[blml] Situation normal, all...

[Peter Eidt]

> [DALB]
> 
> Having bid an insufficient 1H, am I now allowed to respond to
> partner's opening bid of 1H with a natural and forcing 2H?
> 
> [EL]
> 
> Of course you are.  Your attempt to open 1H is AI to partner.  "Law
> 16D does not apply" could hardly be more explicit, could it?
> 
> [DALB]
> 
> But partner does not know that I was attempting to open 1H. All he
> knows is that he has opened 1H and I have responded 1H. I might have
> intended to raise to 2H, but mistakenly raised to 1H instead. Is the
> notion that I have to explain why I bid 1H, so that on some hands I
> can bid a non-forcing 2H and on others I can bid a forcing 2H? If so,
> either the world has gone mad or I have.

[PE]

For the possibility of having a rectification-free substitution
of 2H (in our scenario) there must not be UI in any form of 
a statement to the effect of revealing, what the IBder meant with
his IB.
If the offender states "oops, I thought, I was dealer" or the like,
and offender substitutes his IB with 2H, 16D does not apply, 
but 16B does.
In absence of such UI partner may guess the basis of the IB
correctly and he may treat 2H as forcing.