[lamford]

---

Teams.

The Rabbit, North, opened 1NT (12-14) out of turn on this hand from the North London club, and the TD was called. East, MM, declined to accept it and South, SB, was told that this was UI to him. He opened 1S. What comparable calls does North have, playing basic Acol? RR elected to bid 7S and this made with spades 2-2 and QJ doubleton of diamonds in the hole. How do you rule?

[Cyberyeti]

The comparable call is 3N for many people. I believe you are allowed minor discrepancies, not sure what basic Acol says about this bid but for me is 33(43) 13-bad15.

Can't N call whatever he likes and all it does is silence partner ? in which case no adjustment because the silencing gains no advantage.

[sfi]

lamford, on 2018-September-25, 07:37, said:

How do you rule?

I rule that 7S is not comparable, so South is barred for one round. As for comparable calls, it's North's job to work out which ones fit the description - I'm happy to talk to North away from the table, but it's not my place as a director to suggest calls.

There's not much else to the ruling. If you're going to suggest 23C might apply, it doesn't.

[barmar]

if 3NT shows a balanced minimum game force, that would be the obvious comparable call.

I agree that 23C doesn't apply. The BOOT didn't help them to get to 7♠. It didn't cause South to make a different opening bid than he would have, and RR could have bid the same thing in a normal auction. This isn't a case where barring partner helps the OS (would South have bid on if he weren't barred?). He just took an extreme gamble (the odds were about 0.7%) and it happened to work because he's RR.

If there were no comparable call, there might be an issue. The offender, knowing that partner will be barred no matter what he does, has to set the contract. If he manages to guess a contract that they couldn't have gotten to with a normal auction, and it works out well, we can adjust. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-September-25, 09:06, said:

if 3NT shows a balanced minimum game force, that would be the obvious comparable call.

I agree that 23C doesn't apply. The BOOT didn't help them to get to 7♠. It didn't cause South to make a different opening bid than he would have, and RR could have bid the same thing in a normal auction. This isn't a case where barring partner helps the OS (would South have bid on if he weren't barred?). He just took an extreme gamble (the odds were about 0.7%) and it happened to work because he's RR.

If there were no comparable call, there might be an issue. The offender, knowing that partner will be barred no matter what he does, has to set the contract. If he manages to guess a contract that they couldn't have gotten to with a normal auction, and it works out well, we can adjust. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

3NT would have been "any void", for the Rabbit, who is not allowed to bid no-trumps naturally, and natural for SB, about the only variation from basic acol that this pair play. I don't think there is a comparable call on the North hand, but I don't think this causes an issue. And even if there were, North does not have to select it. It is clear that without the infraction, the result "might well have been different", but did this give "assistance to RR"? Without the BOOT, he would just have responded 2C, and South would have bid 2S, raised to 4S. He could not bid 2C as that would have silenced his partner, so the infraction, and his guardian angel, "assisted him" in reaching 7S.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2018-September-25, 09:40, said:

It is clear that without the infraction, the result "might well have been different", but did this give "assistance to RR". Without the BOOT, he would just have responded 2D, and South would have bid 2S, raised to 4S. He could not bid 2D as that would have silenced his partner, so the infraction, and his guardian angel, "assisted him" in reaching 7S.

Clear??? Not to me, anyway. Why wouldn’t RR bid 7♠ after the 1♠ without his own infraction? It’s a wild gamble that hasn’t much to do with bridge, but that works. He even made it impossible for SB to bid 7NT that can be made given the lay-out.
It’s a different question whether this kind of gambling shouldn’t be banned, like dumping is. This time it works, but more often it doesn’t. And there isn’t much fun in it for the opponents. Yesterday at the club a pair went off -7 in 2NT, by some misunderstanding, but the opps were not very glad, but just felt uncomfortable because it was not the result of their good play.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2018-September-26, 02:31, said:

Clear??? Not to me, anyway. Why wouldn’t RR bid 7♠ after the 1♠ without his own infraction?

Without the infraction, the brainless rabbit would not have dreamt of bidding 7♠. If you polled 10 RRs, after a long and painstaking search for peers, then you would probably find that some of them would have bid 1NT anyway (12-14, partner), and the more savvy of them would have responded 2♦. And we only require "might well have been different" to adjust.

12B1 states:
Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

Note that it does not say "may exist", "might well exist" etc. It says "exists". Therefore there was damage here, and we adjust. Unless we think that the infraction did not caused the bad result. Clearly RR panicked as he managed to work out there was not a comparable call. But the non-offenders WERE damaged.

And 7NT could not be made. You have 12 tricks with spades 2-2 and QJ of diamonds in the hole, but West is guarding diamonds, East clubs, and the menaces are incorrectly positioned for the double squeeze, and at teams there would be no advantage in playing it anyway!

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-September-25, 09:06, said:

If he manages to guess a contract that they couldn't have gotten to with a normal auction, and it works out well, we can adjust. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

I agree with the first sentence, but the second sentence is ridiculous. What "normal auction" do you suggest to 7♠?

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt" - Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln, Confucius or anon?

