[blml] Law 27 - relay

[David Burn]

[RF]

> I think this unlikely example might illustrate things. (Or correct me if I
> am wrong, or sorry if this is obvious). Standard American:
> 
> 1H - P - 1H/2H.
> 
> The insufficient bidder meant to open the bidding. No system will have a
> bid satisfying 27B1(b) -- same or more precise replacement bid. But the 2H
> correction satisfies 27B1(a).
> 
> Because (1) the IB is AI, (2) the insufficient bidder can bid 2H even if
> that would otherwise miscribe his hand, and (3) many/most players know
> that, the 2H RC essentially shows an opening hand with 5-card heart
> support.
> 
> The lawmakers might not have envisioned this correction. But they meant to
> make it easier for players to recover from an insufficient bid. That has
> certainly happened. For example, the auction without the insufficient bid
> might be 1H - 2NT - 4H. With the insufficient bid it would then be 1H - 2H
> - 4H. The insufficient bidders gained nothing from the IB and 27D does not
> apply. This is not bad. Same thing if the insufficient bidders get to a
> slam everyone else is finding.
> 
> Actually, the insufficient bidders are slightly ahead of the field. They
> have a little more room to explore slam. Also, the opening bidder knows
> partner has 5 hearts and a little stronger hand than would be promised by
> a 2NT response.
> 
> But they would be foolish to use this advantage. If they do and get to a
> better contract than everyone else, 27D kicks in. If half the field is in
> 4H and the other half is in 6H, they want to get to the better contract
> BUT with no appearance of having used any of the advantage in the
> insufficient bid.

[DALB]

Indeed. This is why, to answer an earlier question, you would want to vary
your agreements following an infraction by your own side. The way to do this
here is obvious: "if we respond 1H to 1H, we correct to 2H but opener rebids
as he would had we bid a Jacoby 2NT, not as if we had raised 1H to 2H".

David Burn
London, England