[shevek]

1NT - (no) - 2♣ - (2♦)
2♦

Opener didn't see 2♦.
They play Extended Stayman where 2♦ would show both majors and a minimum. That's what he had.
Is he allowed to get away with 3♦ now (which would ordinarily show both majors and a maximum)? How about an unsystemic 4♦?

[RMB1]

shevek, on 2011-September-11, 09:21, said:

1NT - (no) - 2♣ - (2♦)
2♦

Opener didn't see 2♦.
They play Extended Stayman where 2♦ would show both majors and a minimum. That's what he had.

What happens is that offender convinces the TD that some call (Pass, Double, 2NT?) shows both majors and a minimum over the 2♦ intervention. The offender makes this call, the TD explains that under Law 27B1b, responder is not silenced, and responder now knows that the new call shows the same as (or more precise than) the insufficient bid. The offending side do not need to have a clear agreement about this sequence as long as offender is believed by the TD.

A brave TD will rule that they have no definite agreements for intervention over Extended Stayman, and rule there is no call that meets Law 27B1b, so offender may Pass or make a sufficient bid but responder will be silenced.

[blackshoe]

This TD would ask opener (away from the table) what he might have bid had he seen the 2♦ overcall.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-11, 10:14, said:

This TD would ask opener (away from the table) what he might have bid had he seen the 2♦ overcall.

And if this alternative call can indicate any hand with which the opener would not have bid 2♦ had this bid been legal shall opener's partner be required to pass during the rest of the auction on that board.

[mjj29]

pran, on 2011-September-11, 10:31, said:

And if this alternative call can indicate any hand with which the opener would not have bid 2♦ had this bid been legal shall opener's partner be required to pass during the rest of the auction on that board.

The recent(ish) WBF (or was it EBL?) memo on the subject suggests that we should be a little more lenient than that when judging L27b corrections. I'm not sure whether 'both majors and a maximum' falls under that leniency (I suspect not, but 'both majors and any range' might) - but that seems like the only option which isn't going to silence partner if we do so judge.

Particularly if the player hasn't said anything at the table, allowing a correction to 3♦ will tell the players that the mistake was pulling the wrong card or believing 2♦ was sufficient (don't laugh, I've done it), and meaning to show a maximum rather than missing the 2♦ call and meaning to show a minimum.