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2018-September-26, 03:39, said:

I agree with the first sentence, but the second sentence is ridiculous. What "normal auction" do you suggest to 7♠?

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt" - Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln, Confucius or anon?

Several that are normal for the rabbit but not for human beings

[blackshoe]

Objecting to the statement is fine. Casting aspersions on the intelligence of the person who made the statement is not.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-September-26, 03:39, said:

I agree with the first sentence, but the second sentence is ridiculous. What "normal auction" do you suggest to 7♠?

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt" - Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln, Confucius or anon?

I meant an auction that doesn't include an irregularity. I didn't mean that the calls are actually reasonable.

For all of bridge history there have been bidding infractions that bar partner, typically forcing the offender to guess a final contract. Sometimes they guess well, sometimes they don't. I don't think we've ever interpreted the Laws as saying that they're not allowed to gain if they guess right, unless their methods would make it difficult or impossible to reach that particular contract without barring partner first (e.g. getting to 4NT when partner would otherwise treat it as Blackwood).

The definition of "damage" hasn't changed, and the recent "comparable call" changes don't impact this interpretation.

[weejonnie]

Does 10C4 apply here?

4. Subject to Law 16C2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to
make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit
through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 72C).

So the rectification is that the bidding reverts to South, who may make any call subject to 16B.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-September-26, 10:54, said:

Does 10C4 apply here?

4. Subject to Law 16C2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to
make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit
through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 72C).

So the rectification is that the bidding reverts to South, who may make any call subject to 16B.

I agree it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call here. However that does not mean that we don't adjust under 12B1. That does not require awareness or any subterfuge, merely that the non-offenders obtain a better result than had the infraction not occurred. I can't understand why TDs worldwide are happy to allow "rub of the green" when 12B1 tells them not to allow it.

[blackshoe]

12B1 is a general statement of intent, not an instruction to the director.

If the lawmakers did not want to allow "rub of the green" in these cases, they certainly could have said so. They didn't.

[weejonnie]

I suppose it is how you interpret 12B1. if you interpret it as purely the infraction itself then obviously 10C4 will apply as the infraction has been rectified.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-September-27, 02:53, said:

I suppose it is how you interpret 12B1. if you interpret it as purely the infraction itself then obviously 10C4 will apply as the infraction has been rectified.

12B1 does not distinguish between the infraction being rectified or not. It merely considers whether the non-offenders are worse off than if the infraction had not occurred.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2018-September-26, 18:06, said:

If the lawmakers did not want to allow "rub of the green" in these cases, they certainly could have said so. They didn't.

They did. Very clearly. In 12B1. And there is no logic to allowing "rub of the green" anyway. The offenders are allowed to get the same result as they would have obtained without the infraction, but not a better result.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2018-September-26, 18:06, said:

12B1 is a general statement of intent, not an instruction to the director.

If the lawmakers did not want to allow "rub of the green" in these cases, they certainly could have said so. They didn't.

lamford, on 2018-September-27, 08:04, said:

They did. Very clearly. In 12B1. And there is no logic to allowing "rub of the green" anyway. The offenders are allowed to get the same result as they would have obtained without the infraction, but not a better result.

But

Law 12B2 said:

The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

so the Director may not compensate any side for "rub of the green" once a rectification is provided.

(Early in my career I asked if it was an error when this law did not say: "unduly severe to the non-offending side or advantageous to the offending side" and was told that this was no error.)

[pescetom]

pran, on 2018-September-27, 08:26, said:

But Law 12B2 says:
The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

.....

(Early in my career I asked if it was an error when this law did not say: "unduly severe to the non-offending side or advantageous to the offending side" and was told that this was no error.)

So you would have expected it to say:
"The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe to the non-offending side or advantageous to the offending side."

I can see why the lawmakers wanted to forbid adjustments for undue severity to either side. I can't quite imagine how a rectification could be retained by Director unduly advantageous to the non-offending side, but it does no harm to forbid adjustments for that too and it makes B2 easier to read. If only all Laws were so clear (and did not contradict each other).

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2018-September-27, 11:01, said:

So you would have expected it to say:
"The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe to the non-offending side or advantageous to the offending side."

I can see why the lawmakers wanted to forbid adjustments for undue severity to either side. I can't quite imagine how a rectification could be retained by Director unduly advantageous to the non-offending side, but it does no harm to forbid adjustments for that too and it makes B2 easier to read. If only all Laws were so clear (and did not contradict each other).

I don't think there is any contradiction. Let us dissect this whole Law in detail:
B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.
2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

To suggest that this does not indicate how the TD is supposed to rule makes no sense. The TD is supposed to remove any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. If as a result of the rectification of an infraction, the TD judges that the non-offending side are insufficiently compensated, but still do not get a result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred, then she cannot award an adjusted score for that, but if the non-offending side get a worse result as a consequence of the infraction, then the TD can, and I submit should, adjust. All of the discretionary powers given to the TD align with this interpretation.

This clause could be summed up in a nutshell. An infraction can never gain, but can break even. And there is a large number of TDs who I have spoken to in European events and further afield who agree with me, but they are aware this is not how the laws are applied.