Another IB

[sanst]

Here is another insufficient bid. The auction:

2NT-(p)-2♦/3♦-(p)-4♥-a.p.

My 2NT is 20-22 HCP, my partner bids 2♦, not accepted. The TD asks my partner away from the table about her bid, which was a transfer to hearts but she just pulled the card for after a 1NT opening. It's a not uncommon mistake, at least over here. The TD decided that 3♦ was a comparable call, which I alerted as having no agreement after an IB, and with a maximum hand with four hearts I raised to 4♥.

Do you agree with the TD that 3♦ is a comparable call, according to Law 27B1b? Would you have allowed 3♥ under 27B1a? Would both calls been acceptable? And what about my 4♥?

 

The hands (more or less):

[hv=pc=n&s=sqjhq8643d52ckt94&n=sak4hkj75da6caq63]133|200[/hv]

[pran]

Here is another insufficient bid. The auction:

2NT-(p)-2♦/3♦-(p)-4♥-a.p.

My 2NT is 20-22 HCP, my partner bids 2♦, not accepted. The TD asks my partner away from the table about her bid, which was a transfer to hearts but she just pulled the card for after a 1NT opening. It's a not uncommon mistake, at least over here. The TD decided that 3♦ was a comparable call, which I alerted as having no agreement after an IB, and with a maximum hand with four hearts I raised to 4♥.

Do you agree with the TD that 3♦ is a comparable call, according to Law 27B1b? Would you have allowed 3♥ under 27B1a? Would both calls been acceptable? And what about my 4♥?

 

The hands (more or less):

[hv=pc=n&s=sqjhq8643d52ckt94&n=sak4hkj75da6caq63]133|200[/hv]

Key question:

What is the agreement on 3♦ in the auction

2NT-(p)-3♦ ?

 

I see no problem if it (too) is transfer to hearts.

[gordontd]

It seems a good example of the law working as intended. You got to have the auction you would have had without the insufficient bid. No, you couldn't replace it with 3H unless you weren't playing transfer bids.

[sanst]

Key question:

What is the agreement on 3♦ in the auction

2NT-(p)-3♦ ?

 

I see no problem if it (too) is transfer to hearts.

It is.

[pran]

Key question:

What is the agreement on 3♦ in the auction

2NT-(p)-3♦ ?

 

I see no problem if it (too) is transfer to hearts.

It is.

 

Then there should be absolutely no doubt about 3♦ being a comparable call in this situation.

[WellSpyder]

I alerted as having no agreement after an IB,

The ruling seems fine, but is this correct? I don't think you can vary your agreements after your own IB, so it seems that you do have an agreement about what 3♦ shows here...

[BudH]

Here is another insufficient bid. The auction:

2NT-(p)-2♦/3♦-(p)-4♥-a.p.

My 2NT is 20-22 HCP, my partner bids 2♦, not accepted. The TD asks my partner away from the table about her bid, which was a transfer to hearts but she just pulled the card for after a 1NT opening. It's a not uncommon mistake, at least over here. The TD decided that 3♦ was a comparable call, which I alerted as having no agreement after an IB, and with a maximum hand with four hearts I raised to 4♥.

Do you agree with the TD that 3♦ is a comparable call, according to Law 27B1b? Would you have allowed 3♥ under 27B1a? Would both calls been acceptable? And what about my 4♥?

 

The hands (more or less):

[hv=pc=n&s=sqjhq8643d52ckt94&n=sak4hkj75da6caq63]133|200[/hv]

 

3♦ is allowed because it is the cheapest call that shows hearts. It happens to also be a comparable call, but in this case, it does not need to be comparable.

[blackshoe]

Substitution of 3♦ for the insufficient 2♦, assuming that in 2NT-3♦ (no IB) 3♦ would be a transfer to hearts and that in 1NT-2♦, 2♦ would be a transfer to hearts, is permitted under Law 27B1{a). That 3♦ is a comparable call under Law 23 really makes no difference. Also, OP's 4♥ bid is fine.

[Vampyr]

3♦ is allowed because it is the cheapest call that shows hearts. It happens to also be a comparable call, but in this case, it does not need to be comparable.

 

A call never "needs" to be comparable, but if it isn't partner is barred.

 

Saying that there is o agreement about 3♦ is incorrect. The replacement call has the meaning it would always have had. The auction can continue us as normal, subject to being adjusted later.in this case it does not seem as though that will be necessary.

[blackshoe]

A call never "needs" to be comparable, but if it isn't partner is barred.

Correction of an IB may be allowed under Law 27B1{a}. If so, the correction is presumably comparable, in the sense of Law 23A, to the IB, but as director I wouldn't waste time or energy thinking about that. If 27B1{a} applies, I'm not concerned about 27B1{b} or 23A.

