Restoring Equity after Insufficient Bid Replacement with otherwise unreachable contract

I'm revising prior to directing the County Championship Teams on Sunday and struggling with something

East is Dealer and opens 1S
Auction goes 1S - Pass - 2C - 1NT (Insufficient - North had not seen West's 2C Bid)

1NT is not accepted and North replaces it with 2NT which is the UNT in their system, so is not comparable and silences South.
2NT makes exactly for a Top to N/S that they could not have reached without South's forced Pass due to the rectification of the infraction as 2NT without the INT IB would be Forcing.

My instinct tells me this is not 'rub of the green' as I tend to think of those situations as ones where a player could have overbid and reached a lucky contract even without the infraction (e.g. 1S not available so I'll bid 2S even though it's an overbid then partner who has to treat 2S at face value does so and it makes against the odds)

Law 23C doesn't seem to apply as there has been no 'substitution of a Comparable Call'
Law 27D doesn't seem to apply as it limits itself to 27B1 (substitution of an IB by lowest available bid in same denomination or by a comparable call).
The 2NT replacement is artificial and would show Diamonds and Hearts in this sequence and not No Trumps

Can I / Should I use Law 12A to as near as possible "redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away
any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction." (12B1)?

Thanks in advance for help

Peter Bushby Suffolk

Comments

  • I think the only redress is the "could have known" in Law 73C but that's a bit of a stretch.

  • When making his replacement bid North is perfectly entitled to make a bid that takes into account the fact that his partner must pass. The usual bid is these circumstances is 3NT, but anything that seems like the best contract will do.

    Rather than being rub of the green, perhaps North should be applauded for making a good deduction as to the best contract.

    This does raise an interesting question about non-comparable conventional bids.

    If a player knows his partner must pass. they can (as here) make a conventional bid that must essentially be taken as natural. There's an argument that says their system has been modified in the light of the non-comparable bid.
    Suppose partner later gets a chance to bid because opponents keep the bidding open. Should they take the non-comparable bid as its conventional meaning or a natural one?

  • @JeremyChild said:
    When making his replacement bid North is perfectly entitled to make a bid that takes into account the fact that his partner must pass. The usual bid is these circumstances is 3NT, but anything that seems like the best contract will do.

    Rather than being rub of the green, perhaps North should be applauded for making a good deduction as to the best contract.

    This does raise an interesting question about non-comparable conventional bids.

    If a player knows his partner must pass. they can (as here) make a conventional bid that must essentially be taken as natural. There's an argument that says their system has been modified in the light of the non-comparable bid.
    Suppose partner later gets a chance to bid because opponents keep the bidding open. Should they take the non-comparable bid as its conventional meaning or a natural one?

    Partner will not get a chance to bid because he has to pass whenever it is his turn to call.

  • @JeremyChild said:
    When making his replacement bid North is perfectly entitled to make a bid that takes into account the fact that his partner must pass. The usual bid is these circumstances is 3NT, but anything that seems like the best contract will do.

    Rather than being rub of the green, perhaps North should be applauded for making a good deduction as to the best contract.

    This does raise an interesting question about non-comparable conventional bids.

    If a player knows his partner must pass. they can (as here) make a conventional bid that must essentially be taken as natural. There's an argument that says their system has been modified in the light of the non-comparable bid.
    Suppose partner later gets a chance to bid because opponents keep the bidding open. Should they take the non-comparable bid as its conventional meaning or a natural one?

    It is general bridge knowledge that a call made by a player whose partner must pass is natural even if it would not otherwise be.

  • @Tag said:
    I think the only redress is the "could have known" in Law 73C but that's a bit of a stretch.

    I don't think it's much of a stretch to use 72C (which is what I assume you meant) as directed by 27B2. If you tried to think of a way of being able to play in NT at the lowest level, this would be it.

  • @Vlad said:

    If a player knows his partner must pass. they can (as here) make a conventional bid that must essentially be taken as natural. There's an argument that says their system has been modified in the light of the non-comparable bid.
    Suppose partner later gets a chance to bid because opponents keep the bidding open. Should they take the non-comparable bid as its conventional meaning or a natural one?

    Partner will not get a chance to bid because he has to pass whenever it is his turn to call.

    I was thinking about after a call out of turn, but I didn't make that clear.

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    It is general bridge knowledge that a call made by a player whose partner must pass is natural even if it would not otherwise be.

    Logical, certainly. even "obvious on reflection" but common bridge knowledge? I doubt even 10% of the players at my club would know this.

  • @gordonrainsford said:

    @Tag said:
    I think the only redress is the "could have known" in Law 73C but that's a bit of a stretch.

    I don't think it's much of a stretch to use 72C (which is what I assume you meant) as directed by 27B2. If you tried to think of a way of being able to play in NT at the lowest level, this would be it.

    @Tag said:
    I think the only redress is the "could have known" in Law 73C but that's a bit of a stretch.

    Yes, 72C. Thank you, Gordon

  • If it is 'general bridge knowledge ' that a call made by a player whose partner must pass is natural - and thereby shows the same denominations - can we simply apply 27B1a and hence get to 27D?

