[awm]

The following auction cropped up in a club game, east dealer.

1♥ - Pass - 2NT(1) - 3♦(2)
4♥ - Pass - 3NT(3)

(1) Not alerted. Intended as natural and invitational.
(2) Before bidding, asked east about 2NT. Was told "Jacoby 2NT, 4+♥ and GF."
(3) Insufficient bid.

At this point north (next to call) called the director. He indicated that he did not want to accept the 3NT bid. The director told west that she can make any sufficient call she wants, but her partner will be barred for the rest of the auction (because 4NT would be a conventional ace-asking call). West corrected her call to 4NT and everyone passed.

I'm not going to give the full hand now, because the table result in 4NT was so good for the non-offending side that the director was never called back to the table. However, supposing that 4NT yielded a good score for E/W, under what circumstances (if any) would you adjust the result based on the above?

[jdonn]

I would always adjust if this led to a good score for the offending side. Now we can all wait for someone to give the exact quote of the law that says you can't commit an irregularity if you could have known at the time it would benefit your side, for example bidding an insufficient 3NT to bar partner here.

[Phil]

Ugh this one reeks.

EW get to keep their poor score in 4N, and if 4N works out, adjust to 4♥.

This doesn't feel sufficient - can we assess a PP too?

[blackshoe]

You can. Whether you should, particularly in a club game, is another question.

Would 4NT really be BW in their system on this auction?

It appears that the TD did not mention Pass as an option to replace the insufficient 3NT. Was there TD error?

Assuming there was not, and in answer to the OP question, I would adjust to 4♥ for both sides if 4NT worked out well and 4♥ would have worked out less well. I can't think of another likely outcome.

[pran]

awm, on Aug 21 2010, 06:35 PM, said:

The following auction cropped up in a club game, east dealer.

1♥ - Pass - 2NT(1) - 3♦(2)
4♥ - Pass - 3NT(3)

(1) Not alerted. Intended as natural and invitational.
(2) Before bidding, asked east about 2NT. Was told "Jacoby 2NT, 4+♥ and GF."
(3) Insufficient bid.

At this point north (next to call) called the director. He indicated that he did not want to accept the 3NT bid. The director told west that she can make any sufficient call she wants, but her partner will be barred for the rest of the auction (because 4NT would be a conventional ace-asking call). West corrected her call to 4NT and everyone passed.

I'm not going to give the full hand now, because the table result in 4NT was so good for the non-offending side that the director was never called back to the table. However, supposing that 4NT yielded a good score for E/W, under what circumstances (if any) would you adjust the result based on the above?

The relevant law is Law 23:
Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*.

* as, for example, by partner’s enforced pass.

The important condition for adjustment is the part that I have enhanced.

(Be aware that the "time of the irregularity" was when she made her insufficient bid 3NT, not when she chose to correct it to 4NT!)

[mgoetze]

blackshoe, on Aug 21 2010, 07:47 PM, said:

Would 4NT really be BW in their system on this auction?

Are you asking about East's system or West's?

[pran]

mgoetze, on Aug 22 2010, 11:49 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 21 2010, 07:47 PM, said:

Would 4NT really be BW in their system on this auction?

Are you asking about East's system or West's?

Frankly I don't think that is relevant: Only if both 3NT and 4NT in the Director’s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificia does Law 27B1a allow East to call anything but pass during the rest of the auction.

Can East and West show convincing evidence that 4NT (absent the insufficient 3NT bid) is not artificial here?

[iviehoff]

Whilst West's insufficient bid might have been a naughty trick deliberately to bar partner so as to be able to bid 4N without risk of it being taken as B/W, it probably wasn't, it was probably confusion about the level the auction was at. We use Law 23 whether the effect was deliberate or otherwise, so there is no opprobrium on West.

But West has failed to avoid taking advantage of unauthorised information, moreover quite blatantly so. This, I would suggest, is likely the more serious issue, the one that West needs to learn about. Therefore I would rule any adjustment/penalties under UI laws, rather than Law 23. In fact, there is a case for a PP even given the actual outcome of 4N, given the blatantness of the offence.

[RMB1]

iviehoff, on Aug 23 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

But West has failed to avoid taking advantage of unauthorised information, moreover quite blatantly so.  This, I would suggest, is likely the more serious issue, the one that West needs to learn about.  Therefore I would rule any adjustment/penalties under UI laws, rather than Law 23.  In fact, there is a case for a PP even given the actual outcome of 4N, given the blatantness of the offence.

I think the application of Law 16 (UI) and Law 23 (... irregularity could well damage ...) go hand in hand. Law 23 allows us to adjust to what would have happened without the 3NT bid, Law 16 allows us to adjust if 3NT or the correction to 4NT are based on UI.

