law 27

[bali 2]

I read in a lecture by a high international director :

"(1S) 1H

The offender corrects to 2H under 27B1a and the auction continue (1S) 2H (3S) 4H.

Making 10 tricks for a top result. Advancer has guessed a good contract that was not found at other tables. The insufficent bidder had a very ordinary 10 points, 5 cards, 1H overcall of what he thought was a 1C opening, but 10 tricks make on the very lucky position of opponent's honour cards. The score stands as there was no assistance from the I.B."

 

I don't understand : if the offender had correctly seen 1S, he could not have bid 2H with only 5 cards and 10 points, and his side would never have mentioned Hearts. So , has the I.B. assisted the good result or not ? :P

 

Many thanks in advance

Al. Ohana

[Vampyr]

So , has the I.B. assisted the good result or not ?

I think it is pretty clear that it has. I do not understand how this international director could have thought otherwise.

[blackshoe]

I don't understand : if the offender had correctly seen 1S, he could not have bid 2H with only 5 cards and 10 points...

"Forgive him, Theodotus, for he is a barbarian and thinks that the customs of his tribe are laws of nature." - Caesar to Theodotus, of Britannicus, a Briton, in G.B. Shaw's "Caesar and Cleopatra".

 

I would overcall 1♠ with 2♥ on at least some hands with 5♥ and ten points. Probably on quite a few. I'm sure there are others who would do so.

[pran]

I read in a lecture by a high international director :

"(1S) 1H

The offender corrects to 2H under 27B1a and the auction continue (1S) 2H (3S) 4H.

Making 10 tricks for a top result. Advancer has guessed a good contract that was not found at other tables. The insufficent bidder had a very ordinary 10 points, 5 cards, 1H overcall of what he thought was a 1C opening, but 10 tricks make on the very lucky position of opponent's honour cards. The score stands as there was no assistance from the I.B."

 

I don't understand : if the offender had correctly seen 1S, he could not have bid 2H with only 5 cards and 10 points, and his side would never have mentioned Hearts. So , has the I.B. assisted the good result or not ? :lol:

 

Many thanks in advance

Al. Ohana

It would seem (according to your post) that what assisted the good result was not the I.B. but that "10 tricks make on the very lucky position of opponent's honour cards", or what we call "rub of the green".

 

Regards Sven

[Vampyr]

I would overcall 1♠ with 2♥ on at least some hands with 5♥ and ten points. Probably on quite a few. I'm sure there are others who would do so.

The OP states that this was not a hand with which the overcaller would have made a 2-level overcall with. The fact that there are some hands which the overcaller or members of this list would bid on is entirely irrelevant.

 

It would seem (according to your post) that what assisted the good result was not the I.B. but that "10 tricks make on the very lucky position of opponent's honour cards", or what we call "rub of the green".

I don't think so. Bobby Wolff was for years a proponent of this "rub of the green" position, which states that when an OS reach a contract through an irregularity, "damage" is calculated based on the OS's equity at that point; in other words, the NS have received their compensation if the contract is poor. The fact that it makes anyway is just bad luck.

 

However, I think that the broad international consensus is that damage is determined after the hand has been played and the scores computed.

[blackshoe]

The OP states that this was not a hand with which the overcaller would have made a 2-level overcall with. The fact that there are some hands which the overcaller or members of this list would bid on is entirely irrelevant.

No. The OP states that the hand is one with which the poster would not overcall 2♥. Aside from that, the assertion in the OP is that no one would have overcalled 2♥ on a hand with five ♥ and ten points, which assertion is demonstrably false.

[lamford]

However, I think that the broad international consensus is that damage is determined after the hand has been played and the scores computed.

Yes, but the test is whether the outcome of the board could well have been different without the infraction. So, what you are comparing is whether there was any difference between the player overcalling 1H over 1S and then substituting 2H, or overcalling 2H immediately. I cannot see that there is.

[nigel_k]

The director adjusts if:

 

"without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different"

 

Based on the description of the hand as "very ordinary 10 points, 5 cards" I think the director should adjust. All that is needed is that the player could well have chosen not to overcall 2♥.

 

The good result fortunate lie of the cards is part of the reason for the outcome and the original insufficient bid is another part of the reason.

 

We can't be sure without more details though.

[lamford]

All that is needed is that the player could well have chosen not to overcall 2♥.

No. The infraction was the insufficient bid, and when he chose to replace it with 2H there was no benefit from the infraction.

[Vampyr]

No. The OP states that the hand is one with which the poster would not overcall 2♥. Aside from that, the assertion in the OP is that no one would have overcalled 2♥ on a hand with five ♥ and ten points, which assertion is demonstrably false.

 

OK then. Let us assume that the overcaller would not bid 2♥ either. I really think that this is beside the point.

