[McBruce]

Scoring: MP

---

ACBL club matchpoints game.

South passed as dealer (!) and North opened 1♦ in third seat.

East overcalled 2♥ and South undercalled 1♥ and then substituted a correction of 3♥ after realizing that 1♥ was insufficient. The TD (me) was summoned.

I took the South player away from the table and discovered several fascinating and unexpected things:

--he downgraded his club honours and chose not to open as dealer
--he was trying to respond 1♥, having not seen the overcall
--a bid of 3♥ in this pair's system actually shows a near-opener with hearts and is intended to counter psyches

Just to be sure, I took the North player away from the table and confirmed that 3♥ would show hearts.

West was not interested in accepting 1♥, so I ruled that 3♥ was a legal substitution, not conventional, nobody barred--but please wait for the TD next time.

The N-S pair now got to 6NT for a top, against six 920s (6♦), a 420 (5♦+1), a -100 (7♦*-1!), and a 500 (1♥*-2!!!)

Have N-S gained through the insufficient bid or is it the overcall and their unusual agreements that got them to the best spot?

[Sven Pran]

This sounds like an easy one when you write:
--a bid of 3♥ in this pair's system actually shows a near-opener with hearts and is intended to counter psyches

From that description 3♥ is in fact not only "natural", but also an even more precise call than the IB.

The IB would probably have told partner of a hand with at least 6 HCP and 4 hearts; the replacement call tells partner of a natural near-opening hand with hearts.

I do not see how without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different (Law 27D), so in my opinion there was no reason for adjusting the result.

regards Sven

[gordontd]

I agree with your outcome, Sven, but I'm not sure about your methodology: you seem to be ruling under L27B1b, whereas I think it is covered by L27B1a and so there's no need to look to L27B1b.

I agree that L27D does not come into play.

[Sven Pran]

gordontd, on Sep 5 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

I agree with your outcome, Sven, but I'm not sure about your methodology: you seem to be ruling under L27B1b, whereas I think it is covered by L27B1a and so there's no need to look to L27B1b.

I agree that L27D does not come into play.

I did indeed rule L27B1(a), but pointed out that the replacement call also satisfied beyond any doubt the requirements for ruling L27B1( b ).

L27D must be tried whenever the Director has ruled L27B1 - either ( a ) or ( b ); that was one reason for pointing out that the replacement call satisfied L27B1( b ) in such a way that the IB could not have assisted in reaching a top contract.

Regards Sven

[bluejak]

Excellent bidding.

[McBruce]

The punch line here was that on a night where everything went a bit sideways, this interesting ruling was made and the E-W pair went home laughing.

I had set up the room for a 10-table, 20-board (we play 20-21 in a quickie on Wednesday nights) bye-stand and relay, setting out boards 5 and 6 to be shared between the fastest North-South pairs at tables 3 and 4, with boards 15 and 16 sitting out the first round between tables 8 and 9. I was shuffling and dealing boards 15 and 16 and thinking about what a great movement this would be, when I suddenly remembered that I had taken a call fifteen minutes ago telling me there would be a pair arriving late.

Thinking quickly, I added board 15 to board 5 at table 3 and board 16 to board 6 at table 4, and inserted the new pair as a bump pair. In a three-board game, a bumping pair in a 10.5 table game is pretty bad, with lots of pairs and boards missing one another -- but in a two-board game, everyone would play at 20 of 20 unless they sat out a round. (It wasn't until round five that I realized that this would involve a revenge round at the end!) Anyhow...

The pair that got to 6NT happened to be sitting out a few rounds after the incident, when I determined that the correct ruling was "score stands." I let them know about the decision. Later the E-W pair finished a round a few minutes early and came up to the desk and asked about the incident. I explained why I made the ruling that I made, and said "any doubts I might have had about ruling in their favour went away when I looked around for them to let them know the decision, and found them in the kitchen emptying the dishwasher for me!"