[blml] Law 27 - relay

[Robert Frick]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:44:43 -0400, Tony Musgrove <ardelm at optusnet.com.au>  
wrote:

> At 12:40 PM 27/04/2008, you wrote:
>
>> Robert Frick:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> I do not think that this scenario is possible. The IBer's partner must
>> assume that the 2H bid is according to system. So instead of 1H-2H-4H,  
>> the
>> auction is likely to go: 1H-2H-P.
>>
>> Stefanie Rohan
>> London, England
>
> This is so confusing.  In the olden days, 2H was always allowed without
> penalty provided not conventional.  So the IBer with an opening hand
> would have probably bid 4H and barred partner, rather than risking his
> passing.  Now there seems to be a thought, that provided partner
> knows that the the IBer does in fact have an opening bid, he can
> change to 2H under 27B1 (a), without any UI worries.  So a bidding
> edifice might be structured starting at 2H instead of 2NT according
> to DALB. As you say, surely this cannot be??  Please?

Hi. I have variously heard that "everyone" knew that correcting an  
insufficient 1C opening to 2C could be done with only 3 clubs (Standard  
American). So that was in the old rules. I didn't know that, but I tend to  
be unaware about such things.

On the old laws, I would not have allowed the 4H bid with a minimum hand  
on the auction 1H 1H/2H. I have been told I was wrong. But the new laws  
are quite clear (to me) that if 4H is the field contract, there was no  
damage from the IB and hence no basis for adjustment.



>
> On the other hand, you cannot change to 2H via 27B1 (b), because the
> director finds that you wanted to open 1H (say 11+ points and 4+ hearts)
> and that is not a range covered by 2H over 1H (say 6-10 points and  
> 3+ hearts).
> However, there may be other bids (eg 2NT) which are allowed under  
> 27B1(b).

In Standard American, the 1H opening shows 5 hearts. There are not going  
to be any replies to 1H showing 5 or more hearts and an opening hand.

Bob