Adjusting Score after an IB

[weejonnie]

When a player has several options after an opponent's irregularity the case is usually "closed" after he has selected one of his options.

 

So when he chooses to either forbid or require lead in a particular suit according to Law 50 D then that's it. and if he chooses to let the lead be free he simply postpones the final rectification till later during the play. He shall have no redress if his choice turns out unfortunate.

 

However, Law 50 E remains in force during the entire board so if offender's partner has used UI from the penalty card and thereby damaged declaring side there is still cause for redress.

 

A similar situation might occur when a player chooses to accept (or alternatively not accept) an insufficient bid or a call out of turn, and his choice turns out to be unfortunate. He will not have any redress from choosing an unfortunate alternative.

Not quite - if he accepts the insufficient bid then you are right - but if an insufficient bid is corrected by a lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination (27B1a) or by a call that has the same meaning (27B1b) then 27D kicks in to give redress.

 

Example : 1H : 2S : 2H - not accepted and corrected to 3H.

 

It turns out that the opener had a hand that would have passed over 2H but would have bid game over 3H (assuming 3H is not pre-emptive). The opener now passes and it turns out that 3H makes exactly or (for instance 2S would have been passed out). Then the Director can judge that the NOS have been damaged as the opener knew that their partner only had a 2H raise rather than a 3H one - or knew partner had heart support. There is no UI (by definition).

[pran]

Not quite - if he accepts the insufficient bid then you are right - but if an insufficient bid is corrected by a lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination (27B1a) or by a call that has the same meaning (27B1b) then 27D kicks in to give redress.

 

Example : 1H : 2S : 2H - not accepted and corrected to 3H.

 

It turns out that the opener had a hand that would have passed over 2H but would have bid game over 3H (assuming 3H is not pre-emptive). The opener now passes and it turns out that 3H makes exactly or (for instance 2S would have been passed out). Then the Director can judge that the NOS have been damaged as the opener knew that their partner only had a 2H raise rather than a 3H one - or knew partner had heart support. There is no UI (by definition).

There is indeed!

For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information.

All information from the withdrawn 2H bid is UI to offending side.

If opener would probably have raised 3H to 4H without the IB and gone 1 down then an adjustment to 4H -1 is in order.

[weejonnie]

There is indeed!

 

All information from the withdrawn 2H bid is UI to offending side.

If opener would probably have raised 3H to 4H without the IB and gone 1 down then an adjustment to 4H -1 is in order.

 

But Law 16D does NOT apply if 27B1a is applied (replacing bid by lowest bid in same denomination) and since a rectification bid under 27B1b is more precise then there is no UI there either.

[pran]

But Law 16D does NOT apply if 27B1a is applied (replacing bid by lowest bid in same denomination) and since a rectification bid under 27B1b is more precise then there is no UI there either.

Law 27D does! (When the final contract was reached with assistance from the irregularity . . . . .)

[mycroft]

Right, but L27D has a different criterion for determining damage and rectification from L16D, and L16D is explicitly mentioned (in L27B1) as being not applicable.

 

Law 27D:

...without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred.

 

Note that there is a difference between your paraphrase ("the final contract was reached with assistance from the irregularity") and the Law ("without assistance [from the irregularity], the outcome could well have been different"). Yours is effectively a L16 phrasing; if there was advantage, it's to be fixed. The law's is different: only if the advantage was the prime reason for the benefit do we adjudicate.

 

So, you don't say that the attempt to bid 2♥ is UI - it isn't. The player gets to use that information, as well as the information that partner may have been bidding 3♥ under duress, because it's the only call that doesn't force the player to pass throughout. If, however, after the hand, it looks like it's not probable to get to the same place with a real auction (say, instead of the insufficient 2♥ call, the player *should have* doubled, and that would have led to a competitive 3♥=), then you don't get to push them to 4♥-1, just because if the offender had bid 3♥ (which he never would have in a normal auction) opener would have gone to game.

 

It's a much less stringent restriction than L16D (much to some other posters' chagrin), and trying to bring back words like UI and LA into the picture is just wrong. Whether we should change the Laws to make the IB UI is arguable (and has been argued); I am still however of the belief that keeping the "must make it sufficient or partner's barred" *and* "the IB, and the fact that partner was constrained in her choice of legal calls, is UI" is draconian, and overpunishing.

[pran]

Right, but L27D has a different criterion for determining damage and rectification from L16D, and L16D is explicitly mentioned (in L27B1) as being not applicable.

 

Law 27D:

 

 

Note that there is a difference between your paraphrase ("the final contract was reached with assistance from the irregularity") and the Law ("without assistance [from the irregularity], the outcome could well have been different"). Yours is effectively a L16 phrasing; if there was advantage, it's to be fixed. The law's is different: only if the advantage was the prime reason for the benefit do we adjudicate.

 

So, you don't say that the attempt to bid 2♥ is UI - it isn't. The player gets to use that information, as well as the information that partner may have been bidding 3♥ under duress, because it's the only call that doesn't force the player to pass throughout. If, however, after the hand, it looks like it's not probable to get to the same place with a real auction (say, instead of the insufficient 2♥ call, the player *should have* doubled, and that would have led to a competitive 3♥=), then you don't get to push them to 4♥-1, just because if the offender had bid 3♥ (which he never would have in a normal auction) opener would have gone to game.

 

It's a much less stringent restriction than L16D (much to some other posters' chagrin), and trying to bring back words like UI and LA into the picture is just wrong. Whether we should change the Laws to make the IB UI is arguable (and has been argued); I am still however of the belief that keeping the "must make it sufficient or partner's barred" *and* "the IB, and the fact that partner was constrained in her choice of legal calls, is UI" is draconian, and overpunishing.

 

I have a problem seeing the difference between "reaching the (favourable) contract with a reasonable auction without the IB" and "reaching the (favourable) contract without assistance from the IB".

 

Sure there is a linguistic difference, but isn't this just a technicality of interest only to SB?

[aguahombre]

Dunno just how the OLOOT thread evolved into the above, but count me as one of those in the Pran camp.

[blackshoe]

Neither do I, Agua, so I've split the thread.

[gordontd]

Dunno just how the OLOOT thread evolved into the above, but count me as one of those in the Pran camp.

Not me :) The instructions to players and the criteria for adjusting are quite different depending on which law applies.