lskelso at ihug.com.au
Thu Mar 17 03:19:02 CET 2016
On 17/03/2016 11:26 AM, Laurie Kelso wrote:
> 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).
I should probably elaborate:
If the Director initially has allowed the 4C correction and then later
discovers the real systemic meaning of 4C, then 27D is the place to go
for the adjustment.
If on the other hand the player of their own volition has changed the
original 2NT bid to 4C, then her partner is barred and we do need to
look at Law 23 and 'could have been aware' scenarios.
More information about the Blml