  • @weejonnie said:
    If it is 'general bridge knowledge ' that a call made by a player whose partner must pass is natural - and thereby shows the same denominations - can we simply apply 27B1a and hence get to 27D?

    I detect a bit of sophistry there, John!

  • In 2017, the old Law 23 was moved to 72C to make way for the Comparable Calls Law, but before 2007, Law 23 was actually titled "Damaging enforced pass" and it specifically dealt with the situation in the OP. In 2007, Law 23 was made more general but the intent was clearly to include a damaging enforced pass..

    Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live

  • Thanks all.... very interesting and very helpful

    Peter Bushby Suffolk

  • @gordonrainsford said:

    @weejonnie said:
    If it is 'general bridge knowledge ' that a call made by a player whose partner must pass is natural - and thereby shows the same denominations - can we simply apply 27B1a and hence get to 27D?

    I detect a bit of sophistry there, John!

    Not really, the law by inference allows members of a partnership to change the meanings of calls based on their OWN iregularities. Isn't that exactly what happens here?

  • @weejonnie said:

    @gordonrainsford said:

    @weejonnie said:
    If it is 'general bridge knowledge ' that a call made by a player whose partner must pass is natural - and thereby shows the same denominations - can we simply apply 27B1a and hence get to 27D?

    I detect a bit of sophistry there, John!

    Not really, the law by inference allows members of a partnership to change the meanings of calls based on their OWN iregularities. Isn't that exactly what happens here?

    It couldn't be said to be natural until L27B2 has been applied. You can't then go and apply L27B1a after that!

  • The more common application of this law is to disallow auctions such as

    3H P 4H 3NT corrected to 4NT enforcing a pass

  • Forgive my ignorance but according to L27B1/2, if the 2NT is accepted then the offender's partner may make a bid, so why is everyone saying that their partner must pass?

  • What is under discussion is when 2NT has not been accepted and is not deemed permissible under L27B1.

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    What is under discussion is when 2NT has not been accepted and is not deemed permissible under L27B1.

    Just to clarify, it is the 1NT that has not been accepted, and the 2NT that is the (non-comparable) replacement call.

  • @JeremyChild said:

    @gordonrainsford said:
    What is under discussion is when 2NT has not been accepted and is not deemed permissible under L27B1.

    Just to clarify, it is the 1NT that has not been accepted, and the 2NT that is the (non-comparable) replacement call.

    Yes, this discussion has wandered too far for me to keep track of it properly!

  • .... according to L27B1/2, if the 2NT is accepted then the offender's partner may make a bid, so why is everyone saying that their partner must pass?

    Law 27B1 starts: "if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same demonination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call, the auction proceeds without further rectification."

    It may appear that the insufficient 1NT can be replaced with a sufficient 2NT and we can carry on happily. After all, the offender has "made the bid good".

    But there are two important words here. "Denomination" is defined in the Definitions as "the suit or No Trump specified in a bid". There isn't a definition of "Specified" in the Definitions but if you look at Law 29C, you'll see the distinction between a denomination named and a denomination specified.

    So back to the Opening Post, the insufficient 1NT specified NT, but the replaced 2NT specified hearts and diamonds, so the replacement call was not the lowest sufficient bid that specified the same denomination, nor was it a Comparable Call, and that is why the offender's partner was required to pass for the remainder of the auction.

    The lowest sufficient bid that would have specified the same denomination would almost certainly have been 3NT

    Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live

  • @weejonnie said:
    Not really, the law by inference allows members of a partnership to change the meanings of calls based on their OWN iregularities. Isn't that exactly what happens here?

    Assuming this to be true, is there anything to stop a system that states that any replacement bids of an insufficient bid are deemed to be identical in meaning to the insufficient bid (with some sort of rule to be unambiguous about the meaning of the insufficient bid).

    So after Opposition's 1NT, if I bid 1C because haven't noticed the 1NT, then the replacement 2C means a hand that can open 1C, rather than (say) the majors. In this way 27B1a would always be satisfied.

  • @JeremyChild said:

    @weejonnie said:
    Not really, the law by inference allows members of a partnership to change the meanings of calls based on their OWN iregularities. Isn't that exactly what happens here?

    Assuming this to be true, is there anything to stop a system that states that any replacement bids of an insufficient bid are deemed to be identical in meaning to the insufficient bid (with some sort of rule to be unambiguous about the meaning of the insufficient bid).#

    What stops it is that the premise is not true.

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    What stops it is that the premise is not true.

    That'll do it.

  • Going back to the original question, the WBF Commentary on the 2017 Laws appears to me to say that Law 27D does, or at least could, apply in this situation -s that right?. I do find their statement that there should be rectification (assuming damage) if an IB enables a partnership to reach a contract which could not be reached otherwise rather unreasoned.

  • @JohnD said:
    Going back to the original question, the WBF Commentary on the 2017 Laws appears to me to say that Law 27D does, or at least could, apply in this situation -s that right?. I do find their statement that there should be rectification (assuming damage) if an IB enables a partnership to reach a contract which could not be reached otherwise rather unreasoned.

    L27D only applies after L27B1 has been applied, which is not the case here. If you think there should be an adjustment in this case, it would be via L72C.

Sign In or Register to comment.