[VixTD]

---

MP pairs.
East bid 2♦ at her second turn, and was told it was insufficient. She substituted 3♦, which was passed out, and made nine tricks.

South called the director (a little belatedly, some may think) to query West's pass of a forcing bid.

Would anyone think of adjusting the score? What if South had called the director at a sensible time, the director had given a ruling that culminated in East substituting 3♦, passed out and made?

[blackshoe]

Result stands. Laws 27B1{a} and 27D.

[nige1]

Presumably, each player is responsible for calling the director, as soon as attention is drawn to the insufficient bid. Defenders do seem to have been damaged by the pass of an ostensibly forcing bid, so, even if defenders become aware of this,belatedly, I still think the director should rule against the declaring side.

[campboy]

It seems clear that they couldn't play in 3♦ "without assistance gained through the infraction", so we should be adjusting under 27D if we think there is damage. It looks to me like possible contracts without the infraction are 3♣ by West (which will probably go off) or 2♠ by North (which will go two off).

[Cyberyeti]

 blackshoe, on 2011-May-31, 07:42, said:

Result stands. Laws 27B1{a} and 27D.

I don't understand your reading of 27D. Surely without the infraction, 3♦ is forcing and W bids again. This is basically a UI case now (in essence if not in the paragraphs of the laws that are used) and the infraction has affected the result so you can adjust.

If you get away with this, remind me to bid 2♦ then 3♦ every time I have a 5-5 10 count.

[Cyberyeti]

 campboy, on 2011-May-31, 07:54, said:

It seems clear that they couldn't play in 3♦ "without assistance gained through the infraction", so we should be adjusting under 27D if we think there is damage. It looks to me like possible contracts without the infraction are 3♣ by West (which will probably go off) or 2♠ by North (which will go two off).

This can't be right, there is no adjustable infraction committed till after 3♦ is bid (as the law says we're free to substitute this) so we can't adjust to anything below that.

[mgoetze]

I would expect 2♠-2 to be a not implausible result, though whether it is the "probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred" perhaps depends on who is sitting West.

[mgoetze]

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-May-31, 08:04, said:

This can't be right, there is no adjustable infraction committed till after 3♦ is bid

Sorry, I don't understand. Surely the 2♦ bid was a potentially adjustable infraction which occured before 3♦ was bid?

[blackshoe]

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-May-31, 08:01, said:

I don't understand your reading of 27D. Surely without the infraction, 3♦ is forcing and W bids again. This is basically a UI case now (in essence if not in the paragraphs of the laws that are used) and the infraction has affected the result so you can adjust.

If you get away with this, remind me to bid 2♦ then 3♦ every time I have a 5-5 10 count.

South said 3♦ is forcing. I see no evidence that EW agreed with this.

Mostly I'm just annoyed at players who want to flout the rules (by not calling the TD for the IB when it happened) and then want a better score than they got for themselves.

[Cyberyeti]

 mgoetze, on 2011-May-31, 08:19, said:

Sorry, I don't understand. Surely the 2♦ bid was a potentially adjustable infraction which occured before 3♦ was bid?

3♦ is absolutely permissible as stated in 27b1a and the player has exercised his right to bid it. You can't remove E's right to bid this.

Quote

27b1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the
same denomination and in the Director’s opinion both the
insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not
artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D
does not apply but see D following.

D being:

Quote

If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play
that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the
board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending
side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his
adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable
outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred.

So the 3♦ bid cannot be construed as an advantage gained through the infraction, but the pass opposite can be.

In response to Blackshoe, I've not known anybody play this as NF, but I suppose it's possible. You'd have thought EW might have said so immediately when the director was called if that was the case, and I'd have thought it would be sufficiently unexpected to be alertable.

[campboy]

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-May-31, 09:10, said:

3♦ is absolutely permissible as stated in 27b1a and the player has exercised his right to bid it. You can't remove E's right to bid this.

No-one is doing that. The infraction in 27D is the insufficient bid.

Neither 3♦ nor pass is an infraction. The fact that 3♦ is a replacement of an insufficient 2♦ is explicitly authorised to West (27b1a says that 16D does not apply), so you cannot remove West's right to pass.

What you can do under 27D is roll back to what might have happened the insufficient bid (the only infraction, other than not calling the TD in time!) never happened. I believe in that case East would not have taken any action and West would either bid 3♣, ending the auction, or pass; YMMV on that.

