ was a comparable call, when the apparent meaning of 2♦ denied the meaning of 1N(P)4♦

As I mentioned - but Law 16C2 (information from withdrawn calls) is specifically excluded. Each case is obviously different but here the 1NT caller is merely going to complete the transfer. If the 1NT caller bases his action on the fact that the 2♦ call suggests that partner does NOT have his 4♦ bid, and the NOS are therefore damaged then an adjusted score will be made. (it is hard to see how, in this case, such a situation could arise, as the 4♦ caller has obviously assumed captaincy.)

[barmar]

Although I would be wondering why the player didn't bid 4♦ in the first place.

Maybe he was planning on making a mild slam try by transfering and then jumping to game, or transfering and splintering. If that was his plan, it would affect whether the opponents are damaged by replacing it with a Texas transfer.

 

If he bids Texas and then passes, and opener would have accepted the slam try, but the slam would have failed, then the opponents are damaged. Or if opener would have declined, but the IBer decides to force to slam on his own, and it makes, they've also been damaged. These are both results that could not have been obtained without the constraints from the IB.

[weejonnie]

Maybe he was planning on making a mild slam try by transfering and then jumping to game, or transfering and splintering. If that was his plan, it would affect whether the opponents are damaged by replacing it with a Texas transfer.

 

If he bids Texas and then passes, and opener would have accepted the slam try, but the slam would have failed, then the opponents are damaged. Or if opener would have declined, but the IBer decides to force to slam on his own, and it makes, they've also been damaged. These are both results that could not have been obtained without the constraints from the IB.

But the new law says that you make your adjustment on the assumption that the insufficient bid had not occurred, not that the NOS have been damaged because the call could not take place (after all - they could have accepted it).

[BudH]

As I mentioned in the original post, opener can probably tell the reason partner didn't use Texas immediately was due to one of two possible reasons:

 

1. partner was going to transfer to 2H and bid 3H next invitational, but now feels it is correct to be in game, OR

2. partner was going to transfer to 2H and jump to 4H as a mild slam try, but the spade overcall made him change his mind for some unknown reason.

 

Fortunately in this case, it is very unlikely to matter, since 99% of the time, opener is going to bid 4H to accept the transfer and responder will pass or move towards slam.

[gordontd]

Is 1N(P)4♦ Texas for hearts?

If so, I would feel uncomfortable ruling that 4♦ was a comparable call, when the apparent meaning of 2♦ denied the meaning of 1N(P)4♦

It's quite likely that the set of hands that would bid 4♦ in a contested auction is not the same as the set of hands that would bid it uncontested.

[Zelandakh]

Fortunately in this case, it is very unlikely to matter, since 99% of the time, opener is going to bid 4H to accept the transfer and responder will pass or move towards slam.

It would matter if the opps bid over 4♥ and Opener was able to drum up a double based on Responder's presumed invitational values, or if Responder made a slam try and Opener was able to reject it on the basis that the slam try was milder than it would normally be for this auction.

[weejonnie]

It's quite likely that the set of hands that would bid 4♦ in a contested auction is not the same as the set of hands that would bid it uncontested.

True - but, with all due respect, does that matter? The purpose of each bid is to get partner to complete a transfer into hearts and is thus 'comparable'.

[lamford]

It's quite likely that the set of hands that would bid 4♦ in a contested auction is not the same as the set of hands that would bid it uncontested.

Indeed. Many play that a two-level transfer followed by 4H is a slam try (usually without a shortage) whereas the four-level transfer is either terminal or has the intention of bidding RKCB. If someone makes an insufficient transfer at the two level and replaces it by a Texas transfer at the four-level, they are giving extra information and therefore the set of hands is different. I think that "similar" does not apply.

[gordontd]

True - but, with all due respect, does that matter? The purpose of each bid is to get partner to complete a transfer into hearts and is thus 'comparable'.

It does matter because I think it answers Robin's concern.