[Vampyr]

Correction of an IB may be allowed under Law 27B1{a}. If so, the correction is presumably comparable, in the sense of Law 23A, to the IB, but as director I wouldn't waste time or energy thinking about that. If 27B1{a} applies, I'm not concerned about 27B1{b} or 23A.

 

Oh, I see now. A "comparable call" is one that doesn't specify the same denomination(s). So it doesn't really exist. That's fine then.

[gordontd]

Oh, I see now. A "comparable call" is one that doesn't specify the same denomination(s). So it doesn't really exist. That's fine then.

Strange how much time and effort you put into complaining about something you say doesn't exist.

[weejonnie]

Oh, I see now. A "comparable call" is one that doesn't specify the same denomination(s). So it doesn't really exist. That's fine then.

A call that specifies the same denomination at the lowest level is now automatically allowed. 27B1. it doesn't have to be a 'comparable call' e.g. if you bid 1NT - intending it to be 6-9 balanced, no denomination, and you have to replace it with 2NT (notionally 11-12 balanced, no denominaton) then that is not a comparable call, but it is allowed (NOS are protected against damage if the outcome of the hand could have been different without the IB)

 

I assume an example would be if the OS stay in 2NT for +120 whereas otherwise the opponents would have played in 2♠ for -110.

 

PS - what would you regard the second double as showing in this auction.

 

1NT - P - 2♥ (announced Spades) - 3♥

X (3-card support, not alerted) - P - 2♠ (accepted) - 3♥

X - AP

 

Presumably the second double has to be alerted as 'no partnership agreement' - I haven't discussed this auction with partner for some unknown reason.

[barmar]

Oh, I see now. A "comparable call" is one that doesn't specify the same denomination(s). So it doesn't really exist. That's fine then.

You're making a common logical mistake. A call that specifies the same denomination might not be a comparable call (e.g. making the bid sufficient might show a different strength range). That doesn't imply that a comparable call doesn't specifies the same denomination.

[WellSpyder]

A call that specifies the same denomination at the lowest level is now automatically allowed. 27B1. it doesn't have to be a 'comparable call' e.g. if you bid 1NT - intending it to be 6-9 balanced, no denomination, and you have to replace it with 2NT (notionally 11-12 balanced, no denominaton) then that is not a comparable call, but it is allowed (NOS are protected against damage if the outcome of the hand could have been different without the IB)

This all seems fairly straightforward, but the latest discussion has got me all confused again when I thought I had things sorted out! If we always allow the lowest bid that specifies the same denomination as the IB, then surely we are back with the impossibility of deciding what the IB shows? In our discussion of comparable bids, I thought we had managed to avoid this, because it was OK if the meaning was comparable to one of the potential meanings of the IB.

 

So does 2N - 2♦ specify diamonds or hearts? Is it the case that we don't need to answer this question for the purposes of Law 23A, but we still need to answer it for the purposes of Law 27B1a?

[Vampyr]

Strange how much time and effort you put into complaining about something you say doesn't exist.

 

I didn't realise than that a "comparable call" could not possibly exist. These discussions have helped me to realise it.

 

This all seems fairly straightforward, but the latest discussion has got me all confused again when I thought I had things sorted out! If we always allow the lowest bid that specifies the same denomination as the IB, then surely we are back with the impossibility of deciding what the IB shows? In our discussion of comparable bids, I thought we had managed to avoid this, because it was OK if the meaning was comparable to one of the potential meanings of the IB.

 

So does 2N - 2♦ specify diamonds or hearts? Is it the case that we don't need to answer this question for the purposes of Law 23A, but we still need to answer it for the purposes of Law 27B1a?

 

I think you are supposed to say that if you meant to bid diamonds you make your lowest call, if any, that shows diamonds. If you meant to specify hearts you may make your lowest call, if any, that specifies hearts. Maybe in some cases it wouldn't have to be the lowest, but that would be at the discretion of the (possibly untrained and inexperienced club) director.

 

Otherwise partner is barred.

 

As to the comment above about different strengths, obviously this may be the case, but the partner must assume that the replacement call is what it means according to their system.

[BudH]

A call never "needs" to be comparable, but if it isn't partner is barred.

 

Saying that there is o agreement about 3♦ is incorrect. The replacement call has the meaning it would always have had. The auction can continue us as normal, subject to being adjusted later.in this case it does not seem as though that will be necessary.

 

No, to avoid partner from being required to pass for the rest of the auction (and to avoid any later lead penalties if becoming a defender later), the offender must either

 

1. make the cheapest bid which specifies the same denomination(s). (Note it doesn't say "call", so presumably a negative double cannot be used to meet this criteria)

 

OR

 

2. make a comparable call.