[Cyberyeti]

 campboy, on 2011-May-31, 13:18, said:

No-one is doing that. The infraction in 27D is the insufficient bid.

Neither 3♦ nor pass is an infraction. The fact that 3♦ is a replacement of an insufficient 2♦ is explicitly authorised to West (27b1a says that 16D does not apply), so you cannot remove West's right to pass.

What you can do under 27D is roll back to what might have happened the insufficient bid (the only infraction, other than not calling the TD in time!) never happened. I believe in that case East would not have taken any action and West would either bid 3♣, ending the auction, or pass; YMMV on that.

Surely not, because E could have passed instead of bidding 3♦, he didn't have to correct it, but he chose to bid 3♦.

The only question is whether 3♦ is still forcing in the light of the correction being AI. It certainly would be for us.

[mgoetze]

The downvote button needs to be removed, I keep trying to press it to no avail.

[campboy]

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-May-31, 15:51, said:

Surely not, because E could have passed instead of bidding 3♦, he didn't have to correct it, but he chose to bid 3♦.

I don't understand why this is relevant. The point is that E/W had no way to stop in 3♦ without the IB but once the IB was made they could. Thus the infraction "assisted" E/W in getting to 3♦. This is exactly the situation 27D is addressing; I don't see what the problem is.

[Cyberyeti]

 campboy, on 2011-May-31, 16:24, said:

I don't understand why this is relevant. The point is that E/W had no way to stop in 3♦ without the IB but once the IB was made they could. Thus the infraction "assisted" E/W in getting to 3♦. This is exactly the situation 27D is addressing; I don't see what the problem is.

You read it differently to me, we agree the advantage gained is that 3♦ may now be NF, therefore I think we take that advantage away by treating it as the forcing bid it was before and making W continue over it.

This is IIRC analogous to how you remedy the situation when the insufficient bidder silences his partner to rescue an auction that's heading rapidly off the rails.

[jhenrikj]

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-01, 02:02, said:

You read it differently to me, we agree the advantage gained is that 3♦ may now be NF, therefore I think we take that advantage away by treating it as the forcing bid it was before and making W continue over it.

There is no law under which you can force a player to bid over 3♦. We use 27D to adjust the score, nothing else.

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-01, 02:02, said:

This is IIRC analogous to how you remedy the situation when the insufficient bidder silences his partner to rescue an auction that's heading rapidly off the rails.

Now you are talking about applying law 23, that is something completely different. And you can't force a player to bid something there either, you have to let the players play the board and if necessary adjust the score afterwards. You can can never intervene as a TD telling the players what they can bid and not if it's not a rectification from the laws.

[Cyberyeti]

 jhenrikj, on 2011-June-01, 02:48, said:

There is no law under which you can force a player to bid over 3♦. We use 27D to adjust the score, nothing else.

Sorry, please explain:

Quote

If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play
that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the
board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending
side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his
adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable
outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred

Without the assistance gained by the infraction, the director decides that the outcome could well have been P-P-1♥-P-2♣-2♠-3♦-P-4♦(or 3N)-P-P-P without the insufficient bid so adjusts to 4♦-1 or 3N-?. This seems to be exactly what the law is saying.

[gordontd]

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-01, 02:58, said:

Sorry, please explain:

He means that you don't tell them during the auction "you must bid...". You wait till the end of the hand and then adjust. I know that you know that, but it's not literally what you said, and some others reading this might not know it.

[gordontd]

 campboy, on 2011-May-31, 13:18, said:

No-one is doing that. The infraction in 27D is the insufficient bid.

Neither 3♦ nor pass is an infraction. The fact that 3♦ is a replacement of an insufficient 2♦ is explicitly authorised to West (27b1a says that 16D does not apply), so you cannot remove West's right to pass.

What you can do under 27D is roll back to what might have happened the insufficient bid (the only infraction, other than not calling the TD in time!) never happened. I believe in that case East would not have taken any action and West would either bid 3♣, ending the auction, or pass; YMMV on that.

As is usually the case, I think campboy has this right.

[mgoetze]

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-01, 02:58, said:

Without the assistance gained by the infraction, the director decides that the outcome could well have been P-P-1♥-P-2♣-2♠-3♦-P-4♦(or 3N)-P-P-P without the insufficient bid

No, he decides the outcome could well have been P-P-1♥-P-2♣-2♠-P-P-P or P-P-1♥-P-2♣-2♠-P-P-3♣-P-P-P.