[BudH]

It is well known on the auction (no interference) 1♥-4NT-5♠-5♦ insufficient, responder will not be able to keep a good result from bidding 5NT to play with partner barred, because you could not stop in 5NT without the insufficient bid.

The situation below has a similar theme. But which contracts will you as the Director allow the Blackwood bidder to play?

This auction occurred in a local club game by average (at best) players:

♠KQ64 ♠A107
♥K .... ♥Q982
♦AKJ9 ♦1073
♣Q864 ♣AK10

1♦ 1♥
1♠ 3NT
4NT 5♥
5♦ (insufficient)

Which bids would you allow opener to now make as a contract that will not be substituted with an adjusted score?

You might consider they could have played 5NT by bidding 5♠ (a suit bid only once and only as a 4-card suit) over 5♥, but did they know that? (I was not there and if I was, I might have asked that question away from the table to one or both players.)

So which (if any) of the bids 5♠ or 5NT would you allow opener to bid and keep the result?

[blackshoe]

4NT BW on that auction, with that hand, is crazy.

It looks to me like whatever West does now, he's in for a bad result. So I don't think Law 23 applies.

[barmar]

4NT after a natural 3NT when there hasn't been any earlier suit agreement should be quantitative. But I know some people who, if they decide to accept the invite, will give a Blackwood response.

So from West's perspective, East is showing 2 aces and a maximum for his bid, so in the end I'd adjust to whatever the result in 6NT would likely be. If diamond finesse is on and either of the black suits break, I think it makes, and that's rub of the green.

[BudH]

I thought by saying these players were below average, the idea of 4NT over 3NT being Blackwood, plus allegedly trying to sign off missing only one ace would not affect your answer. (As it turns out, just about every card was onside and some suits split 3-3, yet the declarer who was allowed to play 5NT by the Director went down 1. Making 5NT with no overtricks would have been worth the same zero.)

When asked about the correct ruling in this situation, admittedly it seems wrong to not allow both the 5♠ contract and the 5NT contract. But it would not surprise me if neither should be allowed.

[gnasher]

BudH, on 2016-January-02, 22:50, said:

You might consider they could have played 5NT by bidding 5♠ (a suit bid only once and only as a 4-card suit) over 5♥, but did they know that? (I was not there and if I was, I might have asked that question away from the table to one or both players.)

It sounds as though you already know the answer. If they would have been able to bid 5♠-5NT-pass, you let them bid 5NT-pass and keep their score. Otherwise you don't.

That means you have to determine what 5♠ would have meant, and whether opener would have thought of bidding it. The evidence of the auction is that opener didn't know he could use this sequence as a signoff, but you should still ask opener what he thought his alteratives to 5♦ were, and why he chose 5♦.

Similarly, 5♠ and 6♣ may be allowed or not depending on what they would have meant in a normal auction. 6♦ and 6NT will definitely be allowed.

Is it true that some people think these rules are sensible?

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2016-January-04, 02:22, said:

Is it true that some people think these rules are sensible?

If you mean the insufficient bid rules in total, I would have thought "some" would be a very small number indeed. If you mean the idea that a pair should not be able to gain by silencing one of its members, I would expect that to be a very large number.

[pran]

If the partnership can show that they have the understanding of a 5♠ bid in this position to be signoff:
a) for play they should be allowed to end in a 5♠ contract
b) as transfer to 5NT for play they should be allowed to end in a 5NT contract

The question remains why the player bid 5♦? The answer to this question should be the important factor for TD to determine the actual ruling.

[szgyula]

What is wrong with this argument:

1. Per Law 27B2, 5♦ can be changed to 5NT and partner must pass. Thus, they play 5NT.
2. They do not become defenders, thus, no lead restrictions.
3. They play the board.
4. Now, the TD checks if the infraction damaged the NOS, per law 12B1: (s)he must compare the expected result without infraction and the actual result and make changes accordingly. Thus, the TD must figure out what the possible outcomes are.

The example is a bit confusing. Was it 5♥ or 5♠ over 4NT? First I will assume 5♠. If 5NT over 5♠ is asking for kings, than I would assume an answer of 6♦ (1 king) and 6NT is the final contract. If this is worse than 5NT for the NOS, this would be the adjusted score. Otherwise the table score stands -- we only adjust in favor of the NOS.

Now if the bid is 5♥, it is more complicated. What are the realistic options? Asking for kings is not an option with a missing ace. Thus, I have to figure out what 5♠ and 5NT would mean. Opener has exactly 4♠ (did not open 1♠) so 5♠ to play is not an option in my opinion. Thus, 5NT may be the expected end contract, thus, no adjustment.

[campboy]

szgyula, on 2016-January-05, 02:35, said:

What is wrong with this argument:

1. Per Law 27B2, 5♦ can be changed to 5NT and partner must pass. Thus, they play 5NT.
2. They do not become defenders, thus, no lead restrictions.
3. They play the board.
4. Now, the TD checks if the infraction damaged the NOS, per law 12B1: (s)he must compare the expected result without infraction and the actual result and make changes accordingly. Thus, the TD must figure out what the possible outcomes are.

You do need an additional step, since neither of the laws you quote empower you to adjust the score. The normal law to use in this situation is 23 (not 27D since that only applies when the correction does not silence partner). And I think 23 does apply in this particular case: if they can't stop in 5NT any other way, then surely offender could have known that silencing partner could well be advantageous.

[szgyula]

campboy, on 2016-January-05, 03:20, said:

You do need an additional step, since neither of the laws you quote empower you to adjust the score. The normal law to use in this situation is 23 (not 27D since that only applies when the correction does not silence partner). And I think 23 does apply in this particular case: if they can't stop in 5NT any other way, then surely offender could have known that silencing partner could well be advantageous.

