[VixTD]

---

This auction occurred in a county team-of-four league match recently.
NS play a strong NT, five-card majors and 1♦ showed at least three diamonds.
East also bid 1♦, and when it was pointed out that this was insufficient changed it to 2♦. The director was then called.

I took East to one side and found out that she had not seen the opening bid and had been trying to open 1♦. A 2♦ overcall would be CRO Ghestem, showing the black suits. I said South would have the option of accepting 1♦, then the auction would proceed with no further penalty. If it wasn't accepted, East would have to bid 2♦, West would have to pass for the remainder of the auction and there may be lead penalties if NS become the declaring side.

South did not accept it, 2♦ ended the auction, East made six tricks against 4♠(W)-3 at the other table for a 2 IMP gain loss [edited] to NS on the board.

Is the TD's job over, or is there anything else to consider?

[wank]

it's over. they're allowed to get lucky.

[Lanor Fow]

Why is East being forced to correct with 2d? Surely they can make any call that isn't double (all of them silencing P)

[lamford]

 wank, on 2014-November-27, 08:25, said:

it's over. they're allowed to get lucky.

They are, but East could have been aware that the infraction of making an insufficient bid could work to her advantage by silencing her partner and getting to make a natural 2D overcall. I am not suggesting for one moment that she was aware, but that is irrelevant. If she had passed, South would have bid 1H and it is more than likely that West would have bid 3S or 4S at his first turn. 3S probably would be doubled by South. 4S certainly would be. A Law 23 adjusted score of something like 25% of 3Sx-2, 25% of 3S-2 and 50% of 4Sx-3 would err in favour of the non-offenders.

And in answer to Lanor Fow, East corrected to 2D before the TD was called. That was also an infraction, but NS cannot lose redress over that.

[weejonnie]

C. Premature Replacement
If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on
rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A allows the
substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to
the substitution.

27B2

2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a
sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender’s partner must pass whenever it
is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law
23.


The only thing to look at is whether Law 23 applies. (Which it probably doesn't).

Looks like a good job well done.

[Vampyr]

 wank, on 2014-November-27, 08:25, said:

it's over. they're allowed to get lucky.

Are they? They have got to a contract they could not have reached without the assistance of the IB. So the question is whether N/S have been damaged.

And don't forget L23.

EDIT: sorry for redundancy; crossed some posts.

[ahydra]

I think Lamford is right about applying Law 23 but I don't agree with his proposed auction. Playing with 4 of myself it would go 1D-p-1H-3S; all pass. West surely wouldn't bid 4S with a poor suit and 7222 shape; South can't justify a double of 3S with nothing to add and Jxx spades.

The score should be changed to 3S-2, even though the IMP result is the same. [Is there a scoring error in the OP? NS at this table gained 100 but their team-mates lost 150. Hence this table's NS lose 2 IMPs, no?]

ahydra

[campboy]

As others have said, Laws 27D and 23 may apply. However, I am not sure OS did get particularly lucky here. They won the board, but only because of what looks like an abnormally bad result for EW at the other table. Without the infraction I see no reason why EW should get higher than 3♠.

[Lanor Fow]

APologies, I misread and didn't notice it had already been replaced with 2d.

[lamford]

 ahydra, on 2014-November-27, 08:44, said:

South can't justify a double of 3S with nothing to add and Jxx spades.

South can't justify a pass of 3S with a singleton in his partner's suit opposite an opening bid and with a five-card suit headed by the ace and king. Double suggests defending and partner might be able to bid 4H on a good day. Giving EW 3S-2 is hardly erring in favour of the non-offenders. I would agree that 4S is too much even at these colours, although it appears to have been the choice at the other table.

[jallerton]

 lamford, on 2014-November-27, 09:35, said:

South can't justify a pass of 3S with a singleton in his partner's suit opposite an opening bid and with a five-card suit headed by the ace and king. Double suggests defending and partner might be able to bid 4H on a good day. Giving EW 3S-2 is hardly erring in favour of the non-offenders. I would agree that 4S is too much even at these colours, although it appears to have been the choice at the other table.

Do you play a double of 3♠ by South as penalty-orientated here? I think it's normally played as T/O, in which cases ahydra's auction seems most likely. As 3♠-2 by West scores the same as 2♦-2 by East, East has not gained through the infraction so I would rule no adjustment under Law 23 and allow the table result to stand.

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2014-November-27, 16:42, said:

Do you play a double of 3♠ by South as penalty-orientated here? I think it's normally played as T/O, in which cases ahydra's auction seems most likely. As 3♠-2 by West scores the same as 2♦-2 by East, East has not gained through the infraction so I would rule no adjustment under Law 23 and allow the table result to stand.

I play it as take-out, but that is not relevant. I think we have to ask NS how they play double of 3S by South. It seems that allowing 100% of 3S-2 is not erring in favour of the non-offenders. West might also bid 4S at these colours. I think one has to poll peers and find out how many bid 3S or 4S and how many double each of them. It looks like NS did not double 4S in the other room, which says something about the standard.

