[Sjoerds]

---

At this point East calls 1♥. When I arrive even before I could ask East to follow me away from the table, east tells me that he didn't saw the 1NT.
You take east with you away from the table and he tells you that 1♥ was T-walsh for ♠. Normally he would dbl now he tells me, but I decided that dbl is not allowed now. After you explained the consequences he tells you he will pass if 1♥ is not accepted.
Back at the table you give south the opportunity to accept 1♥ but what do you tell NS?
A if you don't accept west has to pass whenever it is his turn to call.
B and do you explain the meaning of 1♥?
C which lead restrictions do you use?

Same questions but this time East didn't tell anything at the table about the reason for his insufficient call.

[WellSpyder]

At the point where you are offering South the opportunity to accept 1♥, I don't think you need to say anything about what will happen if he doesn't.

[pran]

WellSpyder, on 2013-March-04, 03:42, said:

At the point where you are offering South the opportunity to accept 1♥, I don't think you need to say anything about what will happen if he doesn't.

But you must!!!

Law 9B2 said:

No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

[Zelandakh]

WellSpyder, on 2013-March-04, 03:42, said:

At the point where you are offering South the opportunity to accept 1♥, I don't think you need to say anything about what will happen if he doesn't.

And I think you do. How can you expect South to make an informed decision without knowing the consequences of each action? Given that East has stated that 1♥ was meant in the auction 1♣ - P, I think South is also entitled to know what this call would mean (ie that it shows spades).

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2013-March-04, 04:38, said:

And I think you do. How can you expect South to make an informed decision without knowing the consequences of each action? Given that East has stated that 1♥ was meant in the auction 1♣ - P, I think South is also entitled to know what this call would mean (ie that it shows spades).

South is certainly entitled to an explanation of the 1♥ bid (i.e. the relevant partnership understanding) but not for instance the information that it was a misbid.

[mink]

WellSpyder, on 2013-March-04, 03:42, said:

At the point where you are offering South the opportunity to accept 1♥, I don't think you need to say anything about what will happen if he doesn't.

This is not correct. When after an infraction you offer the opportunity to accept a call or a card played, the player should know all consequences of his decision as defined in the law. I would say something like this:

"After you have heard all my explanations I shall ask you if you accept the 1♥ call. If you accept, the auction continues and you may bid anything above 1♥, including 1♠ and 1nt, or pass or double, and no lead restrictions apply after the auction. If you do not accept, the 1♥ bid is canceled and must be replaced by any legal bid or pass, but not by a double. West must pass for the rest of the auction, and lead restrictions may apply. But there are 2 exceptions to the forced passes: 1.: 1♥ is replaced by 2♥ and both bids are not artificial. 2.: If 1♥ is artificial and the replacement bid has the same or a more precise meaning, West also is not forced to pass. Now, do you accept the 1♥ bid or shall it be canceled?"

Of course, the player can now ask about opps' system and find out that 1♥ is artificial, or, not totally unlikely in the given situation, get a misinformation from West. The director of course must not correct the misinformation. If finally the 1♥ bid is canceled, and a replacement call is executed, the director must communicate his decision whether West must pass or may bid for the rest of the auction, and that the non-offending side may request an adjustment if they feel damaged after the board will have been played.

If 1♥ is cancelled, the lead restriction is of course based on ♠, unless ♠ is specified by East later in the auction.

Karl

[WellSpyder]

WellSpyder, on 2013-March-04, 03:42, said:

At the point where you are offering South the opportunity to accept 1♥, I don't think you need to say anything about what will happen if he doesn't.

Thanks for putting me right on this, everyone. My own experience of IBs has been that the TD has said words to the effect of: "The first point is that [you] have the opportunity to accept the IB. Would you like to do so? No? In that case, ...." But what you are all saying sounds convincing to me.

[mycroft]

I know, we usually cheat. This is one of the cases we shouldn't.

"If you accept 1♥ we continue on as if it were legal. If you don't, it will be replaced with a legal call. If it shows the same or more specific hands as the possibly artificial 1♥ call, the auction will continue normally; otherwise opener will have to pass throughout the auction. Would you like to accept the call?" (and hope he'll work out that I added "possibly artificial" as a cue for him to ask what 1♣-p-1♥ would show. I don't think I am allowed to tell South what the bid *did* show, or what auction East thought she was bidding into; but East told the latter, and South can ask the former).

If it is refused, East passes, and N/S are on play, then yes there are lead restrictions, and they are for spades (the suit shown by the replaced call). At this point, if not before, declarer will probably ask :-).

[Fluffy]

But south is entitled to know EW agreements, including:

1♣-pass-1♥ = transfer
1♣-1NT-2♥ = natural (in case this is natural)

If East had real hearts he would be allowed to change to 2♥ without penalty? it is hard to tell if 1♥ is artificial given that it is forbidden to have agreements about insufficent bids.

