[dickiegera]

---

West now bids 1♦. Being told it is an insufficient bid he looks puzzled and it is pointed out that his partner opened 1♦.

He now says he meant to bid 2♦.

I was East and we play inverted minors so I alerted explaining bid shows 4+ diamonds and 10+ pts and denies a 4 card Major.

My question is " May West bid 2♦ being that it does not have the same meaning as an opening 1♦bid?"

Also if I had opened 1♥,1♠ or 1NT, 2♦ would have different meanings.
Would a correction of 1♦ to 2♦ be allowed?


Thank you

[aguahombre]

It goes without saying that the TD should have been involved, but lets get over that.
If indeed West meant to bid 2♦.. a reasonable assumption -- that was probably why he looked puzzled, until he saw he had actually only bid 1...then it was an unintended call which may be replaced by the intended call.

It doesn't matter whether the unintended or the intended call was conventional. The unintended call goes away, and the intended call is put in its place.

[steve2005]

Not a director. but I thought it was allowed if replacement bid contained a subset of first bid.
So with a lesser hand 3♦ would also be allowed.

[aguahombre]

steve2005, on 2017-April-03, 07:55, said:

Not a director. but I thought it was allowed if replacement bid contained a subset of first bid.
So with a lesser hand 3♦ would also be allowed.

Since 27B1B doesn't apply to unintended bids, I won't sidetrack this thread to point out what it actually says. Reading the Section should help.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2017-April-03, 07:55, said:

If indeed West meant to bid 2♦.. a reasonable assumption

It's also possible that he didn't notice his partner opened, and he intended to open 1♦.

On the other hand, his normal opening would be 1NT, assuming 15 HCP is in their range.

[weejonnie]

If the bid was unintentional then it can be changed without penalty, no matter how your partner becomes aware of it - provided the change is done without 'pause for thought' (that phrase is vanishing under the new rules when it is made clear that the reasons for an allowed change are a slip of the tongue or a mechanical error (no time limit)

If your partner meant to open 1 Diamond and then bids 2 Diamonds then CURRENTLY

(a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director’s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply but see D following.

So are IMSRs 'incontrovertibly not artificial'? - It specifically denies a 4-card major so I would say NO!

So we move on to:-

(b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director’s opinion has the same meaning9 as, or a more precise meaning9 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.

Now you have a problem - would all hands that would respond 2♦ over 1♦ actually open 1♦? The answer is probably no - since few people would open 1♦ with 10 points. Thus, although a 'liberal interpretation' is allowed, a TD is probably within his rights to disallow the call.

If so then:-

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.

HOWEVER - when the new laws come out (by September 30th) things change slightly

1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same  denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call, the auction proceeds without  further rectification. Laws 26B and 16C do not apply but see D following. 

So under the new laws , there is no requirement for the 1♦ and 2♦ calls to be natural - and you (or your partner) will be OK (subject to the opponents right of redress if they are damaged due to the insufficient bid having been made - which is 'D')

[gordontd]

weejonnie, on 2017-April-03, 17:13, said:

(no time limit)

The time limit is "until his partner makes a call".

[weejonnie]

gordontd, on 2017-April-04, 01:20, said:

The time limit is "until his partner makes a call".

Yep - slovenly of me.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2017-April-03, 17:13, said:

So are IMSRs 'incontrovertibly not artificial'? - It specifically denies a 4-card major so I would say NO!

1NT response and non-inverted minor raises also deny a 4-card major, does that make them artificial as well?

1♥ - 1NT usually denies a 4-card spade suit. More artificiality?