lskelso at ihug.com.au
Thu Mar 17 01:26:04 CET 2016
On 17/03/2016 11:07 AM, David Grabiner wrote:
> On 3/16/2016 7:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
>> 2NT P 2NT/4C
>> You are called to the table. South bid 2NT, playing 4 way transfers and wanting to transfer to clubs. She changed it to 4C, meaning that as natural. However, by the time I talked to her, she had realized it was Gerber in their system.
> The insufficient bid was conventional, and was replaced by a bid not
> having the same meaning, so partner is barred.
> The interesting question is whether you enforce the "could have known"
> rule. In many systems, there is no way to play a club partial after a
> 2NT opening, and South found one by barring partner. I would not
> enforce this, and would allow the table result in 4C to stand, as it is
> clear from the context that she did not know that she was getting an
> otherwise impossible result.
Before proceeding to Law 23, one has to first consider Law 27D - thus
playing successfully in the club partial might still require an
adjustment (because under those circumstances the Director doesn't have
to consider any 'could have known' scenario).
More information about the Blml