[dickiegera]

East opens 1NT [10-12pts] South doubles West passes and North bids 1♥.
West says bid is insufficent and East calls for director. North changes bid to 2♥ before director arrives and South now says Transfer.

Now what?

What happened was that dealer was told he could accept the 1♥ and bidding continues.
Dealer declines and now North passes. Director says that 1♥ is natural and 2♥ is conventional and therefore the 2 bids have different meanings.

I was dealer and in my best interests should have accepted the 1♥ bid but I didn't.
Thinking later I am thinking that North should be stuck with 2♥ bid since North bid this before director arrived.

The 2♥ was natural and the double of 1NT was made with in Souths words"a 1NT hand " 12pts. South cc says nothing about 1NT overcalls.

Was this correct?

[campboy]

Firstly law 27C says that when South makes a premature replacement, as here, West still has the option to accept the original bid. If he doesn't then South's correction to 2♥ stands and whether North is silenced or not depends on the meaning of 1♥ and 2♥.

Obviously 1♥, being insufficient, doesn't have a defined meaning. The meaning of 1♥, then, is whatever South thought it was when he bid it, and this will likely depend on whether South made an insufficient bid because he thought the auction was different or because he simply got confused about what level he needed to bid at. The TD needs to take South away from the table and find this out.

[blackshoe]

If East was dealer, somebody should have called the TD when North doubled out of turn.

If you use the bidding diagram (last icon on the line that starts with B I above the edit box for your post), it should be easier to see these problems.

Vulnerability unknown. 1H changed to 2H after TD called, but before he arrived.

---

Is this what actually happened?

Assuming it is, we start with
Law 18D: "A bid that fails to supercede the previous bid is insufficient". An insufficient bid is an irregularity, so that leads us to
Law 9A1: "Unless prohibited by law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call." West (?) did so, and now
Law 9B1{a}: "The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." This was done, so
Law 9B2: "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification." So when North (?) corrected his IB, he committed a second infraction. Law 9C may apply.
Law 9C: "Any premature correction of an irregularity by the offender may subject him to a further rectification (see the lead restrictions in Law 26)." Now the director arrives. There has been an IB, so he applies
Law 27C: "If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A above allows, the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution."
Law 27A1: "Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender’s LHO. It is accepted if that player calls." East did not accept it, so we go to
Law 27B: "If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A above), it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (but see B3 below). Then:" At this point the TD should examine the NS methods to determine their agreements as to the meanings of 1♥ and 2♥ (and possibly other calls). This will involve looking at the system cards of both players (not just South North), and probably taking North away from the table and asking questions. He may then allow or disallow the change to 2♥ (here he disallowed it, correctly IMO). In effect, the TD has determined that Law 27B1, which would allow the substitution of 2♥ without further rectification, does not apply. Instead, he applies
Law 27B2: "Except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23." North's pass is made under this Law. North's 2♥ bid stands, and South is required to pass throughout the auction. This will probably result in a 2♥ contract by North.

Now the auction proceeds normally from this point, except that South is required to pass for the rest of the auction. If East passes, NS become defenders, and Law 26, regarding lead restrictions, will apply. In addition, the TD may apply Law 23, and from that Law 12, awarding EW an adjusted score if he deems NS gained from their irregularities.

It is not the case, then, that "South North should be stuck with 2♥".

Questions:

• What is the NS agreement regarding whether NT systems are on after a double like this?
  
• What is the NS agreement regarding the strength range of an opening 1NT bid?
  
• What is the NS agreement regarding the strength range of the double?

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2012-September-10, 13:48
Reason for edit: Strike out my original errors and provide correct information. See post #9 below.

[kevperk]

Blackshoe, the law quoted said offender's partner must pass. The ruling made at the table and condoned by you had the offender passing. I believe the correction to 2 hearts must stand, and partner is barred.

[dickiegera]

Thank you for fixing the North/South I did have them reversed.

North/South had no stated agreements. I should have accepted the 1♥ as North had a 4 card suit and the bid was natural. I was down 2 doubled -300, might have played it better. I didn't accept the 1♥ because I wished to find out if the 2♥ was natural or a transfer. North was smart to pass.

I do believe that North had UI and may have acted on South "transfer"
Directer said that is the price we pay for playing 10-12 NT

Thank you

[blackshoe]

kevperk, on 2012-September-09, 19:35, said:

Blackshoe, the law quoted said offender's partner must pass. The ruling made at the table and condoned by you had the offender passing. I believe the correction to 2 hearts must stand, and partner is barred.

I quoted Law 27C above. Read the last sentence. Paraphrasing, the Director applies the relevant section of 27B to the substituted call (2♥ in this case). North was the offender. He chose to replace his 2♥ substitution with a pass. That's his prerogative. South must pass throughout, so if East passes, that ends the auction.

I think what you're suggesting is that the final contract at the table will probably be 2♥ by North. No. If 2♥ had been deemed legal under 27B1{a} or 27B1{b}, then yes, but it wasn't, so no.

