Help
That happened at a club game of some very average level:
Opps were biding
S W N E
1♥-P-2♥-P
3♥-4♣- ?
At this point North bid, 3NT insufficient bid. The director was called, and ruled that North must correct to 4NT without any penalty (that was passed by South after some serious hesitation). I argued, that South had unauthorized information about his partner having no interest in slam, and therefore South should answer the North's Blackwood inquiry. They'd end up in 5♥ going down instead of making 4NT. Director sharply insisted on his ruling letting 4NT making by North to stand. What do you think about that?
Page 1 of 1
insufficient bid trick used by our opps
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,786
- Joined: 2004-September-05
- Gender:Male
- Location:Galloway NJ USA
-
Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.
Posted 2012-August-23, 11:37
Law 27A2:
2. Conventional, or Corrected by Any Other Sufficient Bid or Pass
If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination may have been conventional or if the bid is corrected by any other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (apply Law 10C1 and see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side; and the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply).
The reference to Law 23 is as follows:
LAW 23 DAMAGING ENFORCED PASS
Reference will be made to this Law from many other Laws that prescribe penalties for auction-period infractions.
When the penalty for an irregularity under any Law would compel the offender's partner to pass at his next turn, if the Director deems that the offender, at the time of his irregularity, could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue and consider awarding an adjusted score (see Law 72B1).
It is not clear at all that, when North made his 3NT bid that he knew that the application of Law 27A2 and Law 23 would result in his partner being required to pass at his next turn if he corrected 3NT to 4NT. If the TD informed him that his partner would be required to pass, then you have a better case for having the TD require that the auction continue.
Law 72B1 (referenced in Law 23) is sort of a combination of Law 23 and Law 12:
B. Infraction of Law
1. Adjusted Score
Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity.
If all else fails, you may have to rely on the catch all language of Law 12:
A. Right to Award an Adjusted Score
The Director may award an adjusted score (or scores), either on his own initiative or on the application of any player, but only when these Laws empower him to do so, or:
1. Laws Provide No Indemnity
The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent.
2. Conventional, or Corrected by Any Other Sufficient Bid or Pass
If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination may have been conventional or if the bid is corrected by any other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (apply Law 10C1 and see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side; and the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply).
The reference to Law 23 is as follows:
LAW 23 DAMAGING ENFORCED PASS
Reference will be made to this Law from many other Laws that prescribe penalties for auction-period infractions.
When the penalty for an irregularity under any Law would compel the offender's partner to pass at his next turn, if the Director deems that the offender, at the time of his irregularity, could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue and consider awarding an adjusted score (see Law 72B1).
It is not clear at all that, when North made his 3NT bid that he knew that the application of Law 27A2 and Law 23 would result in his partner being required to pass at his next turn if he corrected 3NT to 4NT. If the TD informed him that his partner would be required to pass, then you have a better case for having the TD require that the auction continue.
Law 72B1 (referenced in Law 23) is sort of a combination of Law 23 and Law 12:
B. Infraction of Law
1. Adjusted Score
Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity.
If all else fails, you may have to rely on the catch all language of Law 12:
A. Right to Award an Adjusted Score
The Director may award an adjusted score (or scores), either on his own initiative or on the application of any player, but only when these Laws empower him to do so, or:
1. Laws Provide No Indemnity
The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent.
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,079
- Joined: 2003-May-14
Posted 2012-August-23, 12:05
Both you and the director were wrong. Assuming your side is not accepting the insufficient bid, the insufficient bidder has 3 options, he's not "forced to bid 4nt without penalty".
http://www.missoulab...nsufficientbids
http://www.acbl.org/...cate-Bridge.pdf (look under rule 27)
1. If insufficient bid & same bid corrected to lowest sufficient level same denomination are both natural, he can choose (but not forced to choose) this without penalty. Now 3nt is clearly natural, but whether 4nt is natural is up to debate. One could argue that 4nt is blkwood under the interpretation that for bad players 4nt is always blkwood. Or one could argue that after 1h-2h-3h, it's completely impossible for a 2h bidder to have slam interest, so clearly 4nt over 4c is natural and an offer to play. My feeling is that 4nt here should be natural. 2h limited partner's hand, there's no way he can have slam interest. If the auction was 1h-2nt!-3h-(4c)-? where 2nt is an unlimited forcing heart raise, then it would be a different story. If 4nt is ruled as not natural, this option doesn't apply, but you can bid 4nt as under option 3 below, with partner barred.
