[dickiegera]

Bidding goes 1NT-P-1♥.
Director was called.

What is the correct procedure after this.

At our table 1♥ bidder was allowed to change it to 2♥ after which 1NT
bidder bid 3NT not alerting 2♥ bid as a transfer.

Dummy shows up with 5-1-4-3 distribution. Declarer was 3-4-3-3 and when asked about 2♥ said it was a transfer
but she was not obligated to bid 2♠.
Asked why she didn't alert 2♥ had no reply.

Thank you

[RMB1]

It appears that the (intended) meaning of 1♥ was a transfer to spades, in which case the substitution of 2♥ might be allowed under Law 27B1b, and partner of the IBer is not silenced. If partner understands the law (because the TD has explained properly) then he knows that 2♥ should still have their systemic meaning, and should anounce/alert/explain as a transfer.

If the director rules that partner of IBer is not silenced then partner can bid how he likes (the insufficient bid is not unauthorised information). But the result may be adjusted under Law 27D - effectively if the offending side reach a contract their system would not not them reach without the insufficient bid.

[Fluffy]

it seems rather obvious that 1NT opener is catering for 1♥ being either hearts or spades, doesn't seem very ethical to me, but probably if he knew the rules he would know that 2♥ could only be allowed if it is spades.

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2012-May-09, 17:11, said:

it seems rather obvious that 1NT opener is catering for 1♥ being either hearts or spades, doesn't seem very ethical to me,

It doesn't, no, but I believe that under the 2007 Laws this sort of thing is permitted.

[iviehoff]

If indeed 1H was bid to show spades, it seems to me at least possible, if not rather likely, that this was an unintended bid, which could have been changed rather more easily to 2H under Law 25A, assuming the other requirements of that law were satisfied. Otherwise, it has been changed under Law 27B1(b).

In reference to what Vampyr said: we can observe that Law 27B1(a) explicitly says that Law 16D does not apply. So if this call had been changed under Law 27B1(a) (which is not the case), then we are told that the fact that scuh an insufficient bid was changed is not unauthorised information, and partner may make of it what he wills. But Law 27D applies. So if this pair had ended up in a contract getting a better score than they would have got if there had been no insufficient bid on the way, then there are grounds for adjustment. But this is not the present situation.

In fact this bid was changed under Law 27B1(b), or, I would suggest, possibly under 25A. It doesn't really matter which for present purposes. In neither of these laws is there any reference to Law 16D to say that it does or doesn't apply. But the premise of Law 27B1(b) is that there is no informational advantage to partner of knowing that the insufficient bid has been changed. So when Law 27B1(b) is used, the TD has in effect ruled that that there is no UI of value in knowing about the insufficient bid. Likewise, the fact that a bid has been ruled unintended under Law 25A, we can say that the TD has ruled in effect that there is no UI of value in knowing of the cancelled bid.

So partner is free to do what he wills - he has no UI of any value. In choosing to bid 3N rather than 2S in effect he is either ignorant of, or not trusting of, the TD's ruling. If he makes a profit from this uninformed choice of call, that is rub of the green, not unfair use of UI.

Now if it were apparent, or at least possible, that the TD had been wrong to use 27B1(b) (or 25A), then there would be UI of value. That situation could be a right old mess.