[BudH]

I am including this in "Simple Rulings" because I think this is easy enough to be included here. It involves a ruling made at my club I was told about in the last few days.

1NT-(1♣)-?

After dealer opens 1NT, his LHO does not notice and opens 1♣ (natural, Standard American). The 1♣ bid is not accepted and his side plays Cappelletti/Hamilton/Pottage where 2♣ is artificial showing an unknown 1-suiter. Partner usually would bid 2♦ artificial (if able) as "pass or correct".

Before the most recent law change, with 2♣ being artificial, offender's partner would clearly be required to pass the rest of the auction.

With the 2008 law changes in place we have to consider the new Law 27B(1)b:

if ... 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 ....”

In my opinion, the SINGLE bid (artificial 2♣) by itself needs to define the hand at least as much as the insufficient 1♣ bid to avoid barring partner for the rest of the auction. Unfortunately, it will take TWO bids (the artificial 2♣ bid and a later club bid) to show a club suit.

Therefore, I would require offender's partner to pass the rest of the auction and require offender to pass (double not allowed) or make a sufficient bid over 1NT.

Also, if offender could show me that 1NT-(3♣) is played as constructive with a long club suit and a hand worth an opening bid, I could allow a 3♣ bid and not bar his partner because that bid would define the hand at least as much as a 1♣ opening bid. But if 1NT-(3♣) is a weak bid (which is the case for many or most players), that would not prevent barring partner.

Does this make sense?

[mgoetze]

Yes, it should be completely obvious that 2♣ does not have the same or a more specific meaning than a 1♣ overcall. And yes, you should consider allowing 3♣ ... I have no idea what "most players" play that as because I consider Capp a braindead method in the first place.

[crazy4hoop]

I'm not sure about allowing 3♣. The 1♣ opener could likely be as few as 3 while the 3♣ overcall I would think tends to show 6+. So while it may define the hand in terms of opening strength it shows more clubs than a 1♣ opener potentially would.

[manudude03]

The only issue with allowing a 3♣ bid is if you play it as showing a weak hand. The fact that it shows 6+♣ isn't an issue since 6+ is a subset of 3+.

[BudH]

crazy4hoop, on 2015-December-06, 11:23, said:

I'm not sure about allowing 3♣. The 1♣ opener could likely be as few as 3 while the 3♣ overcall I would think tends to show 6+. So while it may define the hand in terms of opening strength it shows more clubs than a 1♣ opener potentially would.

That is what makes the 3♣ bid legal if it shows opening bid strength.

As an example, pretend a partnership has the agreement 3♣ shows 7+ clubs and 15 to 20 HCP. That defines the hand in both (1) strength and (2) shape MORE than a 1♣ opening bid, so that would satisfy the laws and allow offender's partner to not be barred (required to pass throughout the rest of the auction).

Another way to look at it is the hand described above is one of the many hands that would be opened 1♣.

[pran]

BudH, on 2015-December-06, 11:52, said:

That is what makes the 3♣ bid legal if it shows opening bid strength.

As an example, pretend a partnership has the agreement showed 7+ clubs and 15 to 20 HCP. That defines the hand in both (1) strength and (2) shape MORE than a 1♣ opening bid, so that would satisfy the laws and allow offender's partner to not be barred (required to pass throughout the rest of the auction).

Another way to look at it is the hand described above is one of the many hands that would be opened 1♣.

The "easy" test for the Director in this situation is:
Can there be any hand at all now bidding 3♣ that would not have opened 1♣ if available?
If the answer to this question is NO then the 3♣ substitution bid will not force partner to pass throughout the rest of the auction.
If at least one such hand can be found then partner shall be barred.

[blackshoe]

What Sven said.

I would be very surprised if a club pair play 3♣ this way, playing Cappelletti. I'd be even more surprised if they could show evidence (other than mere verbal statements) that they do.

[BudH]

blackshoe, on 2015-December-06, 15:55, said:

What Sven said.

I would be very surprised if a club pair play 3♣ this way, playing Cappelletti. I'd be even more surprised if they could show evidence (other than mere verbal statements) that they do.

Completely agree. When I emailed our club's game directors about this situation and how the ruling should be applied, I did mention the 3♣ possibility - along with the fact that very few in our club play 3♣ as constructive and that it is a near certainty nobody could provide the required documentation.

If the pair played intermediate jump overcalls over 1 of a suit, that would be some good evidence that MAYBE they played 1NT-(3♣) as constructive. But probably more evidence than that would be required.

[steve2005]

they're screwed. no realistic way he can't bar partner.

[mycroft]

...and, remember, can't replace with double.

...and, remember, if opener's side ends up declaring, there are lead penalties for clubs when overcaller's partner first is to lead, should opener not show clubs in the legal auction.

...and, remember, there's UI from the withdrawn 1♣ call that may actually be relevant during the play.

But everybody knew all that already, including the 1♣ bidder (after the TD was called and explained it all, at least), of course.

[RMB1]

mycroft, on 2015-December-07, 10:47, said:

...and, remember, can't replace with double.

Unless (1NT)-X shows an opening bid with clubs ... or something more precise

[mycroft]

well, yes. I thought it was obvious that I had assumed we had determined that "L27B1(b) does not apply" to any call. But more precision is rarely a bad thing.

[BudH]

One other important question.

Assuming a 3♣ bid cannot be substituted without still barring partner, and that the Director has informed the players no matter what the insufficient bidder does, his partner will be forced to pass throughout the rest of the auction, can the offender now bid 2♣ intending it as natural since all know his partner must now pass?

And will that prevent any lead penalties because the bid has now "shown clubs naturally", even though he would not normally be allowed to show clubs with a 2♣bid?

It seems to me the offender should not now be able to bid 2♣ knowing his partner must pass when normally 2♣ would be artificial. Especially if it avoided a lead penalty.

[RMB1]

BudH, on 2015-December-15, 08:08, said:

..., can the offender now bid 2♣ intending it as natural since all know his partner must now pass?

And will that prevent any lead penalties because the bid has now "shown clubs naturally", ...?

It seems to me the offender should not now be able to bid 2♣ ...

I think we have to apply the law as written.

Law 27 said:

B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted
If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (but see 3 following). Then:
1. [snip]
2. 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.
3. except as provided in B1(b) above, if the offender attempts to substitute a double or a redouble ...

So the offender can substitute any legal bid or Pass. In particular, offender may substitute a sufficient 2♣ and is subject to Law 27B2.

The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply but they do not because Law 26A1 applies.

It is not for the TD to decide that substituting 2♣ lets the offender "get away" with their irregularity and impose a different penalty.

[barmar]

Isn't the TD allowed to adjust the score if the infraction + rectification allows the offending side to achieve a result not possible through normal means? Maybe this is Law 23?

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2015-December-15, 14:47, said:

Isn't the TD allowed to adjust the score if the infraction + rectification allows the offending side to achieve a result not possible through normal means? Maybe this is Law 23?

The TD can apply Law 23 after a result has been obtained, but he can not pre-emptively disallow a substitution of a legal bid or Pass.

[barmar]

RMB1, on 2015-December-15, 17:32, said:

The TD can apply Law 23 after a result has been obtained, but he can not pre-emptively disallow a substitution of a legal bid or Pass.

Either way, he's not allowing them to "get away" with it.

Should he tell the player, "You can bid 2♣, but if it makes I may need to adjust the score based on Law 23"?

Whether he does adjust depends on whether this actually damages the NOS. Perhaps they were headed for a contract that was going down vul, so -90 was actually better than what they would likely have gotten.