2. He can bid some other sufficient bid that has "the same meaning" or "the same meaning but more precise" (a subset) of the insufficient bid, without penalty. This is a relatively new change in the law, it covers cases like 2nt-p-2d, if they are playing xfers over 1nt, then now people can substitute 3d as a xfer without penalty. There's not another call that means the same as 3nt here though, so this option is unavailable.
3. Pick some other sufficient call, or pass (double/xx not allowed), but partner is barred.
There is some other verbiage that the director can restore equity if the insufficient bid unfairly advantaged the offending side.
So basically on this auction North can pass or bid 4h with South barred, or bid 4nt and either South is barred or not barred depending on director's interpretation of 4nt. Either it's ruled as natural, and there's no penalty on South, so he's allowed to pass, or it's ruled as conventional, in which case South has to pass it. In no case is South going to be forced to answer blkwood.
Director erred badly in saying North is forced to bid 4nt, not telling him he has option of passing/bidding 4h.
http://www.missoulab...nsufficientbids
http://www.acbl.org/...cate-Bridge.pdf (look under rule 27)
1. If insufficient bid & same bid corrected to lowest sufficient level same denomination are both natural, he can choose (but not forced to choose) this without penalty. Now 3nt is clearly natural, but whether 4nt is natural is up to debate. One could argue that 4nt is blkwood under the interpretation that for bad players 4nt is always blkwood. Or one could argue that after 1h-2h-3h, it's completely impossible for a 2h bidder to have slam interest, so clearly 4nt over 4c is natural and an offer to play. My feeling is that 4nt here should be natural. 2h limited partner's hand, there's no way he can have slam interest. If the auction was 1h-2nt!-3h-(4c)-? where 2nt is an unlimited forcing heart raise, then it would be a different story. If 4nt is ruled as not natural, this option doesn't apply, but you can bid 4nt as under option 3 below, with partner barred.
2. He can bid some other sufficient bid that has "the same meaning" or "the same meaning but more precise" (a subset) of the insufficient bid, without penalty. This is a relatively new change in the law, it covers cases like 2nt-p-2d, if they are playing xfers over 1nt, then now people can substitute 3d as a xfer without penalty. There's not another call that means the same as 3nt here though, so this option is unavailable.
3. Pick some other sufficient call, or pass (double/xx not allowed), but partner is barred.
There is some other verbiage that the director can restore equity if the insufficient bid unfairly advantaged the offending side.
So basically on this auction North can pass or bid 4h with South barred, or bid 4nt and either South is barred or not barred depending on director's interpretation of 4nt. Either it's ruled as natural, and there's no penalty on South, so he's allowed to pass, or it's ruled as conventional, in which case South has to pass it. In no case is South going to be forced to answer blkwood.
Director erred badly in saying North is forced to bid 4nt, not telling him he has option of passing/bidding 4h.
#4
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 101
- Joined: 2009-July-26
Posted 2012-August-23, 12:15
omarsh10, on 2012-August-23, 11:04, said:
That happened at a club game of some very average level:
Opps were biding
S W N E
1♥-P-2♥-P
3♥-4♣- ?
At this point North bid, 3NT insufficient bid. The director was called, and ruled that North must correct to 4NT without any penalty (that was passed by South after some serious hesitation). I argued, that South had unauthorized information about his partner having no interest in slam, and therefore South should answer the North's Blackwood inquiry. They'd end up in 5♥ going down instead of making 4NT. Director sharply insisted on his ruling letting 4NT making by North to stand. What do you think about that?
Opps were biding
S W N E
1♥-P-2♥-P
3♥-4♣- ?
