[Chris3875]

Bidding went 1C (at least 3 clubs and opening hand)- 1H - X - P - 4S - P - 3NT. 3NT not accepted and bid changed to 4NT which now becomes a RKC ace ask - director says 1C opener must pass for remainder of the auction. All pass and 11 tricks are made. Director takes the auction back to 3NT making 11 tricks - what's the point?

[blackshoe]

---

Like this?

The director has applied Law 27B2, because 4NT has a different meaning than 3NT would have had if it had been sufficient. I agree with this.

I'm not sure what you mean by "takes the auction back". Did he rule that he was adjusting the score from 4NT making 11 tricks to 3NT making 11 tricks? If so, I agree with you - there doesn't seem to be any point to that. Aside from that, there seems no legal basis for a score adjustment anyway.

[gordontd]

I think we should be lookng at L23 and considering where the auction would have gone without the benefit of South being silenced.

[Chris3875]

Yes, sorry - director allowed the hand to be played in 4NT - then adjusted the score back to 3NT making 11. Didn't seem much point to me. I might have been a bit tempted to see whether 4 spades went off and by how much or even see what happened if South was forced to reply to the ace ask (probably would have ended up in 6NT going off one). I wasn't at this event so don't know what the cards were - and I am only hearing one side of the story too.

[Zelandakh]

How many tricks would have been made in spades? Since 4NT could not have been a resting place without the IB, it might be correct to correct to 4♠.

[paulg]

gordontd, on 2013-September-19, 00:08, said:

I think we should be looking at L23 and considering where the auction would have gone without the benefit of South being silenced.

The "could have been aware" qualification to Law 23 ("an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side") is almost redundant because of its breadth of scope. Surely everyone is aware that an irregularity or infraction could well damage the NOs? Perhaps how it might damage them might be difficult to foresee, it often is, but this is not what the Law says.

So I don't like this law as written but I do approve of Gordon's intentions in terms of adjusting.

[gordontd]

paulg, on 2013-September-19, 06:51, said:

The "could have been aware" qualification to Law 23 ("an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side") is almost redundant because of its breadth of scope. Surely everyone is aware that an irregularity or infraction could well damage the NOs? Perhaps how it might damage them might be difficult to foresee, it often is, but this is not what the Law says.

So I don't like this law as written but I do approve of Gordon's intentions in terms of adjusting.

Don't forget the significance of "could well damage". This is a classic example of how the only way to play in 4NT is by making an insufficient bid, so easily falls within the scope of the law. Often it's hard to see how anyone would have been able to anticipate an improved result from an insufficient bid.

[ahydra]

When there's an IB you're meant to ask the IBer what they were trying to do. What was the answer to that?

ahydra

[aguahombre]

ahydra, on 2013-September-19, 07:23, said:

When there's an IB you're meant to ask the IBer what they were trying to do. What was the answer to that?

ahydra

Here, I assume the finger fumble possibility had already been eliminated.

Other than that, I don't think the IBer will answer: "It's the only way I would think of to play game in notrump." Law 23 is designed and worded to adjust without accusing. Unlike Paulg, I think the lawdogs did a good job with it.

[iviehoff]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-19, 08:26, said:

Other than that, I don't think the IBer will answer: "It's the only way I would think of to play game in notrump." Law 23 is designed and worded to adjust without accusing.

But he might well answer that he had a brainfart that made him think that 3N was sufficient, and could well be telling the truth. In which case the correction to 4N (silencing partner) is entirely legal in the immediate situation. However if 4S is making 11 tricks or fewer, it should be adjusted to 4S under the insufficient bid law, no need for reference to Law 23.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2013-September-19, 12:07, said:

However if 4S is making 11 tricks or fewer, it should be adjusted to 4S under the insufficient bid law, no need for reference to Law 23.

Which part of the insufficient bid law?

[aguahombre]

iviehoff, on 2013-September-19, 12:07, said:

But he might well answer that he had a brainfart that made him think that 3N was sufficient, and could well be telling the truth. In which case the correction to 4N (silencing partner) is entirely legal in the immediate situation.

No. Law 23 is not dependent upon self-serving statements, and we don't even have to tell him our opinion of the self-serving statement.

[gordontd]

iviehoff, on 2013-September-19, 12:07, said:

But he might well answer that he had a brainfart that made him think that 3N was sufficient, and could well be telling the truth. In which case the correction to 4N (silencing partner) is entirely legal in the immediate situation. However if 4S is making 11 tricks or fewer, it should be adjusted to 4S under the insufficient bid law, no need for reference to Law 23.

Law 27D only applies to rulings made under L27B1. This was made under L27B2.

[barmar]

Question: did the director warn the IBer of the consequences of correcting to a conventional 4NT?

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2013-September-19, 13:15, said:

Question: did the director warn the IBer of the consequences of correcting to a conventional 4NT?

You mean the consequence that he could win if the TD does not apply 23? and break even if the TD does apply it? The careful, tactful wording of 23 seems to preclude piling on any PP if just that law is used.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-19, 13:25, said:

You mean the consequence that he could win if the TD does not apply 23? and break even if the TD does apply it? The careful, tactful wording of 23 seems to preclude piling on any PP if just that law is used.

I think he's referring to the consequence of director's failure (if he did so fail) to comply with Law 10C1: "When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all the options available". The consequence of director's failure to do that is that Law 82C may come into play: "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".

[Vampyr]

How do you sign off in 5NT after bidding Blackwood? Just make an insufficient bid and correct it to 5NT, silencing partner...

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-19, 16:30, said:

How do you sign off in 5NT after bidding Blackwood? Just make an insufficient bid and correct it to 5NT, silencing partner...

By bidding a "new" suit at the five Level.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-19, 16:30, said:

How do you sign off in 5NT after bidding Blackwood? Just make an insufficient bid and correct it to 5NT, silencing partner...

pran, on 2013-September-19, 22:27, said:

By bidding a "new" suit at the five Level.

I had exactly such a ruling once, and I adjusted it to 6NT-1. It was however made harder by the fact that in 5NT they had been allowed to make twelve tricks, but I considered that in 6NT they would have taken both their aces.

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2013-September-19, 12:26, said:

Law 27D only applies to rulings made under L27B1. This was made under L27B2.

I don't really understand the purpose of 27D, or why it applies only to rulings under 27B1.

It should be impossible to gain from an infraction where 27B1 applies, so there should never be a need for an adjustment. When 27B2 applies, on the other hand, it is possible to gain. so this is the situation where 27D ought to apply.

But in any case, if there is damage we have Law 23, so why do we need 27D as well? The only difference seems to be that 27D doesn't include the "could have known" test, but I think that test is passed by any insufficient bid. It doesn't say anything about knowing how the damage might occur.