[Free]

I'm following a TD course (for club-level only) and I encountered a problem. The auction goes:
1♥ - 2♦ - RDbl! - 3♦

At this point the TD is called. According to article 35 the auction goes back to 1♥ - 2♦ - ? and nothing is penalized. Now, there might be a case for UI. However, according to article 16C, there is no UI for the non-violating side. This means that whenever you get a faulty RDbl you can give some lead directing info, or some other specific info (like in this example jumping to 4♠ and then passing or supporting after the RDbl is replaced by a Dbl). The auction will go back anyway...

Suppose the auction goes (unrealistic, but anything can happen in theory):
1♥ - 2♦ - 4♥ - pass
pass - ???

Now overcaller can decide to sacrifice because he knows his partner has ♦ support to the 3-level.

This just feels wrong, but there's no rule which prevents such actions, except maybe ethical issues. What do you think?

[jtfanclub]

I would rule that both sides violated- the 3♦ bid was illegal. Therefore, there is UI for both sides.

But I don't think I could prove that is the case.

[barmar]

I don't see anything in the Laws that says that the calls that are undone are UI. I think the illegal redouble essentially forfeits the right to penalize the opponents for subsequent UI arising from it.

Note that if the redouble hadn't been condoned by the 3♦ bid, there would have been an even worse penalty -- the redoubler's partner would have been barred for the rest of the auction (Law 36).

[blackshoe]

The redouble is illegal (Law 19B1). The redouble and subsequent 3♦ bid by 4th seat are cancelled, the auction reverts to 3rd seat (who had redoubled), and proceeds as if no irregularity had occurred (Law 35A). Third seat may now make any legal call, and the auction will proceed normally.

Fourth seat's 3♦ call was not an infraction of law - he bid in his turn after a call by his RHO. That RHO's call turns out to be inadmissable is irrelevant. Further, information from that 3♦ call is AI for the non-offending side (the diamond bidders) (Law 16C1).

The ethics of bridge are defined by the laws, so no legal action can be called unethical, as far as the laws are concerned. Since the 3♦ bid is (explicitly!) AI to that pair, the 2♦ bidder is completely ethical if he uses the knowledge his partner had a 3♦ bid to sacrifice over 4♥.

Note: If attention had been drawn to the illegal redouble and the director called before 4th seat called, then his call would have been an infraction (of Law 9B2), But that's not what happened, as I read it.

[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on Mar 9 2007, 06:58 PM, said:

Fourth seat's 3♦ call was not an infraction of law - he bid in his turn after a call by his RHO. That RHO's call turns out to be inadmissable is irrelevant.

That does not make it legal. For example, if the bidding goes 1♠-P-P-P-2♠, that's a bid after a call by his RHO. Neither is 1♠-P-1♥.

I suppose if I really wanted to be technical, I'd argue that the 3♦ call was out of rotation. Any double or redouble not permitted by law 19 is canceled. Therefore, that player has not made a call, therefore the next player's call is out of rotation.

But I'm still just massaging the rules to obey what I think they should mean.

[blackshoe]

jtfanclub, on Mar 9 2007, 07:28 PM, said:

But I'm still just massaging the rules to obey what I think they should mean.

Unfortunately, that's not a prerogative of a TD.

What makes your examples illegal is, in the first case, Law 39 (Call after the final pass), and in the second, Law 27 (Insufficient bid). Those laws explicitly make the example calls illegal. Which law makes the 3♦ bid illegal?

It's not a bid out of rotation, because at the time it was made, the RDBL had not yet been cancelled, it was the player's turn to bid, and he bid. In rotation. Note that players cannot cancel the RDBL - the TD must do it. See Laws 9C, 10, and 82A.

[helene_t]

By making the 3♦ call, that bidder condoned the rdbl. It remains UI of course but that's it.

Just my guess.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Mar 10 2007, 09:02 AM, said:

By making the 3♦ call, that bidder condoned the rdbl. It remains UI of course but that's it.

Just my guess.

When I mentioned the relevant laws, and the outcome of the ruling based on those laws, yesterday, I wasn't guessing.

There is no UI to the 3♦ bidder's partner from the 3♦ bid. Law 16C1 says so. Information from both the 3♦ bid and the rdbl is unauthorized to the OS (Law 16C2). (My earlier ruling, not having included this, was incomplete. My bad. ).