[Ethel]

The following situation occurred recently.

East dealer:

North opens the bidding with 1♠ - Director is called: East does not accept the bid. North is told to pick up the bid and the table is told to keep bidding. Getting the book is recommended to the director. Director leaves to get the book. Bidding continues:

East South West North
P 1♣ 1♦ ?

Before North has a chance to bid - the director returns with the laws and tells the table that South is barred from bidding for the entire auction.
Bidding reverts to East and it goes:

East South West North
P P 1♦ 4♠


The North hand is: ♠ A K 7 6 5 2
♥ 5 3
♦ J 7 2
♣ A 5

Should this result be permitted to stand. What rational can North have to bid 4♠ other than unauthorized information about the South hand?

[Hanoi5]

There's a wrong decision by the Director. I think the result cannot stand. An adjusted score looks correct.

[pran]

Ethel, on 2011-October-22, 06:51, said:

The following situation occurred recently.

East dealer:

North opens the bidding with 1♠ - Director is called: East does not accept the bid. North is told to pick up the bid and the table is told to keep bidding. Getting the book is recommended to the director. Director leaves to get the book. Bidding continues:

East South West North
P 1♣ 1♦ ?

Before North has a chance to bid - the director returns with the laws and tells the table that South is barred from bidding for the entire auction.
Bidding reverts to East and it goes:

East South West North
P P 1♦ 4♠


The North hand is: ♠ A K 7 6 5 2
♥ 5 3
♦ J 7 2
♣ A 5

Should this result be permitted to stand. What rational can North have to bid 4♠ other than unauthorized information about the South hand?

The director is to blame for letting the auction continue before he has familiarised himself with the relevant laws and announced the correct ruling.

As a consequence I would rule Director's error and award A+ to both sides.

The relevant laws are:

31 said:

When a player has bid out of rotation, [...] and the call is cancelled the option in Law 29A not having been exercised, the following provisions apply:
[...]
B. Partner’s or LHO’s Turn
When the offender has bid [...] at his LHO’s turn to call, if the offender has not previously called**, offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply.

37 - ACTION VIOLATING OBLIGATION TO PASS said:

A. Offender’s LHO Calls before Rectification
If the inadmissible call was a bid or a double or redouble by a player required by law to pass (but not an action contrary to Law 19A1 or Law 19B1) and offender’s LHO calls before the Director has ruled on rectification, that call and all subsequent calls stand. If the offender was required to pass for the remainder of the auction he must still pass at subsequent turns. The lead restrictions in Law 26 do not apply.

B. Offender’s LHO does not Call before Rectification
When A does not apply:
1. any bid, double or redouble, by a player required by law to pass is cancelled.
2. a pass is substituted, the auction continues and each member of the offending side must pass whenever it is his turn to call. Law 23 may apply. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply.

The Director's error has led to the following irregularities:
1: South opening 1♣ when he should have been required to pass.
2: The cancelling of this bid when West had subsequently bid 1♦.

And to answer the last questions in OP: Yes, there is no longer any legal reason for prohibiting North from bidding 4♠. The 1♦ bid by West voids any rectification from the 1♣ opening bid. (Law 37A)

[iviehoff]

What a mess. Clearly this is director's error(s), and the director at various stages failed to protect both sides. I assume 4S is a reasonable good score for NS, otherwise there is no issue here.

However I am not sure what legal basis there is for awarding A+ to both sides. The relevant law (L82C) merely tells us to award an adjusted score treating both sides as non-offending, if no rectification will allow us to score the board normally. Given that N's 1C should, at that point, have been permitted to remain, then it seems to me that S would have bid 4S anyway, so I think NS keep the table score, if we treat them as non-offending (probably true even if it is a bad score). In the case of EW, then I will consider if I can give a weighted adjusted score to them, on the assumption that the table is given the correct ruling in the first place, only giving them A+ if it is too complicated (12C1d). Without seeing the whole hand, it is not immediately apparent it is too complicated.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2011-October-24, 03:17, said:

What a mess. Clearly this is director's error(s), and the director at various stages failed to protect both sides. I assume 4S is a reasonable good score for NS, otherwise there is no issue here.

