[campboy]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-01, 02:58, said:

Without the assistance gained by the infraction, the director decides that the outcome could well have been P-P-1♥-P-2♣-2♠-3♦-P-4♦(or 3N)-P-P-P without the insufficient bid so adjusts to 4♦-1 or 3N-?. This seems to be exactly what the law is saying.

Law 27D says you "seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred". If the IB had not occurred, East would have had no reason to bid 3♦; he only did that (I imagine) to avoid silencing partner. So neither of those outcomes is probable without the IB.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-June-01, 03:14, said:

As is usually the case, I think campboy has this right.

I agree, and the only issue is how often West bids 3C and how often he defends 2S. 3C looks horrible with a singleton heart and spade values, and I would be tempted to give 100% of 2S-2, but I would poll West's peers - and in the coffee lounge not the bar.

[Cyberyeti]

I think I'm glad I didn't meet this board as a player, for us the E hand is an automatic X of 2♠ showing 4 diamonds and not necessarily any extra values although not an opening bid I'm ashamed of (say good 12-bad 15), so we'd have played 3♣ (via lebensohl 2N) for sure (I haven't yet gone off in it, but I'm sure I'd be awarded -1 or most of -1).

I thought you were allowed to correct a bid to another bid/call that showed the same hand or a more specific version of it, which X would be for us, but that didn't appear in the 2007 laws, has it come later ?

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-01, 07:20, said:

I thought you were allowed to correct a bid to another bid/call that showed the same hand or a more specific version of it, which X would be for us, but that didn't appear in the 2007 laws, has it come later ?

It's there:

Quote

L27B1(b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call
that in the Director’s opinion has the same meaning as, or a more
precise meaning than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully
contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the
auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following.

But that's not what the player chose to do.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2011-June-01, 07:46, said:

It's there:

But that's not what the player chose to do.

Thx Gordon, missed that.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-01, 07:20, said:

I thought you were allowed to correct a bid to another bid/call that showed the same hand or a more specific version of it, which X would be for us, but that didn't appear in the 2007 laws, has it come later ?

Presumably double is more general than 3D, so I would be surprised if it was allowed as a substitution. Are you saying that in your system big hands with no alternative bid would not double? Not that allowing double will, as you say, lead to a good result.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2011-June-01, 16:48, said:

Presumably double is more general than 3D, so I would be surprised if it was allowed as a substitution. Are you saying that in your system big hands with no alternative bid would not double? Not that allowing double will, as you say, lead to a good result.

We play a GF 2N not necessarily balanced with/without the 2♠ bid, so both X and 2♦ are limited. The only differences are that 2♦ might have 5, X is 4, 3♦ is limited with 5, and 2♦ could be a 5-4 10 count, whereas we'll resist the temptation to double with a real pile, so X is more specific. We open 1N or pass with any 5332 12-14 never 1 suit (unless we upgrade, in which case we have to bid 2N now) so there's no issue what to with a 2533.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-01, 17:13, said:

We play a GF 2N not necessarily balanced with/without the 2♠ bid, so both X and 2♦ are limited. The only differences are that 2♦ might have 5, X is 4, 3♦ is limited with 5, and 2♦ could be a 5-4 10 count, whereas we'll resist the temptation to double with a real pile, so X is more specific. We open 1N or pass with any 5332 12-14 never 1 suit (unless we upgrade, in which case we have to bid 2N now) so there's no issue what to with a 2533.

So what would you do with a 2-5-3-3 19-count without a spade stop?

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2011-June-01, 17:18, said:

So what would you do with a 2-5-3-3 19-count without a spade stop?

Bid 2N, as I said, game forcing and not necessarily balanced, 2N is artificial and can be void in spades.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-02, 01:35, said:

Bid 2N, as I said, game forcing and not necessarily balanced, 2N is artificial and can be void in spades.

I can only accept your system as you state, but does it not seem inefficient from a bridge point of view, that all hands that would bid 2♦ (typo corrected) could also double, giving an equal or more specific meaning? And if the TD thinks you will double, you are likely to get a worse result than 2♠-2.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2011-June-02, 03:52, said:

I can only accept your system as you state, but does it not seem inefficient from a bridge point of view, that all hands that would bid 2S could also double, giving an equal or more specific meaning? And if the TD thinks you will double, you are likely to get a worse result than 2♠-2.

It works well in practice, but on this hand not so well, if I was playing pairs, we'd play 3♣ and make it a fair proportion of the time (decision as to whether to play for K10x/xx or Kxx/10x in trumps), but persuading the director we'd make it might be difficult which was why I said I was glad I hadn't met it in real play.

[VixTD]

I actually gave an adjusted score based on some proportion of 3♣(W)-1 and some proportion of 3NT(E/W)-2, assuming that East would still bid 3♦ some of the time. I agree now that I shouldn't have included that, and should have included some of 2♠(N)-1. Thank you, Campboy et al.

I'm still not convinced I should have done anything at all, as the players were quite happy to rule on the insufficient bid themselves in the first instance. Is the fact that all players had a duty to call the director sufficient to regard EW as partly at fault for not calling the TD? Would it depend on the experience of the players?

[Cyberyeti]

VixTD, on 2011-June-02, 11:01, said:

I actually gave an adjusted score based on some proportion of 3♣(W)-1 and some proportion of 3NT(E/W)-2, assuming that East would still bid 3♦ some of the time. I agree now that I shouldn't have included that, and should have included some of 2♠(N)-1. Thank you, Campboy et al.

I'm still not convinced I should have done anything at all, as the players were quite happy to rule on the insufficient bid themselves in the first instance. Is the fact that all players had a duty to call the director sufficient to regard EW as partly at fault for not calling the TD? Would it depend on the experience of the players?

To some extent, locally here in club bridge, if both pairs knew enough of the rules and there was (as there usually is) a playing director, getting as far as "Do you accept it" - "No" - "I'll correct it to 3♦ as both bids are natural" saves a lot of time even if technically incorrect procedure, director would be called every time if it was not this simple a correction.

In an event with a non playing director, or where one pair is unsure, he should certainly be called and usually will be, although I'm not sure either side should lose all rights for not doing so as it is one that would require a call back at the end anyway, and I don't think director intervention at the proper time would have changed anything.

[mgoetze]

VixTD, on 2011-June-02, 11:01, said:

I actually gave an adjusted score based on some proportion of 3♣(W)-1 and some proportion of 3NT(E/W)-2, assuming that East would still bid 3♦ some of the time. I agree now that I shouldn't have included that, and should have included some of 2♠(N)-1.

I think 3♦ (not preceded by an IB) would be SEWoG.

[RMB1]

gordontd, on 2011-June-01, 03:14, said:

As is usually the case, I think campboy has this right.

I agree with gordontd: despite being a lone voice, campboy has got the right approach to Law 27D.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2011-June-03, 09:32, said:

<snip> despite being a lone voice, campboy has got the right approach <snip>

Not so; it was at least a madrigal, as both gordontd and I agreed with him. But he was first.

[mgoetze]

RMB1, on 2011-June-03, 09:32, said:

I agree with gordontd: despite being a lone voice, campboy has got the right approach to Law 27D.

lamford, on 2011-June-03, 10:55, said:

Not so; it was at least a madrigal, as both gordontd and I agreed with him. But he was first.

I'm having a hard time understanding how his approach differs from mine.

[lamford]

mgoetze, on 2011-June-03, 03:02, said:

I think 3♦ (not preceded by an IB) would be SEWoG.

I agree; and I think it is the first time I have seen a SEWoG included as part of a weighted score! Of curiosity value, a bit like Graham Poll's three yellow cards in that Australia v Croatia match.