At this point North bid, 3NT insufficient bid. The director was called, and ruled that North must correct to 4NT without any penalty (that was passed by South after some serious hesitation). I argued, that South had unauthorized information about his partner having no interest in slam, and therefore South should answer the North's Blackwood inquiry. They'd end up in 5♥ going down instead of making 4NT. Director sharply insisted on his ruling letting 4NT making by North to stand. What do you think about that?
In the absence of the insufficient bid it's hard for me to believe 4NT would be anything but natural. I'm not sure exactly what kind of hand it would show but I would find it impossible to construct a hand that could only bid 2♥ at its first turn and now make a Blackwood bid (implying slam values if sufficient controls are present) opposite an opener that made a game invitation.
I can't cite chapter and verse the way many here can, but did the director really rule North MUST correct to 4NT? Surely North could have doubled or bid 4♥ and accepted whatever penalty was prescribed by the laws on insufficient bids.
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,786
- Joined: 2004-September-05
- Gender:Male
- Location:Galloway NJ USA
-
Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.
Posted 2012-August-23, 12:23
I should have looked at the auction more than just jumping in to answer the question.
I agree with the other posters that it is hard to believe that 4NT could be anything other than a natural call in the context of this auction. In that case, the offending player can bid (not must bid) 4NT without penalty. He can also make any other legal call, but then his change of call is subject to penalties as set forth above.
Of course, if the standards of these players or the standards of this club is that 4NT is always Blackwood, then you have the problem that making the bid sufficient by bidding 4NT would result in the making of a conventional call, and that would be subject to penalties.
I agree with the other posters that it is hard to believe that 4NT could be anything other than a natural call in the context of this auction. In that case, the offending player can bid (not must bid) 4NT without penalty. He can also make any other legal call, but then his change of call is subject to penalties as set forth above.
Of course, if the standards of these players or the standards of this club is that 4NT is always Blackwood, then you have the problem that making the bid sufficient by bidding 4NT would result in the making of a conventional call, and that would be subject to penalties.
#6
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 118
- Joined: 2007-April-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:Austin, Texas
Posted 2012-August-23, 12:23
Stephen Tu, on 2012-August-23, 12:05, said:
Both you and the director were wrong. Assuming your side is not accepting the insufficient bid, the insufficient bidder has 3 options, he's not "forced to bid 4nt without penalty".
http://www.missoulab...nsufficientbids
http://www.acbl.org/...cate-Bridge.pdf (look under rule 27)
1. If insufficient bid & same bid corrected to lowest sufficient level same denomination are both natural, he can choose (but not forced to choose) this without penalty. Now 3nt is clearly natural, but whether 4nt is natural is up to debate. One could argue that 4nt is blkwood under the interpretation that for bad players 4nt is always blkwood. Or one could argue that after 1h-2h-3h, it's completely impossible for a 2h bidder to have slam interest, so clearly 4nt over 4c is natural and an offer to play. My feeling is that 4nt here should be natural. 2h limited partner's hand, there's no way he can have slam interest. If the auction was 1h-2nt!-3h-(4c)-? where 2nt is an unlimited forcing heart raise, then it would be a different story. If 4nt is ruled as not natural, this option doesn't apply, but you can bid 4nt as under option 3 below, with partner barred.
2. He can bid some other sufficient bid that has "the same meaning" or "the same meaning but more precise" (a subset) of the insufficient bid, without penalty. This is a relatively new change in the law, it covers cases like 2nt-p-2d, if they are playing xfers over 1nt, then now people can substitute 3d as a xfer without penalty. There's not another call that means the same as 3nt here though, so this option is unavailable.
3. Pick some other sufficient call, or pass (double/xx not allowed), but partner is barred.
There is some other verbiage that the director can restore equity if the insufficient bid unfairly advantaged the offending side.
So basically on this auction North can pass or bid 4h with South barred, or bid 4nt and either South is barred or not barred depending on director's interpretation of 4nt. Either it's ruled as natural, and there's no penalty on South, so he's allowed to pass, or it's ruled as conventional, in which case South has to pass it. In no case is South going to be forced to answer blkwood.
