Artificial Insufficient Bid Not Accepted by LHO
The bidding went as follows (North Dealer)
2N- P- 2H* (showing spades) . The insufficient bid not accepted by LHO. Can an insufficient be corrected by 3H (again showing spades) or 3S (the suit originally specified/intended) ?
A further possibility is that South did not see 2N bid from his partner and he bid 2H weak.
How does the director deal with the above ?
2N- P- 2H* (showing spades) . The insufficient bid not accepted by LHO. Can an insufficient be corrected by 3H (again showing spades) or 3S (the suit originally specified/intended) ?
A further possibility is that South did not see 2N bid from his partner and he bid 2H weak.
How does the director deal with the above ?
Comments
Couple of things to check - was 2H the intended bid, or did they intend to pull 3H and pulled out the wrong bid?
If this was an accidental card pull, then correcting to 3H would be allowed.
If they made a mistake (thought it was 1NT open or whatever) and intended to bid 2H for the insufficient bid, then the next player has the right to accept the insufficient bid (to allow a 3-level minor overcall for example).
If the insufficient bid is not accepted then the bid is cancelled and the call can be replaced by any legal call.
If the replacement bid is a comparable call - one that has the same, similar or more specific meaning to something that is attributable to the withdrawn bid, then the auction can continue. Here, perhaps hearts was an intended transfer to spades and so 3H would be allowed as a transfer to S.
Interestingly, in my main partnership, over 1NT, 2H is a transfer to S and a following 3H bid would show 5S-4H and game values. However, over 2NT, 3S shows 5S and 4H and game values.
So, I could correct to either 3H (transfer to S) or 3S showing Spades and the extra information of a 4 card H suit. This is because you can look at the possible meanings to the 2H call - to show 5+ spades and potentially anything from zero points upwards. So, a corrected call of 3H shows 5+ spades and game values, and 3S shows the more specific information of 5S and 4H and game values.
Interesting.
In our obsession with 'comparable calls', we often forget that we can still apply the equivalent of the old laws, which allows (almost without rectification) correcting to the lowest sufficient bid that specifies the same denomination. Does 27B1a apply here? If so, we don't need to worry about whether the calls are comparable. All we need to know is that 2H (over 1NT) & 3H (over 2NT) both specify spades without carrying any information about other suits. It doesn't even matter if, hypothetically, they show different point ranges - though 27D might come into play then.
NB, you couldn't allow a 3S call as a replacement under 27B1a, since it isn't the lowest available sufficient bid that shows spades. (That's not to say you couldn't allow it under 27B1b)
I'm not sure even if that matters. Any thoughts?
"So, I could correct to either 3H (transfer to S) or 3S showing Spades and the extra information of a 4 card H suit. This is because you can look at the possible meanings to the 2H call - to show 5+ spades and potentially anything from zero points upwards. So, a corrected call of 3H shows 5+ spades and game values, and 3S shows the more specific information of 5S and 4H and game values."
Either call would be acceptable IMHO
3H is the lowest call that shows the same denomination.
3S is a subset: "5 spades, 4 hearts and game values" is a subset of "5 spades, 0+ hearts and any point range".
Slightly different laws apply, of course, but the net effect is virtually the same: (No UI, result can be adjusted if NOS damaged if the IB aided the OS).