 

Yes, but the test is whether the outcome of the board could well have been different without the infraction. So, what you are comparing is whether there was any difference between the player overcalling 1H over 1S and then substituting 2H, or overcalling 2H immediately. I cannot see that there is.

 

Well, I think that the question here is whether the player would have overcalled 2♥ in the first place. The problem is not very interesting if we assume that he would have, so let us assume that he wouldn't. But now, having made an IB, the player must do something, and hopes that he can minimise the damage to his side by bidding 2♥.

[lamford]

I think you are missing the point; for the director to adjust he has to decide that you benefited from the infraction. Whether or not you benefited from then stretching to bid 2H is completely irrelevant. There has to be assistance (my emphasis) from the infraction.

[bluejak]

What matters is whether in the TD's view 4♥ would be reached without the infraction. Ok, let us assume this hand would not overcall 2♥. But would they reach it anyway? If his partner, for example, has a routine takeout double so 4♥ will always be reached, you do not adjust.

 

So, in the case cited by the OP, we do not know whether to adjust or not, because we need to know the rest of the hand.

[nigel_k]

All that is needed is that the player could well have chosen not to overcall 2♥.

No. The infraction was the insufficient bid, and when he chose to replace it with 2H there was no benefit from the infraction.

I don't agree.

 

Maybe he would not normally have bid 2♥, but chose to correct the insufficient 1♥ to 2♥ on less than adequate values so that his partner would not be barred. As far as I can tell from the facts, this is quite likely the case. If so, I think he did get a better result than he would have obtained without the infraction.

[Vampyr]

What matters is whether in the TD's view 4♥ would be reached without the infraction.  Ok, let us assume this hand would not overcall 2♥.  But would they reach it anyway?  If his partner, for example, has a routine takeout double so 4♥ will always be reached, you do not adjust.

 

So, in the case cited by the OP, we do not know whether to adjust or not, because we need to know the rest of the hand.

Well, the OP said that the contract was not reached at other tables. This suggests that it was not easy for the OS to enter the auction.

[blackshoe]

What happened at other tables is irrelevant.

[Vampyr]

What happened at other tables is irrelevant.

Not necessarily. If a director had to determine whether the 1♥ overcaller would also have overcalled 2♥, he might be interested in whether anyone else in the room chose that call.

[aguahombre]

Advancer did not use any UI to bid 4H. Advancer seems to have assumed partner had the playing strength for a 2H overcall. Had he failed to bid game, he might have been using the UI possibility that overcaller did not have a 2H bid.

 

Unllucky for the other side in this case, but it is not relevent whether others would have, or did bid 2H. This guy did--rub of the green.

[bali 2]

What happened at other tables is irrelevant.

I think it is very relevant that not any other player in the room has found his hand worth a 2H overcall. As David says , " would the 4H contract be reached without the I.B. ?". That means" demonstrably" that the insufficent bidder has stretched to bid 2H because he had made an I.B. and wanted to avoid barring partner.

So in my opinion it is clear that he has not a genuine overcall of 2H, and then it seems evident that the 4H contract would never be reached after 1S 3S raise, because advancer has only the rest of the hcp, say about 7 ( 13+10+10+7 ).

I have not given the hands because I don't know them, the lecture gave some examples of I.B. without the hands corresponding.

 

Many thanks to all

Al. Ohana

[aguahombre]

So, a cow flew by, and I opened 1NT thinking I had an extra king which was not there. Partner raised to 3, not knowing the cow had flown by. It made because everything worked.

 

How is that different from my making an insufficient bid sufficient, overstating my values, when partner cannot use the information from the insufficient bid to make his decision? Players get fixed all the time by poor actions that work for the opponents. We live with it.

[Blue Uriah]

So, a cow flew by, and I opened 1NT thinking I had an extra king which was not there.  Partner raised to 3, not knowing the cow had flown by.  It made because everything worked. 

 

How is that different from my making an insufficient bid sufficient, overstating my values, when partner cannot use the information from the insufficient bid to make his decision? Players get fixed all the time by poor actions that work for the opponents.  We live with it.

I agree. Otherwise you can never bid 2♥ without the right values. Either it doesn't work out and you get a bad score, or it works out and you get adjusted against. You might as well bid 1NT and silence partner - at least then you have a chance to get lucky.

[bluejak]

So, a cow flew by, and I opened 1NT thinking I had an extra king which was not there.  Partner raised to 3, not knowing the cow had flown by.  It made because everything worked. 

 

How is that different from my making an insufficient bid sufficient, overstating my values, when partner cannot use the information from the insufficient bid to make his decision? Players get fixed all the time by poor actions that work for the opponents.  We live with it.

The difference is that Law 27D exists, similar Laws in different situations do not. When a pair reach a contract through an insufficient bid and correction Law 27B1 then Law 27D applies.

 

If you make it sufficient in the way you suggest Law 27D still applies, so it can still be adjusted.