Director erred badly in saying North is forced to bid 4nt, not telling him he has option of passing/bidding 4h.
http://www.missoulab...nsufficientbids
http://www.acbl.org/...cate-Bridge.pdf (look under rule 27)
1. If insufficient bid & same bid corrected to lowest sufficient level same denomination are both natural, he can choose (but not forced to choose) this without penalty. Now 3nt is clearly natural, but whether 4nt is natural is up to debate. One could argue that 4nt is blkwood under the interpretation that for bad players 4nt is always blkwood. Or one could argue that after 1h-2h-3h, it's completely impossible for a 2h bidder to have slam interest, so clearly 4nt over 4c is natural and an offer to play. My feeling is that 4nt here should be natural. 2h limited partner's hand, there's no way he can have slam interest. If the auction was 1h-2nt!-3h-(4c)-? where 2nt is an unlimited forcing heart raise, then it would be a different story. If 4nt is ruled as not natural, this option doesn't apply, but you can bid 4nt as under option 3 below, with partner barred.
2. He can bid some other sufficient bid that has "the same meaning" or "the same meaning but more precise" (a subset) of the insufficient bid, without penalty. This is a relatively new change in the law, it covers cases like 2nt-p-2d, if they are playing xfers over 1nt, then now people can substitute 3d as a xfer without penalty. There's not another call that means the same as 3nt here though, so this option is unavailable.
3. Pick some other sufficient call, or pass (double/xx not allowed), but partner is barred.
There is some other verbiage that the director can restore equity if the insufficient bid unfairly advantaged the offending side.
So basically on this auction North can pass or bid 4h with South barred, or bid 4nt and either South is barred or not barred depending on director's interpretation of 4nt. Either it's ruled as natural, and there's no penalty on South, so he's allowed to pass, or it's ruled as conventional, in which case South has to pass it. In no case is South going to be forced to answer blkwood.
Director erred badly in saying North is forced to bid 4nt, not telling him he has option of passing/bidding 4h.
There is one further point to option 3. If it is determined that 4NT is conventional, then it is true that partner is barred, but the fact that the pair are able to play in 4NT, which would not otherwise be possible, and this could damaged the the NOS, so Law 23 empowers the director to adjust the score.
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,957
- Joined: 2009-July-13
- Location:England
Posted 2012-August-23, 13:00
kevperk, on 2012-August-23, 12:23, said:
There is one further point to option 3. If it is determined that 4NT is conventional, then it is true that partner is barred, but the fact that the pair are able to play in 4NT, which would not otherwise be possible, and this could damaged the the NOS, so Law 23 empowers the director to adjust the score.
Director error, he should explain carefully and correctly what the options are. If N had the laws correctly explained, and knew that 4N would be disallowed if it would normally be Blackwood so the score would be adjusted, surely he'd bid 4♥ if he thought 4N was Blackwood. Whether 4♥ makes I have no clue.
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,786
- Joined: 2004-September-05
- Gender:Male
- Location:Galloway NJ USA
-
Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.
Posted 2012-August-23, 14:00
Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-23, 13:00, said:
Director error, he should explain carefully and correctly what the options are. If N had the laws correctly explained, and knew that 4N would be disallowed if it would normally be Blackwood so the score would be adjusted, surely he'd bid 4♥ if he thought 4N was Blackwood. Whether 4♥ makes I have no clue.
Even if 4NT were Blackwood, it would be allowed. But then the TD can require that the auction continue, which would probably result in the offending side getting even higher and resulting in a worse score. The TD still has the option of assigning an adjusted score.
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,079
- Joined: 2003-May-14
Posted 2012-August-23, 14:41
ArtK78, on 2012-August-23, 14:00, said:
Even if 4NT were Blackwood, it would be allowed. But then the TD can require that the auction continue, which would probably result in the offending side getting even higher and resulting in a worse score. The TD still has the option of assigning an adjusted score.
I don't think a TD can rule that 4nt is blackwood and require that the auction continue. If 4nt is conventional, clearly South is barred under 27B2. What a TD could do, if he is ruling that 4nt is blkwood, is that allowing North to bid 4nt and bar South damages the NOS and rule it back to say 4h under 27(D). "In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred". I don't think TD can require south to bid to 5h over 4nt and go down.
