[blackshoe]

keithhus, on 2016-November-30, 17:22, said:

Moving the issue on a little, when is a bid a mis bid/illegal? I think I have been told 1 card/2 points outside declared range. At our club, we play standard ACOL unless announced/alerted. Hence, standard opening is 12-14 points. Bear in mind we do not psyche at our level. Thanks

You seem to be asking "when is a deviation from disclosed methods illegal"? The answer is "rarely". A psych is, by definition, a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit length. if the misstatement is not "gross" it's not a psych. According to the EBU White Book, "a misbid is an inadvertent mis-statement of honour strength and/or suit length. A deviation is a deliberate but minor mis-statement of honour strength and/or suit length" (WB §1.4.1). You say you think you've been told 1 card or 2 points outside declared range is illegal, but it's not that simple. Did the player deliberately deviate from their agreement, or did he make a mistake? Generally speaking, if he made a mistake, there's no problem unless his partner expects that he did (from prior experience most probably). Even then, if the partner discloses the tendency to misbid, there's no problem. If he deviated knowingly from agreements, that in itself is not illegal either. The question is whether his partner has any more reason to expect the deviation (again, most likely from prior experience) then the opponents do. If not, there's nothing illegal here.

As for a 1 card deviation, consider this: a pair play weak twos, and agree that such bids normally show a six card suit. To say that opening a weak two on a five card suit or a seven card suit is illegal would, I hope you agree, be ridiculous. First, such a rule would obviate the player's judgement, and judgement is what the game is all about. Second, opening a weak two on a good five card suit, particularly in third seat, is common practice even among non-experts.

I normally play a 15-17 1NT opening. I've seen a lot of hands with 14 HCP with which I would upgrade and open 1NT. With some partners, we write "good 14 to 17" on our card and explain it that way. With other partners, I've stopped upgrading because they can't remember to disclose properly. With still others, we've never discussed upgrading and they don't notice when I do. There is nothing wrong with any of that. Okay, that's one point. Two points? I've seen a few 13 counts, usually with a five card suit, that "look like" a fifteen count, but I don't open those 1NT — but I wouldn't claim that someone who did made an illegal bid, provided the tendency to upgrade is properly disclosed. Get down to 12 HCP and you're in psych territory, but still not illegal if properly disclosed, or if, more likely, the bidder's partner doesn't expect it.

White Book §1.4, Psychic Bidding, is a pretty good exposition of the principles involved. I recommend it to you (it's a free download from the EBU website).

NB: regarding psychs and the expectation of psyching, it sounds like in your club nobody would ever expect a psych. In such a situation, if someone did psych (a deliberate action, remember) he will have done nothing wrong as far as the rules of the game are concerned — but club management might ask him to refrain from doing it again. That said, a club that bans psychs is not playing bridge according to the rules of the game, and if I were in charge of giving out masterpoints for such a game, they wouldn't get any.

[billw55]

keithhus, on 2016-November-30, 14:25, said:

Thank you and everyone else for troubling to respond. However, I am going to keep digging! I am not convinced this is equity; ask the man on the Clapham Omnibus. When a board is not played due to slow play on a previous board(s) an average score is given. The QB analogy is akin to the wrong card being discarded during play. I do not see this as similar to the board being passed out due to a bidding error, resulting in the hand - I.e. Game, not being played. I appreciate mistakes are made during play which affects the scoring and I accept that is part and parcel of the game. However, I still feel these specific circumstances are different and that the laws should allow discretion to award an average score, say if both pairs agree. I appreciate I am inexperienced, and that it's not going to happen, but at the moment, I still feel an average would be a fairer outcome. Thank you all once again, onward and upward (hopefully).

As sfi said, you do have our sympathy. We have all been fixed, many times. Bad beat stories do get commiseration.

But they don't get changes in the rules. One problem is that ruling against mistakes is essentially impossible: most boards in most events would need adjustments! You would also have to define mistakes - this guy passed a 13 count that you think he should have opened. What about a 12 count, or 11? Or a normal preempt that was passed instead? Would you average these out too?

Another problem is that it is perfectly legal for the player who passed his 13 count to do so on purpose. Rolling back tactical choices that work would make bridge into a non-game.

[barmar]

I feel like this discussion should be moved to "General Bridge Discussion". "Simple Rulings" is supposed to be for basic questions about how to apply the Laws, not discussion about changing the rules of the game.

[sanst]

You claim to be damaged by the possible mistake or misbid of your opponents and therefore be entitled to some form of an equitable result. But nowhere in the laws it says so. Nearest comes Law 86D "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity." But an offence should have been committed if you want to use this law. And a legal pass, even if you have 37HCP, is not an offence, so this law doesn't come into play.
You refer to the meaning of equity. Although I 'm not a native English speaker, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think it has to do with fairness. But was it unfair of your opponent to pass? Would it still have been unfair if they missed a game?

[blackshoe]

86D only applies in team play. This appears to have been pairs, unless I missed something.

barmar: you're right that discussion of what the laws "should" be, or of changes to them, doesn't belong in simple rulings, but I'm inclined to cut the group a little slack on that. Consider it thread drift, which is okay as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

This really should be a simple ruling question.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2016-December-02, 17:56, said:

86D only applies in team play. This appears to have been pairs, unless I missed something.

Sorry, 84D.

[blackshoe]

Ah. 84D makes sense. But you're right - there has to have been an irregularity for that law to apply.

"Equity" has to do with both sides' expectation of tricks absent an irregularity. If the offending side gained from an irregularity, the director adjusts the score to restore equity - to give the gain back to the non-offending side.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2016-December-03, 10:46, said:

Ah. 84D makes sense. But you're right - there has to have been an irregularity for that law to apply.

"Equity" has to do with both sides' expectation of tricks absent an irregularity. If the offending side gained from an irregularity, the director adjusts the score to restore equity - to give the gain back to the non-offending side.

That is how I read the laws. But from the OP I got the impression that the poster thinks that the result on a board should be got in a fair manner, otherwise the TD should compensate the pair that is damaged.

[blackshoe]

Damage arises from an infraction. No infraction, no damage. And no "compensation".