[manudude03]

---

For ruling purposes, Northern Ireland uses the EBU regulations.

MPs scoring. Convention cards not in use.

The auction starts as above. Over 5H, East tries to bid 5D. Director is called at this point and asks south if they accept. South says they do not. The director then explains that if 5D is natural, it may be corrected to the same suit at a sufficient level. South then interjects saying that 5D is surely an answer to some form of blackwood. East now bids 6D and East explains that it would be natural. Director says there is no further rectification.

At the end of play, South says they would not have bid 6H if West was obligated to pass 6D and director is called again still convinced 5D has been intended as a reply to an ace ask.

E/W's agreement was that 5D uninterrupted would have shown 1 ace, but they have no agreement over interference.

The table result was 7Hx-4 by North for 8%. How would you rule?

[RMB1]

The TD appears to be ruling under Law 27B1(a), which includes:

Quote

in the Director’s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial

My opinion is different from the TD's, I think the insufficient 5♦ is not incontrovertibly not artificial (that is, 5♦ could be artificial). I would suggest that an (insufficient) 5-level response to 4NT ("ace" asking) could always be showing the number of aces, so is never incontrovertibly not artificial.

Reluctantly, I might allow 6♦ as a non-partner-silencing replacement call under Law 27B1(b), if offender told me that once there was intervention he was trying to bid diamonds naturally and was confused about the level.

[sanst]

It's clear that the director made an error in allowing W to bid. What he should have done is firstly establishing the facts. From the OP I gather that 4NT was Blackwood, 5♦ would show 1 ace and EW have no agreement over interference. I hope that W, and not E, explained that 6♦ is natural, but I think that was more of a guess than an agreement.
Anyway, since 5♦ is conventional and 6 of the same natural W is forced to pass. But the director never explained that nor the alternatives that E had. If he had, changes are that E would have bid 6♠.
In this case both sides are to be treated as non offending. But I can't see where the bidding would have ended. Would E have bid 6♠? Would either N or S have pulled 7♥ out of the box or have doubled 6♠? I don't like it, but I think I would have gone for Avg+ for both, but please correct me.
OT: next time EW might know about DOPI and there wouldn't have been a problem at all.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2015-October-09, 04:21, said:

Avg+ for both, but please correct me.

I agree, and standard PP for the TD.

[VixTD]

RMB1, on 2015-October-09, 00:57, said:

Reluctantly, I might allow 6♦ as a non-partner-silencing replacement call under Law 27B1(b), if offender told me that once there was intervention he was trying to bid diamonds naturally and was confused about the level.

But the replacement call has to have the same or a more restricted meaning than what was intended by the insufficient bid, and that's not the case here, unless 6♦ also promised one ace.

[VixTD]

sanst, on 2015-October-09, 04:21, said:

I don't like it, but I think I would have gone for Avg+ for both, but please correct me.

I would try to work out the likelihood of some possible actual results had the director given a correct ruling, such as 5♠(E)=, 6♠(E)-1, 6♥X(N)-3 and 7♥X(N)-4. I know that awarding an artificial adjusted score is legal under law 12C1(d), but the difference in matchpoints between an Av+ and the assigned score you would have given to a non-offending side could be huge if all of the possible outcomes would have given them a poor score.

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2015-October-09, 06:53, said:

But the replacement call has to have the same or a more restricted meaning than what was intended by the insufficient bid, and that's not the case here, unless 6♦ also promised one ace.

I was envisaging that (away from the table) responder told me that he seen that the next hand had bid over 4NT, that they do not have any agreements about action over intervention, and decided that he would show diamond support. Then I might rule that the (intended) meaning of 5♦ was "diamonds" and the (agreed) meaning of 6♦ was "diamonds", so Law 27B1(b) would apply and partner is not silenced.

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2015-October-09, 07:59

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2015-October-09, 07:28, said:

I was envisaging that (away from the table) responder told me that he seen that the next hand had bid over 4NT, that they do not have any agreements about action over intervention, and decided that he would show diamond support.

I would not believe him. You seem to me more gullible. And it is the intended meaning when the bid was sufficient that matters. If 4NT was pick a minor, you might be right!

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2015-October-09, 00:57, said:

Reluctantly, I might allow 6♦ as a non-partner-silencing replacement call under Law 27B1(b), if offender told me that once there was intervention he was trying to bid diamonds naturally and was confused about the level.

sanst, on 2015-October-09, 04:21, said:

It's clear that the director made an error in allowing W to bid.… I don't like it, but I think I would have gone for Avg+ for both, but please correct me.

lamford, on 2015-October-09, 04:35, said:

I agree, and standard PP for the TD.

VixTD, on 2015-October-09, 07:06, said:

I would try to work out the likelihood of some possible actual results had the director given a correct ruling, such as 5♠(E)=, 6♠(E)-1, 6♥X(N)-3 and 7♥X(N)-4. I know that awarding an artificial adjusted score is legal under law 12C1(d), but the difference in matchpoints between an Av+ and the assigned score you would have given to a non-offending side could be huge if all of the possible outcomes would have given them a poor score.

RMB1, on 2015-October-09, 07:28, said:

I was envisaging that (away from the table) responder told me that he seen that the next hand had bid over 4NT, that they do not have any agreements about action over intervention, and decided that he would show diamond support. Then I might rule that the (intended) meaning of 5♦ was "diamonds" and the (agreed) meaning of 6♦ was "diamonds", so Law 27B1(b) would apply and partner is not silenced.

Whatever East was trying to do, it seems clear that 5♦, had it been sufficient, is not incontrovertibly not artificial. So a 27B1{a} ruling is right out. I would, like VixTD, be very reluctant to buy East's "5♦ is natural" argument. I think he's trying to wriggle his way out of the dilemma. So I would not rule under 27B1{b}. Thus, it seems to me, the table director's ruling was an error. Now 82C applies, and the director "shall award an adjusted score". This should almost always be an assigned adjusted score rather than an artificial one. So I agree with VixTD: try to work out what an assigned score would be, only invoking 12C1{d} as a last resort. I do agree with Paul's PP for the TD.

[mycroft]

"incontrovertibly not artificial." My emphasis. Even if RHO told me that blackwood is off after interference (requires evidence) and he was trying to show diamond support (likely true), if his hand is a 5♦ response to 4NT-p, then the Probst Cheat is the controversy. I will happily tell the player that I believe her, but the Laws require this ruling no matter what my belief.