But as I mentioned I wouldn't agree with a ruling that 4nt is blackwood, IMO North should be told he can bid 4nt, South can do whatever, or he can pass/bid anything else and South is barred, then result stands.
If director gives incorrect ruling such as this one, and it's appealed, what should AC rule? Would North have bid 4nt or 4h given the proper options? Seems at least NOS should be given 4h for sure, an improvement for them if both contracts take same # of tricks.
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,611
- Joined: 2009-September-15
- Gender:Female
- Location:London
Posted 2012-August-23, 17:07
ArtK78, on 2012-August-23, 11:37, said:
Law 27A2:
2. Conventional, or Corrected by Any Other Sufficient Bid or Pass
If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination may have been conventional or if the bid is corrected by any other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (apply Law 10C1 and see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side; and the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply).
2. Conventional, or Corrected by Any Other Sufficient Bid or Pass
If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination may have been conventional or if the bid is corrected by any other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (apply Law 10C1 and see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side; and the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply).
I'd toss out that Lawbook if I were you, and obtain a copy of the one that has been in force for the past five years. You would be aware, if you have been reading these forums, well, at all, that Law 27 underwent one of the most major changes in the whole book.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,606
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2012-August-23, 17:37
I am continually amazed at the crazy ideas people get about what the laws say. That said, I suspect that the TD's ruling (that 3NT can be changed to 4NT under Law 27B1(a)) is correct, although the way he went about it was certainly flawed.
The correct ruling is to give the offender's LHO (East in this case) the opportunity to accept the IB (Law 27A1). If he does so, the auction proceeds without further rectification. If East does not accept the IB, the Director should determine (possibly taking the offender away from the table) whether 4NT might be artificial - which it will be if their agreement is that it's some form of Blackwood, and might be if East is not sure. Then the director should check to see if the partnership methods include another call at this point which "has the same meaning or a more precise meaning" as the IB (I find this highly unlikely). If 4NT is incontrovertibly (look it up) not artificial - and the director, like the OP, cannot know this without checking the methods of the partnership — then he should say "you may correct to 4NT, and there well be no further rectification (Law 27B1{a})". If 4NT is not incontrovertibly not artificial, then the director should say "you may correct 3NT to any call which has the same meaning or a more precise meaning* in your system as does 3NT, in which case there will be no further rectification(Law 27B1{b})". In both cases the director should add "if you correct to any other legal call, your partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call, there may be lead restrictions if the offending side become defenders (Law 26) and I may consider adjusting the score after the hand is played (Law 23) if I believe you have gained from the infraction (Law 27B2)."
If 4NT is conventional, and offender corrects to it anyway, his partner is barred. The director cannot require that partner to respond to the convention. Note that the NOS can do what they like here.
What should an AC do? Well, that depends. It seems the director did not give the offender's LHO the opportunity to accept the IB. That is a matter of law, and the AC cannot override the TD on such things - the AC can only recommend that the TD change his ruling. The question whether 4NT is "incontrovertibly not conventional" is a matter of judgement, and if the AC determines that the TD was wrong when he (apparently) decided that 4NT is "incontrovertibly not conventional", then they could in theory change his ruling. But to what? The board has been played, a result has been obtain, albeit a result contaminated by an incorrect ruling. I think, but am not entirely certain, that the AC can apply Law 82C ("if a ruling has been given that the director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose.") If I am right, then the AC can adjust the score using Law 82C. See Law 93B3: "In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the director, except that the committee may not overrule the director on a point of law or regulations or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the director that he change such a ruling.)"