In either case we need to assign an adjusted score based on the auction up to 4♥-(Pass)-? with responder's action being constrained to be (sufficient) logical alternatives not suggested by the unauthorised explanation of 2NT. Although we haven't been given the hand, it is difficult to believe anything but Pass is a logical alternative. I assume 4♥ scores worse than 4NT, otherwise a procedure penalty could be appropriate.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on Aug 23 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

I assume 4♥ scores worse than 4NT, otherwise a procedure penalty could be appropriate.

This I do not understand. Why should whether a PP is appropriate have anything at all to do with which contract scores better?

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on Aug 24 2010, 01:52 AM, said:

This I do not understand. Why should whether a PP is appropriate have anything at all to do with which contract scores better?

If I adjust to 4♥ because it scores worse than the table result in 4NT then I do not "need" to penalise for the use of UI in bidding over 4♥. If 4♥ scores better than 4NT then I do not adjust (because it would improve offenders' score) but instead I issue a procedural penalty for blatant use of UI.

I know this practice of penalising for blanant use of UI only when there is no damage is a quaint (English?) practice. I am not too concerned about staunchly defending this practice. I guess we are just cowards who want to avoid long post from players who have had UI rulings against them, who would moan even more if we fined them as well: "its not fairrrr"

[blackshoe]

Well, for myself, the question whether to adjust the score because of use of UI, blatant or otherwise, is and should be completely independent of the question whether to award a procedural penalty. The purpose of the former is not punishment, it is redress of damage. The purpose of the latter is punishment, with an eye towards deterrence. The message of the first is "you have committed an irregularity which has damaged your opponents. I am adjusting the score to redress that damage." The message of the second is "you have done something you should not have done, and which you should know better than to have done. I am penalizing you as a reminder not to do it again." Frankly, I think it's completely wrong for a TD to do either of these things for anything other than the purpose I've stated.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on Aug 24 2010, 02:20 AM, said:

The message of the second is "you have done something you should not have done, and which you should know better than to have done. I am penalizing you as a reminder not to do it again." Frankly, I think it's completely wrong for a TD to do either of these things for anything other than the purpose I've stated.

When there is damage the adjustment appears to be penalty and acts as a reminder not to do it again.

We are not doing either of these things for any other purpose that the ones you state; but we are being inconsistent in doing the second.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on Aug 23 2010, 10:21 PM, said:

When there is damage the adjustment appears to be penalty and acts as a reminder not to do it again.

Yes, I know. This is a matter of education. And yes, I know that some people will not learn that a score adjustment is not punishment. But we ought to try.

That a score adjustment may teach folks "not to do it again" is a side benefit.

Quote

We are not doing either of these things for any other purpose that the ones you state; but we are being inconsistent in doing the second.

If by "we" you mean TDs, then we should strive to be consistent.

[WellSpyder]

RMB1, on Aug 24 2010, 03:21 AM, said:

When there is damage the adjustment appears to be penalty and acts as a reminder not to do it again. 

Possibly. But "if you get caught stealing you have to give it back, if you don't get caught you can keep it" doesn't sound like much of a disincentive to steal to me.

[iviehoff]

WellSpyder, on Aug 24 2010, 08:00 AM, said:

Possibly. But "if you get caught stealing you have to give it back, if you don't get caught you can keep it" doesn't sound like much of a disincentive to steal to me.

But it doesn't quite work like that. I catch you stealing, but I'm not quite sure which of the objects I find on you are your loot. I take a harsh view of what is likely to be your loot, and hand that all to the victim. Much of the time it is more than what you actually took.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on Aug 24 2010, 04:45 AM, said:

If by "we" you mean TDs, then we should strive to be consistent.

We (perhaps self-referentially) means the TDs who operate like this.
Only fining when the use of UI is blatant but there is no damage is common practice among the EBU panel TDs (lesser TDs would just not issue a PP for use of UI) and is not vehemently objected to by the EBU L&E committee.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on Aug 24 2010, 02:20 AM, said:

Well, for myself, the question whether to adjust the score because of use of UI, blatant or otherwise, is and should be completely independent of the question whether to award a procedural penalty. The purpose of the former is not punishment, it is redress of damage. The purpose of the latter is punishment, with an eye towards deterrence. The message of the first is "you have committed an irregularity which has damaged your opponents. I am adjusting the score to redress that damage." The message of the second is "you have done something you should not have done, and which you should know better than to have done. I am penalizing you as a reminder not to do it again." Frankly, I think it's completely wrong for a TD to do either of these things for anything other than the purpose I've stated.

As a practical matter people who are ruled against in UI cases often feel punished. So while we possibly should issue PPs when people use UI fairly blatantly there is no need for either punishment or deterrence: they find adjustment acts that way.

When there is no damage we need a PP as punishment and deterrence.