[Chris3875]

This is a question in a few parts. North opens the bidding 1H, holding 5 hearts and 12HCP. East passes, and South (snoozing) and holding 5 hearts and 13HCP bids 1H, not accepted by West. In their system a bid of 2H by South would show 3+ hearts and 6-9 points, 3H would be 3+ hearts and 10-11 points, and 4H could be a weak preemptive raise OR an opening hand and 3+ hearts. 2NT would show 4+ hearts and an opening hand.
If South elected to change his bid to 2H and North decided to bid on with a pretty basic hand, would you later adjust the score ?
Would you allow a 3H, 4H or 2NT bid by South ?

[steve2005]

South still asleep bidding anything other then 4♥ is a gross underbid, yes you may miss slam but at least youll be in game.

[barmar]

Can't he correct it to 2NT? That shows essentially the same hand that an opening 1♥ shows, except that it could have 1 less heart.

[aguahombre]

 steve2005, on 2014-November-22, 18:53, said:

South still asleep bidding anything other then 4♥ is a gross underbid, yes you may miss slam but at least youll be in game.

Not right. 4H is an either/or raise and the information from the IB + the replacement bid would give extra information to Opener that Responder does not have the preemptive possibility.
L27 does not allow a replacement bid, other than the lowest bid in the same denomination unless the replacement bid carries the same or a more precise meaning.

This scenario seems perfect for merely reading all of Law 27. We then find that 2H is not subject to 16D, and therefore the information from the IB is AI to opener.

Also, in the given case, with Opener having a run-of-the-mill minimum the auction:

1H - 2H (replacement)
4H would not result in any damage adjustable under 27D.

3H, 2N, and 4H should all be disallowed because they are not wholly contained within the IB. In the case of 2NT, the extra information is that Responder has 5+ hearts.

BTW, any sufficient bid is "allowed". But, partner gets barred after 3H, 2N, and 4H.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2014-November-22, 19:32, said:

Can't he correct it to 2NT? That shows essentially the same hand that an opening 1♥ shows, except that it could have 1 less heart.

Right... so since the IB showed a fifth heart, it is disallowed.

[Chris3875]

Surely without the UI that partner has an opening hand and 5+ hearts, North would (should) never bid on to 4H if South corrected their 1H IB to 2H ?

[aguahombre]

 Chris3875, on 2014-November-22, 19:48, said:

Surely without the UI that partner has an opening hand and 5+ hearts, North would (should) never bid on to 4H if South corrected their 1H IB to 2H ?

But, it isn't UI...much as we wish it were in different contexts, knowledge of the fact that the offender wanted to bid 1H instead of 2H is not subject to rectification unless the final result is judged unlikely to be unobtained without the infraction.

[Trinidad]

 aguahombre, on 2014-November-22, 19:34, said:

 steve2005, on 2014-November-22, 18:53, said:

South still asleep bidding anything other then 4♥ is a gross underbid, yes you may miss slam but at least youll be in game.

Not right. 4H is an either/or raise and the information from the IB + the replacement bid would give extra information to Opener that Responder does not have the preemptive possibility.

That is correct, but that doesn't mean that South can't bid 4♥. It just means that his partner will be barred. Any practical player will bid 4♥ and simply hope he didn't miss a slam.

Rik

[pran]

This question has been widely discussed in Law Committees for at least 20 years. The consent, and I believe the correct understanding of Law 27, is that South is allowed to bid 2♥ (Law 27B1]. Thereafter North/South will most likely (in this case) reach 4♥, as North is aware of the opening strength (and 5th heart) in South.

However, the Director is in this case explicitly instructed by Law 27D to investigate if without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged

So if he finds that without the insufficient bid North/South "could well have reached" a less favourable contract he shall adjust the result from the original (irregular) auction.

[aguahombre]

"1H - 2H (replacement)
4H would not result in any damage adjustable under 27D."
(from my first post)

 pran, on 2014-November-23, 02:24, said:

.... the Director is in this case explicitly instructed by Law 27D to investigate if without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged

So if he finds that without the insufficient bid North/South "could well have reached" a less favourable contract he shall adjust the result from the original (irregular) auction.

We are both talking about "this case", yet seem to disagree about the remote possibility of damage and a Law 27D adjustment.

Opener has a routine 12-count with 5 hearts, and Responder has a 13-count with five hearts. I don't see a result in 4 hearts being adjusted in this case. Without the infraction anyone on this planet could reach that contract.

[pran]

 pran, on 2014-November-23, 02:24, said:

This question has been widely discussed in Law Committees for at least 20 years. The consent, and I believe the correct understanding of Law 27, is that South is allowed to bid 2♥ (Law 27B1]. Thereafter North/South will most likely (in this case) reach 4♥, as North is aware of the opening strength (and 5th heart) in South.