[paulg]

I'm intrigued that most have said that they are, or considering, adjusting using Law 23 rather than Law 27D. As EW reached a contract that would have been impossible without the insufficient bid, surely 27D should be used as it is the law concerning IBs and, as a happy consequence, it avoids the subjective criteria of 23.

[RMB1]

 paulg, on 2014-November-28, 02:21, said:

I'm intrigued that most have said that they are, or considering, adjusting using Law 23 rather than Law 27D. As EW reached a contract that would have been impossible without the insufficient bid, surely 27D should be used as it is the law concerning IBs and, as a happy consequence, it avoids the subjective criteria of 23.

Only 27B1(a) and (b) refer forward to "D following" and equally 27D refers to "an application of B1".

So an application of Law 27B2 (which is being applied) is not subject to Law 27D only to Law 23 (which Law 27B2 refers to)

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2014-November-27, 08:31, said:

They are, but East could have been aware that the infraction of making an insufficient bid could work to her advantage by silencing her partner and getting to make a natural 2D overcall.

You think that East "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side"? I don't see how. I think the likelihood of 2D being the right final contract after North has opened 1D falls some way short of "could well damage".

[aguahombre]

 gordontd, on 2014-November-28, 03:05, said:

You think that East "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side"? I don't see how. I think the likelihood of 2D being the right final contract after North has opened 1D falls some way short of "could well damage".

On the surface, this point seems valid. However, East could have been aware of the possibility his partner would bid a large number of Spades; and the infraction did prevent that from happening.

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2014-November-28, 03:05, said:

You think that East "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side"? I don't see how. I think the likelihood of 2D being the right final contract after North has opened 1D falls some way short of "could well damage".

I agree completely that 2D may well not be the right final contract. However, silencing partner looks like a good idea. Our hand is all defence, and we don't want the ox opposite getting his hands on the dummy which he may do if we allow him to bid. 1D replaced by 2D is "just right", as Goldilocks would say. In addition, the stiff spade, when our expected number when North opens 1D is about 3.8, is a reason for cheating caution. The last thing we want, as aguahombre implies, is partner saving over 4H in 4S. Furthermore, if we pass over 1D, then South will be able to bid his major at the one-level. If we make a natural 2D overcall, it is more awkward, as we see on this hand.

The thing that is troubling me, however, is 27C. I presume South is allowed to accept the premature replacement as well. It states: "If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A allows the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution."

I think there should be a comma after "allows", but the main question is, if South accepts the substitution, is the fact that 2D is not Ghestem UI or AI to West? I guess South is not allowed to "accept" the substitution without penalty as 2D is not insufficient.

[VixTD]

I was interested to hear other opinions on whether law 23 should be applied. I discussed this with RMB1 and decided it probably did, although I wasn't sure.

I had to contact the players afterwards to find out what they think they would have done. West said she would have bid 3♠, or possibly 2♠, after a start of 1♦ - pass - 1♥. North said that 3♠ would end the auction, that he would pass over 2♠ but wasn't sure if South would bid. I couldn't contact South.

I adjusted the score to 60% of 3♠(W)-2, 20% of 2♠(W)-1 and 20% of 3♥(S)=.

This meant NS at this table lost 1.6 IMPs, rounded to 2 IMPs, so no score change.

[aguahombre]

 VixTD, on 2014-November-28, 08:04, said:

I was interested to hear other opinions on whether law 23 should be applied. I discussed this with RMB1 and decided it probably did, although I wasn't sure.

I had to contact the players afterwards to find out what they think they would have done. West said she would have bid 3♠, or possibly 2♠, after a start of 1♦ - pass - 1♥. North said that 3♠ would end the auction, that he would pass over 2♠ but wasn't sure if South would bid. I couldn't contact South.

I adjusted the score to 60% of 3♠(W)-2, 20% of 2♠(W)-1 and 20% of 3♥(S)=.

This meant NS at this table lost 1.6 IMPs, rounded to 2 IMPs, so no score change.

I think any "but for" investigation would get West bidding 3S and North Passing...2S seems really remote. Whatever we would call a Balancing double when it came around, it would look to be about that shape; but I believe it is a tad short in strength. I prefer "action" rather than "takeout"..but just a smidgeon more stuff. So here in ACBL (not application to the OP) we would be at the same minus 100.

However, in a weighting jurisdiction something around 20% for minus 300 would be about right.

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2014-November-28, 06:18, said:

I agree completely that 2D may well not be the right final contract. However, silencing partner looks like a good idea. Our hand is all defence, and we don't want the ox opposite getting his hands on the dummy which he may do if we allow him to bid. 1D replaced by 2D is "just right", as Goldilocks would say.

Partner is not even a passed hand! Why should we not be making 4H or 3NT?