No options after illegal calls

[nige1]

North, the dealer opens 1♠.

East bids 1♥.  If you ask, East will tell you that he did not see the 1♠ opener. 

You are called to the table.  What exactly do you say (and to whom)?

[You may assume that East/West play both a 1♥ opening bid and a 2♥ overcall of 1♠ as natural.]

Thank you JAllerton, for opening another can of worms. I doubt that this forum will ever arrive at a consensus as to how the director should deal with an insufficient bid. It is frightening when we realise that we're not discussing how the director should rule -- even in a basic case -- we are simply discussing what he should do when he comes to the table!

 

I have long argued that such protocols should be part of the law-book itself.

 

Some legal points raised (e.g. by Gnasher) apply to illegal calls in general and are just as important to players as to directors because they can give a secretary-bird player a decisive edge.

 

One such point, hardly discussed, is what options either side is allowed to vary their agreements after such an infraction. A simple example:

 

You've agreed doubles of openers up to 4♠ are take-out . Suppose LHO opens 4♥ out of turn. After the director tells him his options, your partner accepts the call and doubles. Simple Bridge logic means this is penalty.

• Is your normal agreement relevant here?
  
• If it would still apply, are you allowed to depart from it?
  
• May you base this "change" on common sense without discussion or consultation?
  
• May you arrive at this "change" after previous discussion with partner?
  
• Does it make a difference whether your local legislature has taken the law-option that bans agreements contingent on an infraction?
  
• Arguably, the meaning of this double is obvious. But what about devising with partner a set of conventional meanings for other calls, depending on whether an illegal call is accepted?
  

IMO: options after an illegal call should be removed. The law should give a player no choice over what penalty/redress to accept (whether as offender or non-offender) .

 

IMO the law should be: an illegal call is unauthorised information to the offender's partner. It is cancelled and the offending side must pass throughout.

 

Simple! But there have been many other equally sensible suggestions.

[Vampyr]

IMO the law should be: an illegal call is unauthorised information to the offender's partner. It is cancelled and the offending side must pass throughout. 

 

Simple! But there have been many other equally sensible suggestions.

I certainly agree with you that an insufficient bidder should have to make the last call for his side. On the other hand, however, a call out of turn often results in no damage; so there is no good reason to reject "rectification" in all cases.

[Cyberyeti]

This reminds me of the suggested agreement over insufficient bids in a competitive auction that whatever double normally means, a double of an uncorrected bid is for takeout, a double of the corrected one is for penalties.

 

ie 1♣-P-1♠-1♥-X is for takeout, 1♣-P-1♠-1♥ corrected to 2♥-X is pens.

 

Is it legal to do this (EBU land if it matters) and is the inference that you don't have a takeout double type hand if you ask for the bid to be corrected authorised ?

[Vampyr]

Is it legal to do this (EBU land if it matters) and is the inference that you don't have a takeout double type hand if you ask for the bid to be corrected authorised ?

It is legal, and the inference is authorised, the same as any negative inference in your bidding system.

[bluejak]

This reminds me of the suggested agreement over insufficient bids in a competitive auction that whatever double normally means, a double of an uncorrected bid is for takeout, a double of the corrected one is for penalties.

 

ie 1♣-P-1♠-1♥-X is for takeout, 1♣-P-1♠-1♥ corrected to 2♥-X is pens.

 

Is it legal to do this (EBU land if it matters) and is the inference that you don't have a takeout double type hand if you ask for the bid to be corrected authorised ?

It does matter. It is legal in the EBU: the legality is not entirely clear in all jurisdictions.