 

If the substituted call is not comparable, but meets the criteria #1, offender's partner is not barred and no lead penalties apply.

 

Yes, it will often be the case that the substituted call is a bid which meets both criteria. But it is possible for only criteria #1 to be satisfied.

[Vampyr]

OK, well what on earth is a "comparable call" then?

 

I can think of a few examples, like a negative double which might, in rare cases, be comparable, and maybe when they come in over your Blackwood bid and partner changes the IB to DOPI, but it would be nice to know if this is what is meant.

 

I do not see how a bid that fits criterion #1 can be not comparable.what aspects of the bid are being compared?

[gordontd]

I do not see how a bid that fits criterion #1 can be not comparable.what aspects of the bid are being compared?

1H-(2C)-1NT replaced with 2NT

[lamford]

1H-(2C)-1NT replaced with 2NT

I completely agree that this is not a comparable call, but it does comply with 27B1(a). However, whenever the call chosen is not a comparable call, the TD can, nay should, invariably award an adjusted score. In the example you quote above the opening bidder knows that the responder seems to have 5-10 points, and has elected not to replace 1NT with Pass silencing his partner. What else can he have but a balanced 9-10 count with a club stop? If the opener bids 3NT and makes it, then "without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different" and the same applies if opener elects to pass and 2NT is a good result. For all practical purposes the replacement call has to be a comparable call, and that is how it should be.

[lamford]

So does 2N - 2♦ specify diamonds or hearts?

The relevant law does not say "shown" and we have the definitions to help us:

Denomination the suit or no trump specified in a bid.

 

So diamonds is the denomination for the purpose of 27B1(a). However for 27B1(b) the "meaning attributable to 2♦" may well not be diamonds. I think the TD just explains "comparable call" to the player, and reads out the relevant laws and then lets the player make a comparable call. Only the IBer knows what meaning was attributable to 2♦. At the end of the hand he then has to investigate whether the call was comparable and then apply 23C if necessary. I suppose he should read out Laws 27B1(b), 30B1(b)(i), 31A2(a) and 32A2(a) as well, so that the player has full information but by then the two players will have left to get the last tube. I don't think the new law is very "club friendly" if the playing director is tied up for 3 or 4 minutes.

[WellSpyder]

The relevant law does not say "shown" and we have the definitions to help us:

Denomination the suit or no trump specified in a bid.

 

So diamonds is the denomination for the purpose of 27B1(a).

That seems reasonable to me. But it doesn't seem to be the interpretation of "specified" that has been adopted by others who have commented in this thread. It is also arguably inconsistent with the wording of 27B1(a), which refers to the "lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call". How could the withdrawn call ever specify more than one denomination if it is meant in the way that you have interpreted it?

[weejonnie]

I completely agree that this is not a comparable call, but it does comply with 27B1(a). However, whenever the call chosen is not a comparable call, the TD can, nay should, invariably award an adjusted score. In the example you quote above the opening bidder knows that the responder seems to have 5-10 points, and has elected not to replace 1NT with Pass silencing his partner. What else can he have but a balanced 9-10 count with a club stop? If the opener bids 3NT and makes it, then "without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different" and the same applies if opener elects to pass and 2NT is a good result. For all practical purposes the replacement call has to be a comparable call, and that is how it should be.

Not necessarily - if the person making the 1NT call would have bid e.g. 2 Diamonds had there not been a 2 Club overcall (but can't now without silencing partner as it isn't a comparable call or a 27B1(a) adjustment) and this would have definitely resulted in the same contract then there is no damage.

[barmar]

I think Law 29C makes it clear that the denomination specified is the one that's shown, not the one named in the bid:

If a call out of rotation is artificial, the provisions of Laws 30, 31 and 32 apply to the denomination(s) specified, rather than the denomination named.

 

And Law 18 uses the word "designate" to refer to the number and demonination in the bid.

[lamford]

That seems reasonable to me. But it doesn't seem to be the interpretation of "specified" that has been adopted by others who have commented in this thread. It is also arguably inconsistent with the wording of 27B1(a), which refers to the "lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call". How could the withdrawn call ever specify more than one denomination if it is meant in the way that you have interpreted it?

I agree that the "(s)" makes no sense according to the definitions as a call can only specify one denomination. But there are plenty of other inconsistencies in the laws, and an unnecessary "(s)" should not change the definitions! I think that the intention is that "specified" should read "shown" in several places, particularly, as Barmar points. out Law 29C. I don't know why they use "specified" rather than "shown".

 

Which denomination do you (and Barmar) think is specified when someone opens a forcing 1NT? or a strong club? Is there not one at all?