Inadmissible Double followed by Director Error

[bixby]

In a Swiss team event, the bidding on the first board of a match began:

 

W N E S

-- -- -- P

1D 1S 2C P

X

 

South called the Director and pointed out that West's double was inadmissible. The Director instructed West to withdraw the double and substitue a legal call. West substituted 2NT. South said, "isn't his partner barred?" The Director said no, that rule had changed. The Director instructed the table to complete the auction. The auction continued:

 

W N E S

-- -- -- P

1D 1S 2C P

2NT P 3D P

3NT AP

 

The Director then instructed the table to put the board aside and play the next board while he conferred with other Directors about the first board. Later, the Director cancelled the first board and instructed both tables in the match to play a substitute board instead. N/S's team lost 3 IMPs on the substituted board, and as a result the match was exactly tied.

 

At the end of the event, the Director stated that the basis for this ruling was that his initial ruling regarding the inadmissible double was Director error and that it was not possible to obtain a result on the board.

 

Question: Given that the initial ruling was indeed incorrect (under Law 36, East should have been barred, as South stated), what should have been done thereafter?

[gordontd]

In a Swiss team event, the bidding on the first board of a match began:

 

W N E S

-- -- -- P

1D 1S 2C P

X

 

South called the Director and pointed out that West's double was inadmissible. The Director instructed West to withdraw the double and substitue a legal call. West substituted 2NT. South said, "isn't his partner barred?" The Director said no, that rule had changed. The Director instructed the table to complete the auction. The auction continued:

 

W N E S

-- -- -- P

1D 1S 2C P

2NT P 3D P

3NT AP

 

The Director then instructed the table to put the board aside and play the next board while he conferred with other Directors about the first board. Later, the Director cancelled the first board and instructed both tables in the match to play a substitute board instead. N/S's team lost 3 IMPs on the substituted board, and as a result the match was exactly tied.

 

At the end of the event, the Director stated that the basis for this ruling was that his initial ruling regarding the inadmissible double was Director error and that it was not possible to obtain a result on the board.

 

Question: Given that the initial ruling was indeed incorrect (under Law 36, East should have been barred, as South stated), what should have been done thereafter?

 

What should be done is to award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending - by which I don't mean that we disregard the offence of the inadmissible call, but that we are able to award a split score with doubtful points resolved in each side's favour.

 

As an example (without knowing anyone's hand), it might be that West has a choice between bidding 2NT or 3NT if knowing it was going to end the auction. Assuming 3NT made, one might score it as 3NT= for EW and 2NT+1 for NS. Or, if eight tricks were the limit, score it as 2NT= for EW and 3NT-1 for NS.

 

Even more subtle adjustments might be made using weighted as well as split scores.

[barmar]

The director might also conclude that there are too many possibilities to try to enumerate and weight them. In this case, Law 12C1d authorizes an artificial adjusted score. So he could give Average Plus to both sides.

 

OTOH, the solution they actually came up with seems like a good idea in events where boards are not duplicated across the field. If it's the board is only being played at two tables, and you can get both tables to play an alternate board, getting a real result seems obviously better than estimating or awarding artificial scores. Unfortunately, it's not supported by any law.

[pescetom]

As an example (without knowing anyone's hand), it might be that West has a choice between bidding 2NT or 3NT if knowing it was going to end the auction. Assuming 3NT made, one might score it as 3NT= for EW and 2NT+1 for NS. Or, if eight tricks were the limit, score it as 2NT= for EW and 3NT-1 for NS.

Please could you explain this further?

I would have expected that with nine tricks making, EW would score a weighted average between 3NT= and 2NT+1 whereas NS would score as 3NT= (3NT being the probable contract if EW had not made an inadmissable call).

And that with eight tricks making, EW would score a weighted average between 3NT-1 and 2NT= whereas NS would score as 3NT-1.

[gordontd]

Please could you explain this further?