[Pedant]"Barred" is poor and incorrect terminology, as it literally means the player cannot call at all. If it's meant as "barred from making a bid", then it's not exclusive enough, as it does not exclude doubling or redoubling, which are not bids. I would strongly discommend use of the term "barred".[/pedant]

[blackshoe]

dickiegera, on 2012-September-10, 06:47, said:

Thank you for fixing the North/South I did have them reversed.

North/South had no stated agreements. I should have accepted the 1♥ as North had a 4 card suit and the bid was natural. I was down 2 doubled -300, might have played it better. I didn't accept the 1♥ because I wished to find out if the 2♥ was natural or a transfer. North was smart to pass.

I do believe that North had UI and may have acted on South "transfer"
Directer said that is the price we pay for playing 10-12 NT

Thank you

"No stated agreements" is an underbid. South stated that 2♥ was a transfer. Do you mean there was no corroborating evidence, for example on the system card? What did South say was their agreement? Statements from the OS, even self-serving ones, are evidence.

That North had UI does not mean you get an automatic score adjustment. As to whether his choice of call (pass) may have been influenced by UI, how do you think it was? What better (for you) logical alternative do you think he had? Note that we cannot judge that question without seeing the hands. I'm just trying to get you to think a little bit like a director.

The Director's comment is probably a nonsense. Did he consider Law 23 before he made it?

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-10, 10:07, said:

I quoted Law 27C above. Read the last sentence. Paraphrasing, the Director applies the relevant section of 27B to the substituted call (2♥ in this case). North was the offender. He chose to replace his 2♥ substitution with a pass. That's his prerogative. South must pass throughout, so if East passes, that ends the auction.

That's not right. Per 27C the substitution stands, so he cannot replace 2♥ with pass or anything else. The TD applies 27B to 2♥, that is to say he decides which of 27B1a, 27B1b and 27B2 applies to a 2♥ substitution.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2012-September-10, 11:28, said:

That's not right. Per 27C the substitution stands, so he cannot replace 2♥ with pass or anything else. The TD applies 27B to 2♥, that is to say he decides which of 27B1a, 27B1b and 27B2 applies to a 2♥ substitution.

Argh! My apologies to the group. Campboy is absolutely right. 2♥ is a legal substitition under Law 27B2, South must pass throughout, and assuming EW both pass, the contract is 2♥ by South. So the director's table ruling was wrong – he should not have allowed South to change 2♥ to pass.

Excuse me, I need to go study the law book some more.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-10, 10:07, said:

[Pedant]"Barred" is poor and incorrect terminology, as it literally means the player cannot call at all. If it's meant as "barred from making a bid", then it's not exclusive enough, as it does not exclude doubling or redoubling, which are not bids. I would strongly discommend use of the term "barred".[/pedant]

There's no such thing as not being able to call at all (unless we're not in the auction period), so why would there be a word that literally means this? "Barred" is generally used to refer to situations where the player must pass.

The dictionary definition of "bar" is "prohibit (someone) from doing something". The specific "something" is not part of the literal meaning; if it's not specified explicitly, it's context-dependent. In our case, everyone understands it to mean "making any call other than pass".

The Bridge World glossary defines "bar" as "action that (by partnership agreement) demands that partner pass." The context of this definition is presumably what are called "bar bids". But it's easy to see how it generalizes to the case where requirement comes from application of laws rather than partnership agreement, and this is how most players understand it.

[blackshoe]

If I accept that "barred" means "prohibited from doing something", with the "something" undefined, I still have a problem with this nebulous "something". Barred from what? Bidding? Then he can double or redouble. Calling? Then he can't pass (yes, this is ridiculous, but people say ridiculous things quite often). If you mean "the player must pass" why not just say that?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-10, 18:19, said:

If I accept that "barred" means "prohibited from doing something", with the "something" undefined, I still have a problem with this nebulous "something". Barred from what? Bidding? Then he can double or redouble. Calling? Then he can't pass (yes, this is ridiculous, but people say ridiculous things quite often).

I already answered that. In the context of bridge bidding, it means making any call other than "pass". That's how everyone (except you, apparently) uses the term.

Quote

If you mean "the player must pass" why not just say that?

We often do. Is there something wrong with having multiple ways of expressing the same thing? We could say "fail to follow suit when able", but we usually say "revoke" (and some older players say "renege").

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-10, 18:19, said:

If I accept that "barred" means "prohibited from doing something", with the "something" undefined, I still have a problem with this nebulous "something". Barred from what? Bidding? Then he can double or redouble. Calling? Then he can't pass (yes, this is ridiculous, but people say ridiculous things quite often). If you mean "the player must pass" why not just say that?

barmar, on 2012-September-12, 10:55, said:

I already answered that. In the context of bridge bidding, it means making any call other than "pass". That's how everyone (except you, apparently) uses the term.

We often do. Is there something wrong with having multiple ways of expressing the same thing? We could say "fail to follow suit when able", but we usually say "revoke" (and some older players say "renege").

I believe barmar is quite correct. Bridge players often use slang terms. Where they are ambiguous, they do not help, but ones in common use understood by "everyone" do no harm. A player is barred means he has to pass.