Two scenarios
N/S Vul, E/W not.
S opens 2S(weak)
W Dbl
N pass
E 1NT, told Insufficient bid then replaces it with a Pass.
TD called.
TD gives S opportunity to accept IB but does not accept it.
E given opportunity to bid 2NT (sufficient bid of same denomination) or a Comparable bid and explained W would have to pass throughout with any other bid including a Pass.
E elects to Pass (silencing his partner).
S passes.
Final contract 2S Dbl
TD explains to S to call TD back if he feels he has been damaged.
Two Scenarios.
1. 2S Dbl makes 8 tricks. Top for N/S and doesn’t call the TD back.
2. 2S Dbl makes 7 tricks. Btm -200 for N/S and calls TD back as damaged. Law 27D
How should the TD rule. Half the field in 2S by N/S and half the field in 3H E/W.
S opens 2S(weak)
W Dbl
N pass
E 1NT, told Insufficient bid then replaces it with a Pass.
TD called.
TD gives S opportunity to accept IB but does not accept it.
E given opportunity to bid 2NT (sufficient bid of same denomination) or a Comparable bid and explained W would have to pass throughout with any other bid including a Pass.
E elects to Pass (silencing his partner).
S passes.
Final contract 2S Dbl
TD explains to S to call TD back if he feels he has been damaged.
Two Scenarios.
1. 2S Dbl makes 8 tricks. Top for N/S and doesn’t call the TD back.
2. 2S Dbl makes 7 tricks. Btm -200 for N/S and calls TD back as damaged. Law 27D
How should the TD rule. Half the field in 2S by N/S and half the field in 3H E/W.
Comments
1) No damage, no need for any rectification. NS get their top.
2) We could consider that East deliberately silenced his partner but I don't see how this has helped his side or hindered NS. South's pass would effectively silence West, anyway, since the auction would be ended. No further action required by TD and NS get their bottom, unless the director neglected to offer declarer the option of a lead restriction on opening lead. If this is so then we have an instance of director error and a possible cause for an adjustment.
I think Tag is right, but the aspect that seems to have been missed originally is that East made a premature replacement of the Insufficient Bid. That being the case, the only option South has is to either accept the IB or else the correction stands. East should not have been given the option to make a comparable call.
Also thanks Gordon for the clarification of premature replacement of IB being the only option if the IB is not accepted. That’s one thing I’ve learned also.
Law 27C covers the premature replacement. It happens frequently when a player replaces with a sufficient bid in the same denomination, but it is unusual as here to prematurely replace with a Pass!
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Yes, "making the bid good", in the old phrase, tends to be a reflex action for a lot of players, who may not be aware of other options or the consequences they bring, but it would be slightly odd for a player to know that they wanted to replace the IB with a pass without having the options and consequences explained. But bridge players do do odd things. ;)
The premature replacement is often a good opportunity to express to players that they should call the TD when there's a problem, rather than trying to correct it themselves. Partner is now barred from bidding, due to the replacement call, whereas the director could have explained their options to keep partner in the auction.
Good point. The more catastrophic the consequences of premature action without a TD call turn out to be, the more likely they are to call the TD next time something goes wrong. Perhaps.