Law 23 comes into play if it is INTENTIONAL: you want to silence the partner. You have to establish intent.

In my opinion Law 12 is sufficient to adjust the score if necessary -- after 5NT is played. 12B1 defines "damage" and also declares that the objective of the score adjustment is to redress the damage. Thus, the adjusted score is what was expected to happen without the infraction, assuming it does not hurt the NOS.

12A1 explicitly empowers the TD to adjust the score in this case. The forced pass does not provide indemnity, thus, the TD can adjust. I do not think 12B2 applies as the forced pass is not a rectification, in my opinion.

[VixTD]

szgyula, on 2016-January-05, 07:20, said:

Law 23 comes into play if it is INTENTIONAL: you want to silence the partner. You have to establish intent.

No, you hardly ever have to establish intent in this sort of situation. Law 23 says:

Quote

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side,
he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers
the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

The TD just needs to establish if the offender could have been aware that the infraction could work to the advantage of their side, surely the case here.

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2016-January-04, 03:15, said:

If the partnership can show that they have the understanding of a 5♠ bid in this position to be signoff:
a) for play they should be allowed to end in a 5♠ contract
b) as transfer to 5NT for play they should be allowed to end in a 5NT contract

The question remains why the player bid 5♦? The answer to this question should be the important factor for TD to determine the actual ruling.

I think 5♠ would (without witing it down as an agreement) often be a transfer to 5N, but as a known 4 card suit, responder can pass it.

Am I the only person who might allow the 5♦ bid to stand as the insufficient bidder's LHO (particularly if I have a diamond stack) and let my LHO try to work out what it meant ? Is it legal to have any agreements over this for the insufficient bidder ?

[blackshoe]

VixTD, on 2016-January-05, 07:41, said:

No, you hardly ever have to establish intent in this sort of situation. Law 23 says:

The TD just needs to establish if the offender could have been aware that the infraction could work to the advantage of their side, surely the case here.

My objection to this law, and others like it, is that "could" is a very wide-ranging word. One might almost say "of course anyone 'could' be aware!"

[szgyula]

VixTD, on 2016-January-05, 07:41, said:

No, you hardly ever have to establish intent in this sort of situation. Law 23 says:

The TD just needs to establish if the offender could have been aware that the infraction could work to the advantage of their side, surely the case here.

I think the key is "could have been aware". One can argue that in all situations the OS "could have been aware", thus, one can interpret Law 23 like this:

"After an infraction, the TD shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*."

Now what does this add to Law 12A1 and 12B1?

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2016-January-05, 08:19, said:

My objection to this law, and others like it, is that "could" is a very wide-ranging word. One might almost say "of course anyone 'could' be aware!"

It's supposed to be wide-ranging. But the point is that when we come to rule on a hand we have a lot of information that offender couldn't have been aware of at the time of the infraction -- we can see the full layout. So the question is: if we only take into account the information available to offender at the time, is the infraction still reasonably likely to gain?

[pran]

campboy, on 2016-January-05, 09:04, said:

It's supposed to be wide-ranging. But the point is that when we come to rule on a hand we have a lot of information that offender couldn't have been aware of at the time of the infraction -- we can see the full layout. So the question is: if we only take into account the information available to offender at the time, is the infraction still reasonably likely to gain?

The answer lies in the original reason for Law 23: A player suspects that his partner might for instance make a very unfortunate sacrifice bid (in a competitive auction) and commits an irregularity which forces him to pass.

We don't need to accuse this player of deliberately committing that irregularity, but we should obviously rule that he (most certainly) "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity" that his side might benefit from the resulting forced pass.

[blackshoe]

How do we know what a player suspects?

[axman]

szgyula, on 2016-January-05, 07:20, said:

Law 23 comes into play if it is INTENTIONAL: you want to silence the partner. You have to establish intent.

In my opinion Law 12 is sufficient to adjust the score if necessary -- after 5NT is played. 12B1 defines "damage" and also declares that the objective of the score adjustment is to redress the damage. Thus, the adjusted score is what was expected to happen without the infraction, assuming it does not hurt the NOS.

12A1 explicitly empowers the TD to adjust the score in this case. The forced pass does not provide indemnity, thus, the TD can adjust. I do not think 12B2 applies as the forced pass is not a rectification, in my opinion.

Note that 12B1 merely states when damage exists; but, does not define what it is.

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2016-January-05, 10:12, said:

The answer lies in the original reason for Law 23: A player suspects that his partner might for instance make a very unfortunate sacrifice bid (in a competitive auction) and commits an irregularity which forces him to pass.

We don't need to accuse this player of deliberately committing that irregularity, but we should obviously rule that he (most certainly) "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity" that his side might benefit from the resulting forced pass.

blackshoe, on 2016-January-05, 10:34, said:

How do we know what a player suspects?

Focus, Ed. We know what the player suspects because Pran says so in his hypothetical which explains how L23 works. It doesn't matter whether we can read the offender's mind; that is the whole idea of L23.

When we then apply L23, we merely decide whether the offender could have been aware that his infraction might gain.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-January-05, 08:19, said:

My objection to this law, and others like it, is that "could" is a very wide-ranging word. One might almost say "of course anyone 'could' be aware!"

I disregard the "anything is possible" interpretation of this Law, because that just leads to punishing them any time it works to the offender's benefit -- if that's what the Lawmakers intended, they should have just said so. The way I interpret it is whether a player could have a reasonable expectation that his irregularity would lead to a better result than possible otherwise.

It still doesn't require actual intent. Instead, we ask ourselves whether someone who did have that intent would have tried this ploy (ignoring the law against intentional infractions).