[bluejak]

So I went to a social lunch arranged by Mensa, mainly with people I had never met. There was one bridge player there, and she asked me a question [boring everyone else present, who were non-bridge players]. It was so simple that I prevaricated and never answered her.

---

2♦ was announced as "hearts". The software will not allow me to put in an insufficient bid!!

Anyway, North bid 2♥ because she had not noticed the 2♠ bid. Normal agreements, 2♦ normally requires 2♥ but the 1NT bidder can break the transfer with a good fit and a maximum. No specific agreement to 3♥ over 2♠.

How do you rule?

[RMB1]

Under the previous laws, I have ruled that 1NT-2♦(=♥)-2♥ is not conventional/artificial because it had no meaning beyond willingness to play in 2♥. So 1NT-(P)-2♦(=♥)-(2♠)-2♥ is incontrovertibly not conventional/artificial. I think that this is still valid, so Law 27B1a applies and 3♥ does not silence partner.

If opener tells us (away from the table) that he had not seen 2♠ then 2♥ has no meaning, except to deny a transfer break. Pass by opener certainly has a more precise meaning than 2♥ because all transfer breaks would bid over 2♠, so Pass does not silence partner under Law 27B1b.

Any bid by opener is likely to show some degree of heart support, and certainly does not deny values for a transfer break. Is "denying the values for a transfer break" a negative inference that the new flexible WBFLC interpretation tell us to ignore? I don't know. I suspect that we should feel encouraged to allow other bids not silencing partner under Law 27B1b, using Law 27D to adjust if damage does occur.

What about double? Is this support? or penalties (denying heart support)? or negative/unassuming (4-4 in the minors)? Any meaning is still more precise than 2♥ (except possibly for "denying a transfer break"). Probably the same answer as for bids.

Nice to see the new year starting with same (fear,) uncertainy and doubt concerning Law 27, as some of us had in the old year.

[bluejak]

One of the problems under the old laws is that we never had any agreement as to whether 2♥ was conventional or not. I always believed it was both conventional and artificial, and still do. But I know it was never agreed.

[RMB1]

bluejak, on 2011-January-01, 11:22, said:

One of the problems under the old laws is that we never had any agreement as to whether 2♥ was conventional or not. I always believed it was both conventional and artificial, and still do. But I know it was never agreed.

To be honest, I am not sure that I "knew". But the first (and only?) time this came up was at a national event and I was able to consult the chief TD (of the event and of the national authority) before giving the ruling. He told me 2♥ was "incontroveribly not conventional" (as the law was then); and so that was what I ruled.