[sanst]

pescetom, on 2018-November-03, 10:48, said:

Do you mean AI to partner of offender? He can use the knowledge that partner wished to bid at 1-level?

That’s right. Law 27B1(a) says that Law 16C, whch makes the information from a withdrawn call UI to the partner of the offender, doesn’t apply. But if it damages the NOS, the TD should award an AS (Law 27D).

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2018-November-03, 15:03, said:

That’s right. Law 27B1(a) says that Law 16C, whch makes the information from a withdrawn call UI to the partner of the offender, doesn’t apply. But if it damages the NOS, the TD should award an AS (Law 27D).

Thanks, I missed that. I guess the lawmakers thought that this was less disruptive than disallowing the replacement and less problematic than expecting offender's partner to treat the withdrawn call as AI, which would however seem to be more coherent with other laws.

[weejonnie]

pescetom, on 2018-November-03, 10:48, said:

Do you mean AI to partner of offender? He can use the knowledge that partner wished to bid at 1-level?

Law 27B1

1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same
denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call, the auction proceeds without
further rectification. Laws 26B and 16C do not apply but see D following.

Law 26B is lead restrictions and law 16C is 'information from a withdrawn call' so the information is indeed AI. 'D' is shown below (There is limited additional information anyway since the same suit(s) are shown.)

D. Non‐offending Side Damaged
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.

One example would be if a player overcalls 1NT (e.g. 1H - 2D - 1NT which may only show 6-9 points: he can replace the call with 2NT even though that may show 10-12 points (assuming the bid is natural and not showing a heart raise) and partner is allowed to carry on with the knowledge that the call only showed 6-9. e.g. not bid game with 15 points.

HOWEVER: suppose that 2NT makes exactly and there was no other bid that the offender could make. Now there could be damage and the TD will rule the contract back to 2C (or however he thinks the auction would progress afterwards if the 1NT bid hadn't been made - if that is better for the NOS.

(I may need advice here - the law says "had the insufficient bid not occurred" - I assume it does allow the offender to make a different call at this point.

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2018-November-04, 04:58, said:

(I may need advice here - the law says "had the insufficient bid not occurred" - I assume it does allow the offender to make a different call at this point.

I imagine that as meaning "had the insufficient bid not occurred and a systemically consistent call been made" - where that call might be a bid in a different denomination from the insufficient bid and the replacement bid, or just pass if no such bid exists.

[blackshoe]

If responder had not made an insufficient bid, he might have made any legal call. So I suppose you have to look at what legal calls he might have made. Whether these calls would have to be consistent with their system I don't think the law says.

[barmar]

It says "the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred." Do you really think that psychic bids are probable?

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-November-06, 10:21, said:

It says "the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred." Do you really think that psychic bids are probable?

A bid can be deviant from system without being psychic. But it would still seem odd that the Director should have to evaluate such bids as probable.

[blackshoe]

In general, an experienced player is less likely to deviate from system than an inexperienced player, at least in most situations. But I don't know where the line is, if there is one. Or how the TD should judge whether such a deviation is "probable".

[barmar]

Basically, I interpret that as just being another way of saying "the expected, normal result". Unless there are some MSC-type decisions, you can often figure out how a normal auction will go.

[weejonnie]

Probable != (or <>) Possible.

Probable = likely to happen or be the case

it is possible that the final result would be 7NTXX - it is probable that the result would be 3H or 3S.

I don't think that 'probable' excludes a weighted ruling though.