However I am not sure what legal basis there is for awarding A+ to both sides. The relevant law (L82C) merely tells us to award an adjusted score treating both sides as non-offending, if no rectification will allow us to score the board normally. Given that N's 1C should, at that point, have been permitted to remain, then it seems to me that S would have bid 4S anyway, so I think NS keep the table score, if we treat them as non-offending (probably true even if it is a bad score). In the case of EW, then I will consider if I can give a weighted adjusted score to them, on the assumption that the table is given the correct ruling in the first place, only giving them A+ if it is too complicated (12C1d). Without seeing the whole hand, it is not immediately apparent it is too complicated.

The point is that all the bids made after the first irregularity (North's opening bid out of turn) are irregularities due to ignorance of the relevant laws for which responsibility is that of the director.

This auction has been destroyed by the director beyond repair and there is no way any contract can be reached (and certainly no result on the board can be obtained) while protecting the interests of both sides. The legal basis is then indeed Law 82C, and the consequence is to award A+ to both sides.

[iviehoff]

When the director makes an error that affects the subsequent course of the hand, we don't always throw our hands up in dispair saying everything after that was irregular and therefore only A+/A+ is rulable. A contract was entered into, and the hand was played to a result, despite the happenings. This gives us a benchmark for damage. Therefore we should consider an assigned adjustment.

I do not believe that NS have been damaged by the director's erroneous rulings, even though one of those rulings was prejudicial to them. Therefore it is plausible for the table result to stand for them, treating them as a non-offending side under L82. I think we know quite a lot about what the players would have done with correct rulings, and can therefore at least consider whether an assigned adjustment for EW is possible.

We know East, now fully informed as to what the initial ruling should be, would still choose to pass (even though he shouldn't have been given that option). We know that W chose to bid 1D either over 1C or over S's enforced pass, even though he shouldn't have been given that second option. I think we can be reasonably sure that N would bid something like 2S or 3S over 1D, given that under correct rulings there would have been no UI. So I think it could be possible to construct a weighted result from that start-point.

[campboy]

Ethel, on 2011-October-22, 06:51, said:

What rational can North have to bid 4♠ other than unauthorized information about the South hand?

In answer to this: North knows that his partner is silenced and that he will have to guess the final contract himself. Without UI I would bid 4♠ after p p(forced) 1♦. It is quite plausible that it is the right place for us to be; even if not it is unlikely to be a disaster and bidding it immediately puts pressure on opponents.

Now it is true that North had information from his partner's withdrawn call. However, as others have said, because of director error we now give an adjusted score based on both sides being non-offending. When we decide the score for N/S, therefore, we treat the withdrawn 1♣ bid as authorised information (law 16D), since South is not an offender (it was entirely the director's fault that he bid 1♣). I would therefore let the score stand for N/S, and give E/W an adjustment treating them as the non-offending side based on what might have happened if North had chosen a different action (say 2♠).

[pran]

campboy, on 2011-October-24, 05:12, said:

In answer to this: North knows that his partner is silenced and that he will have to guess the final contract himself. Without UI I would bid 4♠ after p p(forced) 1♦. It is quite plausible that it is the right place for us to be; even if not it is unlikely to be a disaster and bidding it immediately puts pressure on opponents.

Now it is true that North had information from his partner's withdrawn call. However, as others have said, because of director error we now give an adjusted score based on both sides being non-offending. When we decide the score for N/S, therefore, we treat the withdrawn 1♣ bid as authorised information (law 16D), since South is not an offender (it was entirely the director's fault that he bid 1♣). I would therefore let the score stand for N/S, and give E/W an adjustment treating them as the non-offending side based on what might have happened if North had chosen a different action (say 2♠).

To exaggerate the director's error a (little) bit:

Say that the director correctly and immediately had required South to pass for the rest of the auction, but with some unfortunate remark having the effect of informing North that they could play game in spades.

Now west opens (third hand) 1♦ and North bids 4♠

How would you rule?

[campboy]

That's rather a different scenario as 16C applies (in addition to 82C). That law says to "allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if [I judge] that unauthorized information may have affected the result". My ruling would be much the same: treating E/W as non-offending I give them an adjusted score on the basis that North might not have bid 4♠ without the information; treating N/S as non-offending I allow them to keep their table score since it is a likely outcome even without the extraneous information.