[zasanya]

I had to officiate as TD in an imp tourney where bidding boxes were used .I faced some unusual situations in my first attempt as TD. Please advise if my decisions and actions were correct.
Case 1: South as dealer passed.East bid repeat East bid 3♦ before West bid!
I asked South if 3♦ was accepted and ruled that in that case bidding would procede from that point as if no infringement has occured.South did not accept.So I ruled that West had to pass throughout the auction and East could bid as he liked and in case E W became declarer there would be a 'lead penalty'.North now passed and East now having 7 cards of ♦ headed by A K J and ♣ Q bid 3 nt which became the contract.West had 5 card ♣ headed by 10 and 2 major suit aces and another 3 points .♦ Q was dbltn in North hand .9 easy tricks rolled in.
On no other table 3 nt was bid .Now after the result there was a protest that East was the offender ,yet his team gained and so the score should be adjusted.I allowed the result to stand.No adjustment.
Case 2: East incidentally the same guy who bid 3nt in the case 1, bid 1♥.His P bid 1♠ which East alerted as non-forcing.The inquiry was loud and so was the explanation and West heard these exchanges.Now East with 3 small ♠ ,♥ Q to 5 ♦ A K J x and ♣ singleton bid 2♠ after a long pause and West who had 20 points promptly bid 7♠.It hinged on afinesse and went down 1.So there was no further discussion.Subsequently I was asked what would have been the decision if finesse had worked ,I replied I would have allowed the result to stand.
Are these routine occurences for TDs ? Were my decisions coreect?

[kenberg]

I am not a TD. However.

No one holding 20 points wants to play in 1S opposite an opening hand. It seems to me the explanation "1S is not forcing" is a little too cute. Of course if opener has psyched, he may pass 1S. Otherwise it certainly seems responder expects opener to bid.

I don't know much about rules, but I dont much care for this pair. I suggest stretching the rules as far as possible to rule against them so they will go play someplace else. I am only partly kidding.

Ken

[inquiry]

You ruled correctlly (well you made no ruling in the second case, really).

Case one. The penalty was WEST is forced to pass... east took a shot. It could have worked out well, or badly. The luck of the draw.

Case two. East bid 2♠ wtih a normal hand that an east would bid 2♠. West wtih a monster and a fit, jumped to grand slam. Was the alert "proper."? Maybe not, but, unless NS can proof thinking WEST had a weak hand harmed them in someway (wouldn't they be more likely to bid then?), the result will stand. There is a quesition of UI, that is, did WEST take advantage of the fact that his partner thought he could pass and thus he pressed to grand thinking his partner must have extras. This we would have to see the hands, and talk to both players about what their agreement really is. But as far as explained, no problem. I would might issue a procedural penalty against EW based upon their experience level.

ben

[McBruce]

From the comments by zasanya I infer that, unlike many emergency TDs he* seems to have prepared himself well. Not only did he make two correct rulings, he didn't mention any problem with the movement or the scoring so we can infer that that too went without a hitch. Nice job!

In the second hand, if the finesse was on I would ask myself where a normal auction for this pair would have ended, and based on the limited evidence available would probably have rolled it back to 6♠+1. West has unauthorized information from the hesitation before East's 2♠ rebid and especially from the explanation of his own 1♠ as non-forcing. I strongly suspect that West has chosen to rebid 7♠ based at least partly because of West's explanation that 1♠ is not forcing. That's not allowed, the explanation of the bid is UI.

I must disagree with kenberg's idea that since the auction is suspicious we bend the rules to make it difficult for this pair. That's not bridge, that's bias. The way to educate this pair to meet their legal requirements is to penalize them when the Laws say so and educate them with warnings, procedural or disciplinary penalties when they are out of bounds but no adjustment is called for.



* forgive me if I have inferred too much and used the wrong pronoun!

[zasanya]

Ty Ben Ken and McBruce
I had never before started a topic and was a bit apprehensive that these cases I mentioned would look trivial and won' merit a reply.I am very grateful to tou all and now feel bold enough to add a few details which I should have mentioned in the first place.
East and West were playing precision so East could not have had more than 15 and hence 7♠ was in my opinion stupid rather than unethical .
East and West are part of a 6 member team who regularly play with each other but sometimes change partnerships.East simply forgot that with this P,he was not playing Flannery and in his version of Flannery 1♠ response to 1♥ is indeed non-forcing.West is known for his audacious (read mad ) bidding.
I didn't issue any procedural penalty but did issue a stern warning.
However I would like to know whether forgetting system is punishable?
BTW McBruce usage of pronoun is correct.

[kenberg]

I agree entirely with McBruces compliments and I even agree with his rejection of my somewhat extreme suggestion about stretching the rules to get rid of the pair. There probably is a reason no one has ever suggested that I direct a game. I express my appreciation to all of you who do take on this demanding task.

Ken

[mycroft]

Case 1: "Rub of the green". If West hadn't had that ace - but remember, by the time it got to East, it has gone Pass-Forced Pass-Pass. If North can't even scrounge up a third-seat opener knowing what East has, it's a really good bet that East is going to catch a pretty dummy.

There are people who believe that if the opponents do something wrong, they are entitled to a good score. Well, that ain't necessarily so. South should have Law 72A5 read to him.

Law 23 is N/S's potential redress, but as I can't imagine a hand where East could possibly gain advantage from silencing partner, it doesn't apply here. 3NT was just the guess with the biggest upside potential (IMP tournament, remember). It happened to be a good guess which worked.

