[VixTD]

This much-discussed situation came up at the club last night (MP pairs, EW vul, dealer South):

---

The auction started: 2♣ - (2♦) - 2♦
I was called to deal with the insufficient bid, so I took offender out of the room and asked what was going on.

He said his partner's opener was an Acol artificial near game force, and he hadn't seen the intervention. I asked about their agreed responses to 2♣, and was told that 2♦ was a relay. I asked further whether all hands respond 2♦ (if next hand passes), and was told, yes.

If the insufficient bid is not accepted, do you allow any substitution without silencing South?

[gordontd]

VixTD, on 2012-October-09, 07:42, said:

If the insufficient bid is not accepted, do you allow any substitution without silencing South?

Yes. Whatever he calls will have a more precise meaning than "any hand I might hold". I might question North further about what he would do with a clear positive with a good suit, but some people really do play that they bid 2D whatever they hold.

[mink]

I would allow North to replace the 2♦ bid by any legal call, and South may bid what he wants, because any call is more precise than a relay that does not show anything. (Law 27B1b)

Karl

[aguahombre]

Yes, if 2D was automatic without interference, any substitution should be allowed. Opener will only have the information of the replacement call and no other information ---whatever their agreements over interference might be. It might be different if the 2D bid had conveyed any information not necessarily included in the replacement call.

[mycroft]

I, too, would have asked what does 2♣-2♠ means. I'd either get "Oh, that's (some random positive)" or a look of total confusion (or, rarely, a knowledgable "no, we do really play 2♦ automatic"); I bet I'd know what their methods actually are after that.

Of course, over here, I'd likely get "2♦ GF, 2♥ immediate double negative" (with the same caveats of "what does a positive look like?") in which case, I'd be comfortable allowing "pass GF, double immediate double negative", provided changes in positives don't happen (except, of course, for 2♥ positive).

[VixTD]

I did allow any correction without barring South, warned them about possible lead penalties and let them get on with it.

I was slightly worried that "always" doesn't always mean always. Many partnerships (including mine) agree to play relays, but will bid something else with an exceptional hand. I do it often enough to have discussed it with partner and to have an agreement, but I could easily believe this pair do not.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2012-October-09, 07:49, said:

Yes. Whatever he calls will have a more precise meaning than "any hand I might hold". I might question North further about what he would do with a clear positive with a good suit, but some people really do play that they bid 2D whatever they hold.

It is not necessary to have a more precise meaning; an equally precise meaning suffices. Let us say that the pair has the agreement that after overcalls of 2C at the 2-level, all hands pass, and without an overcall all hands bid 2D, then the meaning of Pass would be equally precise. And even if North would bid another suit with a clear positive and a good suit, the meaning would be equally precise after an overcall of 2D. If double would show some hand types, then Pass would indeed be more precise.