North opens 2d ( multi) and and and South makes an insuff.bid.
Hello ,
I am in need of help regarding ruling on an insufficient bid.
N opens 2d (multi ) E (Passes ) South bids 1h ( insuf.) not accepted by W. Td is called over.
The Td first investigates whether the bid of 1h is the mechanical error and finds out that it was the loss of concentration ( S admits so ).
The TD rules out according to Law27B1a . The bidding goes on as follows ;
2d pass 2h ( corrected - lowest sufficient bid) Pass
4h.
4h+1 is made. TD rules on the rectification and adjusts the score to 2h+3. - law 27D ( passing 3h is a logical alternative ) - and also applies a procedural penalty since N has used the unauthorized information of 4+c hearts and 6+ hcp that S had.
Please kindly comment on the Td's ruling. ( anything wrong or missing something or applying law 90) )
Awaiting from you.
Regards.
Secaaddin Özdeniz
the layout is attached.
Comments
I think that after the 2H bid, 27B2 applies, not 27B1. North must pass for the rest of the auction.
1H specifies Hearts, 2H does not (27b1a). Also, 2H is not a comparable call (27B1b).
Maybe the TD did not explain Law 27 properly before South made a replacement call, in which case we might then need to adjust under 82C (Director error)
If we had allowed the 2H under 27B1 (wrongly imho) then I would not adjust under 27D. 27D does not refer to logical alternatives; it refers to gaining assistance through the infraction. I think that without the infraction NS should reach 4H easily.
Hello ,
Thank you very much for your kind interest in my question. I quite agree with you on the fact that 2h is not a comparable call and in result, his partner is to pass throughout the auction. As a consequence his partner's pass obligation makes the contract is to be played in 2h resulting in 2h+3. But What I don't understand is the reason behind Law 27B1(a) 's not being applicable here , since 2h bid is the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination.
I will be very pleased if you clarify.
Regards.
27B1 allows correcting calls either to a comparable call (27B1b), or to "the lowest sufficient bid that specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call" (27B1a). "Specified" in the Laws is often used to refer to which suits are shown by a call, rather than the suit in which the call is made (this is explicitly stated in some places, e.g. Law 29C – but is left implicit in others), although it is sometimes also used to refer to the suit in which a bid is made (e.g. in the definition of "bid"). As such, there is some amount of ambiguity in the current wording of Law 27B1a.
It seems more logical to me to interpret "specified" in Law 27B1a as the suit that the call shows, rather than the suit in which the call is made. 1H shows hearts; 2H does not show any suit (just a hand that doesn't want to bid further); 3H depends on system, but would for many (most?) Multi pairs show tolerance for both majors (rather than specifically hearts); thus 2H and 3H are not valid corrections under 27B1a.
I think there's an interesting Laws question here, though: is the "lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same
denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call" 4H, or is it 2S? For most pairs who play Multi 2D, 2S over a Multi shows interest in hearts but not spades, and thus the only specified suit is hearts, the same as with the insufficient 1H call. If it isn't 2S, it is probably 4H, as the cheapest call that conveys a message specifically about hearts and no other suit.
I don't usually play a multi 2D but I would have thought that 4H is 'pass or correct' and thus shows hearts and spades.
... but I was also wondering what is lowest sufficient bid which specifies Hearts.
Let's change N and S ' hands a bit. Say that N-S also play strong side of Multi as well. In other words ;
6c weak M (6-10) or 18-19 balance. )
The bidding ;
2d Pass 2h (1h corrected 2h ) pass
P
When we apply law 27B1b N has to pass throughout the auction ( 2h won't be a comparable call )
North's holding 18-19 balance with his partner 's opening hand a slam will be on the horizon unless
law27B1a applies.
2d pass 2h ( lowest suff. bid.) pass
2nt pas 3cl stayman or 3d transf ...
The different between Law27 B1a and b makes them end up in different results.
What is still confusing me is that in all the following auctions lowest sufficient bids are available as his partner's hand is irrelevant to his decision while making his mind up on his bid. But why doesn't the same rule apply
when his partner makes an artificial opening bid ? Unfortunately the related law (27 ) does not touch on it and leave the decision up to Technical Director.
1sp pass 1cl( corrected 2cl ) lowest sufficient bid
1h pass 1d ( corrected 2d) the same as again
N opens 2cl Strong) East Passes and S bids 1cl (He doesn't realize his partner 's opening )
In their system they always play 2d ( as wating ) if he corrects his bid to 2D his partner .
is going to pass throughout the auction again. İs he allowed to bid 3cl ? ( his partners opening bid is artificial )
It is not to do with partner's artificial bid. It is because the replacement call is artificial.
2d p 2h (replacing 1h) is artificial, it does NOT show hearts, so partner has to pass.
2c p 3c (replacing 1c) shows clubs so 27b1a applies and the auction can continue.
You keep using the phrase 'lowest sufficient bid' which is NOT what the law says. For 27b1a to apply you need to make the lowest sufficient bid which specifies (shows) hearts.
if the offender says that "I am confused an I just bid 1h by mistake (loss of conc.) I wouldn'have brought it up as a discussion topic.But when the offender says that"i didn"t see that my partner had openned 2d and therefore I oppened 1h (his hand shows it ) I had concidered The td sould have taken it into account while makine his decision.
But law is law. Te best thing to do is to try to absord and obey it.
I appraciate your help veya much , and sorry for takıng your time.
Regards
If you didn't see your partner's bid then that is a loss of concentration - and for further reference we have law 21A - a player has no recourse if they make a play or call based on their own misunderstanding.
So Notionally
the TD explains to West that they can either accept the call (in which case the auction proceeds as normal) or they can reject the call. If they do then South has three options.
It is possible that the TD didn't explain all these ramifications correctly. If South has bid 2H because it is the lowest possible bid in hearts because of the TDs explanation, then you are going to have to look at a split ruling. (EW get 2H+3, NS get part of 2H+3 and 4H+1 depending on how likely they are to get there as a NOS)
Thanks for your explanation. İt helped a lot.
Regards.