The correct ruling is to give the offender's LHO (East in this case) the opportunity to accept the IB (Law 27A1). If he does so, the auction proceeds without further rectification. If East does not accept the IB, the Director should determine (possibly taking the offender away from the table) whether 4NT might be artificial - which it will be if their agreement is that it's some form of Blackwood, and might be if East is not sure. Then the director should check to see if the partnership methods include another call at this point which "has the same meaning or a more precise meaning" as the IB (I find this highly unlikely). If 4NT is incontrovertibly (look it up) not artificial - and the director, like the OP, cannot know this without checking the methods of the partnership — then he should say "you may correct to 4NT, and there well be no further rectification (Law 27B1{a})". If 4NT is not incontrovertibly not artificial, then the director should say "you may correct 3NT to any call which has the same meaning or a more precise meaning* in your system as does 3NT, in which case there will be no further rectification(Law 27B1{b})". In both cases the director should add "if you correct to any other legal call, your partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call, there may be lead restrictions if the offending side become defenders (Law 26) and I may consider adjusting the score after the hand is played (Law 23) if I believe you have gained from the infraction (Law 27B2)."
If 4NT is conventional, and offender corrects to it anyway, his partner is barred. The director cannot require that partner to respond to the convention. Note that the NOS can do what they like here.
What should an AC do? Well, that depends. It seems the director did not give the offender's LHO the opportunity to accept the IB. That is a matter of law, and the AC cannot override the TD on such things - the AC can only recommend that the TD change his ruling. The question whether 4NT is "incontrovertibly not conventional" is a matter of judgement, and if the AC determines that the TD was wrong when he (apparently) decided that 4NT is "incontrovertibly not conventional", then they could in theory change his ruling. But to what? The board has been played, a result has been obtain, albeit a result contaminated by an incorrect ruling. I think, but am not entirely certain, that the AC can apply Law 82C ("if a ruling has been given that the director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose.") If I am right, then the AC can adjust the score using Law 82C. See Law 93B3: "In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the director, except that the committee may not overrule the director on a point of law or regulations or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the director that he change such a ruling.)"
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#12
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,439
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2012-August-24, 07:08
ArtK78, on 2012-August-23, 11:37, said:
LAW 23 DAMAGING ENFORCED PASS
Reference will be made to this Law from many other Laws that prescribe penalties for auction-period infractions.
When the penalty for an irregularity under any Law would compel the offender's partner to pass at his next turn, if the Director deems that the offender, at the time of his irregularity, could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue and consider awarding an adjusted score (see Law 72B1).
It is not clear at all that, when North made his 3NT bid that he knew that the application of Law 27A2 and Law 23 would result in his partner being required to pass at his next turn if he corrected 3NT to 4NT. If the TD informed him that his partner would be required to pass, then you have a better case for having the TD require that the auction continue.
Reference will be made to this Law from many other Laws that prescribe penalties for auction-period infractions.
When the penalty for an irregularity under any Law would compel the offender's partner to pass at his next turn, if the Director deems that the offender, at the time of his irregularity, could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue and consider awarding an adjusted score (see Law 72B1).
It is not clear at all that, when North made his 3NT bid that he knew that the application of Law 27A2 and Law 23 would result in his partner being required to pass at his next turn if he corrected 3NT to 4NT. If the TD informed him that his partner would be required to pass, then you have a better case for having the TD require that the auction continue.
It doesn't matter whether he DID know that barring his partner would likely help, just whether he COULD HAVE known.
A competent TD should explain the repercussions of the choices.
#13
- Group: Members
- Posts: 25
- Joined: 2010-December-05
Posted 2012-August-24, 12:44
Blackshoe has given an answer that covers everything, so I won't comment on the ruling. But, why do you call this a "trick used by your opponents"? Do you have any proof that N did see the 4♣ bid and still made the insufficient 3NT bid knowingly? If not, and actually in all circumstances, it would be wise to refrain from accusing any player of using 'tricks', since this is a blatant violation of law 74A2 "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player". You should also refrain from trying to get a changed ruling, most certainly when you obviously are mistaken about the laws yourself. You could ask the TD on which laws he based his ruling, you might even say that you have the idea that the laws state something different, but you certainly should not argue "that South had unauthorized information about his partner having no interest in slam, and therefore South should answer the North's Blackwood inquiry". If had been the TD in this case, I would possibly have given you a PP.
Page 1 of 1