However, the Director is in this case explicitly instructed by Law 27D to investigate if without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged

So if he finds that without the insufficient bid North/South "could well have reached" a less favourable contract he shall adjust the result from the original (irregular) auction.

 aguahombre, on 2014-November-23, 06:04, said:

"1H - 2H (replacement)
4H would not result in any damage adjustable under 27D."
(from my first post)


We are both talking about "this case", yet seem to disagree about the remote possibility of damage and a Law 27D adjustment.

Opener has a routine 12-count with 5 hearts, and Responder has a 13-count with five hearts. I don't see a result in 4 hearts being adjusted in this case. Without the infraction anyone on this planet could reach that contract.

Sure I said, and I indeed meant that the Director must investigate. I also said that if he finds ... , but I didn't indicate that he would find.

In fact I cannot see how he could find that the IB assisted in reaching 4♥ here, but he must still investigate.

So do we really disagree?

[aguahombre]

 pran, on 2014-November-23, 06:38, said:

Sure I said, and I indeed meant that the Director must investigate. I also said that if he finds ... , but I didn't indicate that he would find.

In fact I cannot see how he could find that the IB assisted in reaching 4♥ here, but he must still investigate.

So do we really disagree?

Maybe. If there is any question, the "investigation" would be to determine whether this partnership had the tools to arrive in 4H with a ten-card fit and 25 Highs between them. I don't think I would launch that investigation

Perhaps we just disagree on what constitutes an investigation or what requires one.

[weejonnie]

The insufficient bid shows, presumably 4+ hearts and an opening hand.

2 Hearts is allowable providing it is natural - no UI but as stated possibility of a score adjustment if the offence hadn't occurred. if the infraction hadn't occurred then it is probable that 4 hearts would have been reached by 1H : 2NT: 3H: 4H.

3 Hearts is not allowable since there are some hands where you would bid 3 hearts but not open 1 heart.
4 hearts is not allowable since there are some hands where you would bid 4 hearts but not open 1 heart.
2NT is allowable if you play 4-card majors since the definition matches both bids (4+ hearts and an opening hand) - but not if you play 5-card majors as then there are times where you would bid 2NT when you would not bid 1 heart.

(allowable = may be bid without barring opener from rebidding. All bids are allowed in that they are legal.)

[Trinidad]

Well, for one thing, effectively this pair now has 2♥ as a GF heart raise with 5+ card support. Nobody else in the field has this very useful convention available.

I could easily imagine that some pairs would end up in 5♥ after a Jacoby 2NT auction and that this pair can envision duplicated values in the side suits. So, I could see ruling (a portion of) 5♥-1.

Rik

[aguahombre]

 Trinidad, on 2014-November-23, 12:25, said:

Well, for one thing, effectively this pair now has 2♥ as a GF heart raise with 5+ card support. Nobody else in the field has this very useful convention available.

I could easily imagine that some pairs would end up in 5♥ after a Jacoby 2NT auction and that this pair can envision duplicated values in the side suits. So, I could see ruling (a portion of) 5♥-1.

Rik

That might be a valid point on some other board. But, on the given one you would be giving some portion of a score for both of the people being idiots. Glad we don't have weighting here.

[blackshoe]

I am not even going to consider adjusting the score without seeing all four hands.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-23, 15:10, said:

I am not even going to consider adjusting the score without seeing all four hands.

Of course not.
But the investigation (required by Law 27D) can be done in many ways.
If for instance you find that at every table in the room they reached the 4♥ contract you can pretty well assume right away that the IB had no influence.

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2014-November-23, 07:44, said:

Maybe. If there is any question, the "investigation" would be to determine whether this partnership had the tools to arrive in 4H with a ten-card fit and 25 Highs between them. I don't think I would launch that investigation

They may well not have the tools, depending on opener's hand, to get to game after a 1♥ - 2♥ start. The fact that they might get there after some other auction is irrelevant.

 pran, on 2014-November-23, 15:19, said:

Of course not.
But the investigation (required by Law 27D) can be done in many ways.
If for instance you find that at every table in the room they reached the 4♥ contract you can pretty well assume right away that the IB had no influence.

No. See above.

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2014-November-23, 17:36, said:

They may well not have the tools, depending on opener's hand, to get to game after a 1♥ - 2♥ start. The fact that they might get there after some other auction is irrelevant.


No. See above.

We don't care if they would have gotten to game with a 1H-2H start. Of course they would lounge in 2H. We only care if Responder had a way of showing G.F. values and heart support, after which Opener would have subsided in 4H with his minimum and Responder presumably would not be a moron with his mere 5-3-3-2 13 count.

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2014-November-23, 17:47, said:

We don't care if they would have gotten to game with a 1H-2H start. Of course they would lounge in 2H. We only care if Responder had a way of showing G.F. values and heart support, after which Opener would have subsided in 4H with his minimum and Responder presumably would not be a moron with his mere 5-3-3-2 13 count.

This depends. If that way was, say, by bidding 2NT, responder would be declarer in that contract.

The pair aren't trying to get to the right contract after taking their cards out of the bidding box; they are trying to get to the right contract now. This is harder.