[pran]

I had a question today and would like some opinions on the understanding of Law 27B1b in a particular situation:

A partnership has the agreements that an opening bid in 2♣ is strong and that partner shall respond 2♦ regardless of what cards he holds (awaiting opener's second bid).

Then it happens that the auction goes: 2♣ - 2♠ - 2♦ (insufficient because of a slight inattention).

Law 27B1b says: if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director’s opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following.

The partnership has no agreement on defences against intervening bids over 2♣, consequently I feel that any legal call (including double and pass) replacing the insufficient 2♦ bid will satisfy the condition that it has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid, and that the auction will continue without any restriction regardless of which legal call the offender substitutes for his insufficient bid. (An evaluation under Law 27D after the play is complete is of course obvious.)

Comments?

[campboy]

Yes, any meaning is more precise than no meaning. In order to fail 27B1b there has to be some information conveyed by the withdrawn call which was not also conveyed by the replacement. But here there was no information conveyed by the withdrawn call at all.

[VixTD]

Yes, this is a well-known example of a sequence where any correction is allowed without restricting partner. The TD might want to make sure that "always responds 2♦ whatever his hand" is really their agreement (they wouldn't show a suit of AKQxxx, for example), but even if they would they might still be able to carry on without penalty.

[pran]

campboy, on 2014-March-11, 07:38, said:

Yes, any meaning is more precise than no meaning. In order to fail 27B1b there has to be some information conveyed by the withdrawn call which was not also conveyed by the replacement. But here there was no information conveyed by the withdrawn call at all.

Sorry, but literally you have got it the wrong way round:

In order to be more precise the replacement Call must not convey any information than what was alreeady conveyed by the withdrawn call.

In other words: No hand must exist with which the player can give the replacement call, and with which he would not also have given the insufficient bid had this been legal.

Example: 2NT (20-21) - pass - 2♣ (insufficient, intended as Stayman).

Now if 2♣ Stayman over 1NT promises 8HCP while 3♣ Stayman over 2NT can be bid with only 4HCP (all other circumstances being equal) then the 3♣ replacement call does not satisfy the Law 27B1b condition of being more precise than the replaced call because it can also show 4-7 HCP which 2♣ does not allow.

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2014-March-11, 09:25, said:

Sorry, but literally you have got it the wrong way round:

In order to be more precise the replacement Call must not convey any information than what was alreeady conveyed by the withdrawn call.

In other words: No hand must exist with which the player can give the replacement call, and with which he would not also have given the insufficient bid had this been legal.

Example: 2NT (20-21) - pass - 2♣ (insufficient, intended as Stayman).

Now if 2♣ Stayman over 1NT promises 8HCP while 3♣ Stayman over 2NT can be bid with only 4HCP (all other circumstances being equal) then the 3♣ replacement call does not satisfy the Law 27B1b condition of being more precise than the replaced call because it can also show 4-7 HCP which 2♣ does not allow.

I think campboy has this right, while your own explanation is very confusing. In fact I think your definition is the one that is back to front.

However, this may not matter, since I suspect we all agree with your "in other words". In the present case, there are no hands which would not have given the insufficient bid had this been legal, so your condition is satisfied for any replacement call.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2014-March-11, 09:25, said:

Sorry, but literally you have got it the wrong way round:

In order to be more precise the replacement Call must not convey any information than what was alreeady conveyed by the withdrawn call.

In other words: No hand must exist with which the player can give the replacement call, and with which he would not also have given the insufficient bid had this been legal.

Example: 2NT (20-21) - pass - 2♣ (insufficient, intended as Stayman).

Now if 2♣ Stayman over 1NT promises 8HCP while 3♣ Stayman over 2NT can be bid with only 4HCP (all other circumstances being equal) then the 3♣ replacement call does not satisfy the Law 27B1b condition of being more precise than the replaced call because it can also show 4-7 HCP which 2♣ does not allow.

Your example is inconsistent with your explanation.

What is important is that partner does not obtain information from knowing about the withdrawn call. Therefore the replacement call can carry additional information that was not in the withdrawn call. If the replacement call has less information than the withdrawn call, then partner has learned something by knowing about the withdrawn call.

An 8+ call is indeed more precise than a 4+ call. The 8+ call contains more information than the 4+ call because it excludes 4-7. That is why, as you correctly say, you can't replace an 8+ call with a 4+ call. (Though if he bid 2C knowing full well that partner opened 2N, and merely got his arithmetic of sufficient bids wrong, then arguably he can replace it without restriction, if you believe him.)

[barmar]

Doesn't this depend on how you define "meaning"? In the 1NT and 2NT auctions, the strength shown by Stayman is "at least enough to invite game opposite opener's known strength". If this is how you interpret it, the meanings of 1NT-2♣ and 2NT-3♣ are essentially the same. The specific point ranges are derived from opener's range.

[pran]

This discussion really confirms what we already know: Law 27B1b is particularly difficult to spell out as intended.

In fact some of you might still remember when the 2007 laws were originally released that Law 27B was pretty soon withdrawn and rewritten with completely new text. The reason was that it literally expressed the quite opposite of what was intended.

The important fact to remember is that the replacement call may exclude some of the hands that could be the object of the insufficient bid but it may not include any hand that would not have been shown with the insufficient bid.

This is also (in some guides) expressed as: The possible meanings of the replacement call must be completely encompassed within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid.

[axman]

iviehoff, on 2014-March-11, 10:06, said:

Your example is inconsistent with your explanation.

What is important is that partner does not obtain information from knowing about the withdrawn call. Therefore the replacement call can carry additional information that was not in the withdrawn call. If the replacement call has less information than the withdrawn call, then partner has learned something by knowing about the withdrawn call.

An 8+ call is indeed more precise than a 4+ call. The 8+ call contains more information than the 4+ call because it excludes 4-7. That is why, as you correctly say, you can't replace an 8+ call with a 4+ call. (Though if he bid 2C knowing full well that partner opened 2N, and merely got his arithmetic of sufficient bids wrong, then arguably he can replace it without restriction, if you believe him.)

Is it possible, say probable, that merely the possession, or at least the utilization of opener’s system infracts law or regulation? After all, our heroes have executed their system as written have they not? And by doing so there is no answer for them doing ANYthing else…..is, there? Which is to say that should the IB be in time rejected, then surely they must satisfy their system and repeat that canceled call.

By now you are getting the drift---naa, not yet. So look at it this way. The principle of appearances states that things tend to be the way they appear. For instance, what is the effect of 2D? Does it not provide bidding room for opener to mention his supposed major at the two level thereby conserving 28 bidding steps rather than the 26 he otherwise might have had available? Thus the meaning of 2D is established as conserving 28 bidding steps. Now, what legal call or calls are available to responder that are more precise than that?