Oh, one thing, which is probably just a typo - if "N/S become declarer", then there would be lead penalties the first time West is on lead, provided East didn't mention diamonds somewhere in the auction.

2) (re: Inquiry)It isn't that West pressed to the grand; it was that West bid 7S over 2S. West's 7S was almost certainly based on the UI, and was almost certainly based on "what can I bid that won't hurt me if partner passes?"

Yes, he knows combined assets are 31-35 high and a spade fit, but he also knows that partner might just pass him in what in his system would be a forcing bid. Two cases here:

a) East was right - 1S is non-forcing (and not "forcing unless I psyched" or garbage like that - if that is the case, then I "would like to speak with you after the game about proper disclosure"). Then West is not allowed to wake up, and must make bids that are forcing after a forcing 1S to get to 6 or 7, and if systemically East could pass any of them, well then.

b) West was right - 1S was forcing. West still can't do anything based on the UI - and that includes knowing that East's raise is a non-minimum (and with the long pause, a bare non-minimum). So he can't count on there being 13 opposite.

In either case:

7S is a gamble; but the reason West gambled out 7S and didn't use all his science was that he was worried partner would give the wrong answer, or pass. And the reason he thought that was because of the UI. And one doesn't get much more blatant than this.

If 7S was an expected contract with systemic bidding, and it made, then I'd let the score stand. If West is at all experienced, and I mean at all, I would slap a 3 IMP PP on him after reading Law 73C to him. If West was not at all experienced, I would read Law 73C to him, ask him if he understood why the leap was improper and a violation of this Law, and warn him that forther instances of this would be treated very harshly. And I'd do that whether or not 7S made.

If he tries "well that's what I'd always have bid", I'd be - very disturbed. There are words for that explanation in this case, but the only printable one is "I don't believe you. Luckily whether it's true or not doesn't matter, because...(Law 73C)."

You are allowed to make insane bids. You are not allowed to make insane calls because you're worried about being passed when your partner has said he thinks he's allowed to.

Michael.

[Beto]

mycroft, on Sep 21 2005, 06:31 PM, said:

Law 23 is N/S's potential redress, but as I can't imagine a hand where East could possibly gain advantage from silencing partner, it doesn't apply here. 3NT was just the guess with the biggest upside potential (IMP tournament, remember). It happened to be a good guess which worked.

Law 31 is clear about this:

When the offender has bid at his partner’s turn to call, or at his LHO’s turn to call if the offender has not previously called, offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side), and the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply.

In this case the pass damaged the non offending side, as with 2 aces and 11 pts, the player could choose another bid instead of pass over 3NT.

[mycroft]

Yes, Law 31 is. But Law 23 is also clear (all emphasis mine):

Quote

When the penalty for an irregularity under any Law would compel the offender's partner to pass at his next turn, if the Director deems *that the offender, **at the time of his irregularity**, could have known* that the enforced pass *would be likely to damage* the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue and *consider awarding* an adjusted score.

So there are the requirements for Law 23 to activate:
1) Forcing partner to pass would be *likely* to damage the NOs;
2) It was possible to demonstrate this likelihood *at the time of the irregularity*;
3) The TD has to believe that the damage was such that an adjusted score should be awarded;
4) However, it is not necessary to show intent, "a cheater would have done the same thing that you did in all innocence" suffices (note: many Laws have been written with that "could have known" phrase - this allows the TD to enforce a penalty/restore equity without impugning the player's ethics or determining the player's intent. It is, in this legal climate, a very comfortable backstop).

If you truly believe that with x xx AKJxxxx Qxx or the like (the OP says 7 diamonds to the AKJ and the CQ) in fourth seat, hearing opener pass, that barring partner and gambling out 3NT is *likely* to lead to a better score than hearing what partner has to say - remember that North still gets to call legitimately, and before you get to play your 3NT trick - then fine, look for an adjusted score. But it's a judgment ruling, so you should consult. I don't think you'll find anyone who agrees.

Quote

In this case the pass damaged the non offending side, as with 2 aces and 11 pts, the player could choose another bid instead of pass over 3NT.

Um, this is cause-and-effect backwards - *because* partner has to pass, and whatever I bid will be the contract, I'd better hope N/S aren't faking me out and trust partner to have stuff; and 3NT is the highest-upside gamble.

Were partner not barred, I don't think anyone would bid 3NT. But partner's enforced pass is authorized information for East, and if she chooses to gamble game instead of partscore, fine. In an extreme case, you can't force East, holding AKQTxx KJ9xx A A, to open 2C strong and artificial, just because that would be her bid without West's enbarment.

Yes, East got lucky. Law 72A5 allows East to get lucky, even getting lucky in an "impossible" way - as long as it truly is not otherwise, systemically, impossible. Law 23 stops people from insufficient bidding and then bidding 4NT to play, or responding to 1NT out of turn, then bidding 2C to play at the proper time. The criteria of time and likelihood have to be established, and in the words of my TD exam evaluator, "It is not likely that you will ever have the situation for Law 23 occur."

When, on BLML, the situation where second-in-hand opened out of turn, then psyched his void major at the correct turn, knowing partner had to pass, came up, the consensus was that Law 23 doesn't really apply, but it's borderline (I believe the ruling that ended up being given used the "Red Psychic" regulation in effect in the EBU, as 1S was in effect "self-fielding").

Michael.