Should south know before accepting if 1♥ was intended as natural or not?

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2013-March-04, 11:52, said:

If East had real hearts he would be allowed to change to 2♥ without penalty?

I should have thought he would be allowed to change to 2♠ only, but...

Quote

it is hard to tell if 1♥ is artificial given that it is forbidden to have agreements about insufficent bids.

Yes, this is the part of the law that is really awkward. How any ruling can be based on the "meaning" of 1♣-1NT-1♥ is beyond me.

Quote

Should south know before accepting if 1♥ was intended as natural or not?

There is nothing in the law that indicates that he should. Nor does the law indicate that South should be told whether or not a penalty-free correction exists, and I feel very strongly that he should be.

[campboy]

Personally I think the interests of fairness would be best served if South were entitled to know whether a penalty-free correction exists, but not entitled to know what East thought he was doing. It is unfortunate that 27B1b makes these objectives mutually exclusive. As the law stands I do not think he is entitled to either piece of information unless it is one of those cases where a penalty-free correction either obviously exists or obviously doesn't.

In the present case my first reaction was also that 2♠ would not silence partner. Perhaps that is not the case if they play weak jump shifts, though.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2013-March-04, 12:15, said:

Personally I think the interests of fairness would be best served if South were entitled to know whether a penalty-free correction exists, but not entitled to know what East thought he was doing.

Yes, this is what seems fair and right.

Quote

In the present case my first reaction was also that 2♠ would not silence partner. Perhaps that is not the case if they play weak jump shifts, though.

I don't see how this would matter, since of course 2♠ would not be a jump in the legal auction.

[campboy]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-04, 15:19, said:

I don't see how this would matter, since of course 2♠ would not be a jump in the legal auction.

We allow a 2♠ correction without silencing partner if all hands which bid 2♠ with the 1NT overcall would have responded 1♥ without it, but if they play weak jump shifts I imagine some such hands would bid 1♣ (pass) 2♠ instead.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2013-March-04, 16:04, said:

We allow a 2♠ correction without silencing partner if all hands which bid 2♠ with the 1NT overcall would have responded 1♥ without it, but if they play weak jump shifts I imagine some such hands would bid 1♣ (pass) 2♠ instead.

The law is silent on what the auction might have been without the IB.

[campboy]

I think you misunderstood what I meant. The point is that, assuming East thought he was responding 1♥ in an uncontested auction and that they play weak jump shifts in an uncontested auction, the IB shows that he is not suitable for a weak jump shift. The replacement call does not show this.

[gordontd]

Fluffy, on 2013-March-04, 11:52, said:

it is hard to tell if 1♥ is artificial given that it is forbidden to have agreements about insufficent bids.

It's not hard to tell in this instance because East has told the whole table he didn't see the 1NT bid. So NS simply have to ask what 1♣ - P - 1♥ would mean.

[Fluffy]

Oh I missread the OP, though East told that away from the table.

[aguahombre]

campboy, on 2013-March-05, 04:09, said:

I think you (Vampyr) misunderstood what I meant. The point is that, assuming East thought he was responding 1♥ in an uncontested auction and that they play weak jump shifts in an uncontested auction, the IB shows that he is not suitable for a weak jump shift. The replacement call does not show this.

Well, I thought your point was clear and valid. If 2♠ over the NT overcall could have included some hands slightly too weak to respond with the 1♥ transfer, then the combination of the IB and the 2♠ replacement gives Opener more information than the 2♠ bid itself gave ---and would not be allowed without barring Opener.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2013-March-05, 04:09, said:

I think you misunderstood what I meant. The point is that, assuming East thought he was responding 1♥ in an uncontested auction and that they play weak jump shifts in an uncontested auction, the IB shows that he is not suitable for a weak jump shift. The replacement call does not show this.

Yes, I see now. I had been thinking that a WJS hand might also always make a replacement call of 2♠; my thinking was a bit backwards.

[FrancesHinden]

gordontd, on 2013-March-05, 04:55, said:

It's not hard to tell in this instance because East has told the whole table he didn't see the 1NT bid. So NS simply have to ask what 1♣ - P - 1♥ would mean.

They can ask, but why is East obliged to answer?

EW have to answer questions about what their bids mean, and what possible alternative bids would have meant. They don't have to answer questions about what bids in a totally different auction which could not have happened at the table would have meant.

There was a WBF minute on this, when the WBF said that after an auction including.... 4NT P 5D..., where 4NT was systemically natural but 5D was some form of blackwood response, that they didn't have to explain what 5D meant, because 4NT wasn't blackwood.

[I understand why the WBF came to this conclusion, but I don't agree with it, so don't moan at me... however I think it's the official interpretation of the Law so we are stuck with it]