Insufficient bid - allowed call

[gordontd]

It wouldn't surprise you because you've thought about it as a director, I suspect. And if you pointed it out to a player after the fact he would probably acknowledge that he now would not be surprised about it working to his advantage if he did it again. But I'd bet he'd be very surprised if you told him you were ruling on the basis that the thought might (should?) already have occurred to him.

 

It seems like after 1♣-1♣ a player must be aware (or be made aware) that choosing a 2♣ correction might very well subject him to score adjustment under 72C. In such a case it would seem incumbent on the director to tell him that, or at least to read him the law, before he chooses his correction. I've never seen a director do that.

A general comment about the possibility of further adjustment is fairly routine.

[sanst]

I don't think you have to use Law 72C, snce 23C is more specific in this situation. Not that it matters, an AS is an AS.

[gordontd]

I don't think you have to use Law 72C, snce 23C is more specific in this situation. Not that it matters, an AS is an AS.

23C applies following the substitution of a comparable call - not the case here.

[sanst]

23C applies following the substitution of a comparable call - not the case here.

Now I'm lost. This whole discussion is about a comparable call in the 1♣-1♣ situation. If the call is not comparable, partner is barred. And yes, there are situations in which that may harm the opponents, but those are rare and it's not the case here.

[gordontd]

Now I'm lost. This whole discussion is about a comparable call in the 1♣-1♣ situation. If the call is not comparable, partner is barred. And yes, there are situations in which that may harm the opponents, but those are rare and it's not the case here.

Well one of us is lost! I think we were talking about 1C being replaced with 2C (not comparable) and therefore partner being barred. Thus a natural 2C overcall has been created where it didn't exist before the infraction. It certainly could be known that this might harm the opponents.

[pran]

How old were these laws? I think you would fall foul of L23, whatever it is called now, under the previous two versions of the laws at least.

1976

[Vampyr]

Choosing 2C is not the infraction. Bidding 1C is.

 

Yes of course. I only meant that the resulting advantage was the ability to bid a natural 2♣.

[blackshoe]

I am not setting any bar, ludicrous or not. I'm trying to figure out how "could have known" is intended to be used. "Any player at any time 'could have known' that his action might damage opponents" is a ludicrously low bar. Put it another way: "72C always applies" is too low; "72C never applies" is too high. The bar is somewhere between the two, obviously, but where? And how does the director determine on which side of the bar a particular action falls?

[pran]

I am not setting any bar, ludicrous or not. I'm trying to figure out how "could have known" is intended to be used. "Any player at any time 'could have known' that his action might damage opponents" is a ludicrously low bar. Put it another way: "72C always applies" is too low; "72C never applies" is too high. The bar is somewhere between the two, obviously, but where? And how does the director determine on which side of the bar a particular action falls?

I was told that the original intention for the "could have known" clause was to give the Director a tool whenever he smelled a rat but was reluctant to say "cheating".

So each particular case is up to the Director's judgement.

[barmar]

This comes up frequently in lamford hypos, whenever RR lands in some ludicrous contract that has 1% of succeeding, but the bridge gods smile on him. SB argues that he "could have known" that the cards might be in all the right spots.

 

I prefer to interpret "could have been aware" as meaning "could have had a reasonable expectation". I.e. it might be something the offender would do intentionally to gain an advantage if they were allowed.

[blackshoe]

I prefer to interpret "could have been aware" as meaning "could have had a reasonable expectation". I.e. it might be something the offender would do intentionally to gain an advantage if they were allowed.

How do you determine that? Particularly if you do not know the player?

[Vampyr]

How do you determine that? Particularly if you do not know the player?

 

It does not matter who the actual player is. As long as it occurred to the player that he could now bid 2♣ naturally, barmar's criterion, which I like, has been satisfied.

[barmar]

How do you determine that? Particularly if you do not know the player?

I guess I should have said "an offender" rather than "the offender" -- it's not specific to that particular player, just a hypothetical, reasonable (hmm, does that exclude some in the Menagerie?) player in the same situation. I.e. would someone have an expectation that the action could work to their benefit?

[blackshoe]

Hm.

[Vampyr]

I guess I should have said "an offender" rather than "the offender" -- it's not specific to that particular player, just a hypothetical, reasonable (hmm, does that exclude some in the Menagerie?) player in the same situation. I.e. would someone have an expectation that the action could work to their benefit?

 

Would upvote if I could.