I would have expected that with nine tricks making, EW would score a weighted average between 3NT= and 2NT+1 whereas NS would score as 3NT= (3NT being the probable contract if EW had not made an inadmissable call).

And that with eight tricks making, EW would score a weighted average between 3NT-1 and 2NT= whereas NS would score as 3NT-1.

I was giving a simple example without knowing the hands. Your approach might well be correct: it really comes down to an assessment of what actions the players would be likely to take if given the correct ruling. The important point is that questions of doubt should be resolved in each side's favour, usually leading to non-balancing adjustments.

[bixby]

Thanks for these replies. Gordon, can you please explain how your answer then works in practice? Suppose, for example, the Director, in accordance with one of your suggestions, scores the board as 2N= (E/W +120) for E/W but as 3NT-1 (N/S +50) for N/S. Meanwhile, the actual result at the other table was E/W +120. What is the IMP result for purposes of scoring the match?

[gordontd]

Thanks for these replies. Gordon, can you please explain how your answer then works in practice? Suppose, for example, the Director, in accordance with one of your suggestions, scores the board as 2N= (E/W +120) for E/W but as 3NT-1 (N/S +50) for N/S. Meanwhile, the actual result at the other table was E/W +120. What is the IMP result for purposes of scoring the match?

This would give EW 0 IMPs and NS 5 IMPs. If it's knockout, L12C4 tells us to average these two scores. For other forms of scoring such as VPs, you would calculate each side's score independently and end up with results that add up to more than 20 VPs.

[nige1]

In a Swiss team event, the bidding on the first board of a match began:

W N E S

-- -- -- P

1D 1S 2C P

X

 

South called the Director and pointed out that West's double was inadmissible. The Director instructed West to withdraw the double and substitue a legal call. West substituted 2NT. South said, "isn't his partner barred?" The Director said no, that rule had changed. The Director instructed the table to complete the auction. The auction continued:

W N E S

-- -- -- P

1D 1S 2C P

2NT P 3D P

3NT AP

 

The Director then instructed the table to put the board aside and play the next board while he conferred with other Directors about the first board. Later, the Director cancelled the first board and instructed both tables in the match to play a substitute board instead. N/S's team lost 3 IMPs on the substituted board, and as a result the match was exactly tied. At the end of the event, the Director stated that the basis for this ruling was that his initial ruling regarding the inadmissible double was Director error and that it was not possible to obtain a result on the board. Question: Given that the initial ruling was indeed incorrect (under Law 36, East should have been barred, as South stated), what should have been done thereafter?

An attempt to rectify a director-error should not result in EW benefiting from their earlier infraction. Fairer might be an artificial split score like NS 6 imps EW 0 imps.

[weejonnie]

An attempt to rectify a director-error should not result in EW benefiting from their earlier infraction. Fairer might be an artificial split score like NS 6 imps EW 0 imps.

EW were told that the laws said they could correct the inadmissable double and this would be cost-free, when in fact the call made could/ should have barred their partner from bidding. Had EW been given the correct information then they might have bid 3NT instead of 2NT, knowing that their partner would be barred for the rest of the auction.

 

Law 36

 

2. the offender must substitute a legal call, the auction continues, and the offender’s partner

must pass whenever it is his turn to call.

 

Thus we have a director error and law 82 applies

 

C. Director’s Error

If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no

rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating

both sides as non‐offending for that purpose.

 

There is no reason why a side cannot benefit from this. See law 10C4

 

4. Subject to Law 16C2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to

make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit

through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 72C).

 

Since any doubtful action must be given in favour of each side then: (e.g. if EW made 2NT at the other table)

 

If EW can make 3NT and they might have bid it then they should get the score for 3NT and thus (400 - 120) = 280 - or +7 imps

If EW might bid 3NT and might fail then NS should be given the score for 3NT -1 (+50) and thus (120 + 50) = 170 or +5 imps

 

The net result is EW gain 2 imps - which we halve to 1? ( I am assuming there is no way that the final contract would be doubled/ redoubled of course and that there are no other possible final contracts!)