…corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s)…
The title is from Law 27b1a.
This law allows for an Insufficient Bid (IB) to be replaced by a Substitute Bid (SB) without rectification* if those conditions are satisfied.
(* 27D may yet apply)
In a separate discussion recently, I raised the question of whether it matters that that IB & SB carried any information about other suits; e.g. if (as in that case) 2H can be replaced by 3H if they both show spades, but one or the other shows (or might show) another suit. Well, I quickly answered that question to myself, although I didn’t share my thoughts on that thread since it was departing somewhat from the point of the OP. I have other related (hypothetical) questions, but I also had a pertinent case come up at the weekend:
The auction began 1NT-1H, and I was called to the table. As it happened, the offender had already attempted to replace the 1H with 2H. After establishing that 1H had been intended (i.e. not a 25A case), I offered LHO the opportunity to accept the IB, which was declined, and therefore (27C) the SB stood. At this point, offender’s partner asked: “should I alert that?”
Ah – perhaps I hadn’t established all the facts; I had probably assumed that both 1H & 2H were natural, given that offender so readily wanted to ‘make good’ his bid. This wouldn’t have affected the ruling so far, except inasmuch as it could have affected LHO’s decision to accept the IB – he is entitled to know all the potential consequences of not accepting.
Anyway, it turns out that 2H shows hearts and another suit. So…
(Q1) does this satisfy the conditions of 27b1a?
In my opinion, yes, but I appreciate that the wording of that law could be interpreted differently. My interpretation is that the SB must specify all the denominations specified by the IB, but any further information included in the SB does not invalidate this. An alternative interpretation is that the SB must specify precisely the same denomination(s) – no more or less.
(Q2) does the fact that the second suit is not specified relieve any doubt about this? Only hearts is specified by the SB, and only hearts by the IB, so are we OK? Should there only be any doubt (in Q1) if the SB had specified (say) Hearts & Clubs?
(Q3) What if (hypothetically) the meanings of the IB & SB were reversed: if the SB showed only hearts but, say, the IB had shown (a) Hearts and another suit, or (b) specifically Hearts & Clubs?
Well, IMO, in case (b) conditions are clearly not met: the SB does not specify both suits specified by the IB. But I’m still not sure about case (a).
Now for the real humdinger:
(Q4) suppose 1H (presumed to be an attempted opening) and the 2H overcall both show only hearts. BUT systematically a 2C overcall (over 1NT) would show Hearts and another suit.
Is it now the case that the 2H bid is NOT the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination, and that therefore 27b1a cannot apply?!
(In the latter case, and indeed possibly some of the other cases, I am not suggesting that we cannot apply 27b1b instead; it is a different argument as to whether the calls are comparable. All I am asking is whether we would be able to apply 27b1a, & therefore avoid having to address the comparable call issue.)
Comments
I don't think it does. The "extra information" part applies to comparable calls but not a SB. In fact a SB can include less information than the IB and still be OK, as long as it specifies the same suit(s).
27b1a is always a bit dodgy as an IB has no meaning, and the law says nothing about what the bidder intended.
The law isn't really clear on that. I think if both bids showed an unspecified second suit then you'd be OK. Having the SB specifying an additional suit when the IB didn't feels like it would fail 27b1a (but probably pass 1b).
I think both would fail.
Oooh I love this one!
I think if the situation in Q2 failed then this would succeed. I'd certainly prefer to allow this one than Q2.
Now I'm wondering about the case where the lowest call that shows the same denomination as the insufficient bid is double. Law 27B1a seems to skip the double and look for the next-lowest call, but that seems really inconsistent.
My most common partner and I play, as overcalls over 1NT: X = spades + another, 2C = C+H, 2D = D+H, 2H = H, 2S = S. So after 1NT, 1H, a "lowest sufficient bid" correction would correct to 2C (assuming that having a specified second suit counts as specifying the same denomination(s), although I suspect it might not), but after 1NT, 1S, it would correct to 2S. This seems utterly inconsistent, but I've always just assumed that the rules are happy to be inconsistent in this case.
Trying to apply comparable call rules instead runs into a problem: the ranges for the two-suited and one-suited overcalls over 1NT are different from each other, so subsetting correctly would involve matching (or tightening) the range, which in turn involves figuring out how strong the undercall is. But I have no idea how much strength 1NT, 1M might be showing – we haven't discussed this for obvious reasons. Does that mean that the entire range of strengths is attributable to the call, and so a call of any strength is allowed to subset it?
I assume you mean "next-lowest bid" rather than "next-lowest call".
I think the problem here is that 27b1a has outlived its usefulness, and is no longer an appropriate law.
It used to say (2007) "corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination", and neither could be artificial. Then it was expanded to cope with bids like transfers ("specifies the same denomination(s)") but wasn't really written clearly enough to either cope with or give consistent treatment under complicated bidding systems.
I think "comparable call" does a much better job, and any situation where comparable call fails but 27b1a applies would have what should be UI becoming AI (although I accept 27D is still available).
I don't think it's that bad. And since 2H overcalls aren't generally considered comparable we'd be taking away a familiar option from players, which I can see the lawmakers are reluctant to do. Maybe if they can come up with a better definition for comparable calls this would work.
I think that (s) in brackets does mean that a call such as clubs and hearts is distinct from one that shows just hearts for the purposes in this law. Simply hearts and another is more ambiguous. It feels wrong to me that after 1NT - 1H you would be able to bid 2C (hearts and another) and hence be unable to bid 2H (just hearts). But I might also allow 2H showing hearts then another if it was 5-4 and heart orientated, maybe in a club game. That's not completely consistent of course! Probably hearts and another should be treated as distinct from just hearts.