[blackshoe]

Suppose you are called to a table where the auction has proceeded:

P   P   3S  X
P   3C

You find that {a} IBer's LHO does not wish to accept the IB and {b} 4C is probably Gerber (so not "incontrovertibly not conventional").

If, after explaining Law 27B2, the IBer chooses to bid 4C, and this is passed out, will you adjust the score? Assume that 3S makes, and that 4C goes down two, so the NOS were damaged. If you do adjust, what law do you use — 23? 12A1? Some other? Whichever law you choose, please explain your reasoning.

[Sadie3]

I do not know anyone that plays 4c over a takeout double over a 3s preempt as conventional. Is this common in Europe?

[TylerE]

I don't care who you are, or where, 4♣ isn't convnetional on this auction. Even the LOLs at the club who play 1♥-4♣ as gerber...this ain't gerber.

[nigel_k]

I assume the offending side are nonvul so have conceded 100 (instead of 140).

I would apply 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".

I think the phrase 'an offender could have been aware' is intended to allow an adjustment without any suggestion of dishonesty by the actual player. Here, an (hypothetical dishonest) offender could have been aware that this was his only way to get to play 4C. So you can adjust even if you are 100% certain the 3♣ bid was an innocent mistake in the actual case.

You would need to see the hands to work out whether the probable alternative outcome is -140, -150 in 5C, -500 in 5CX or something else.

I would use 12A1 only in situations where 23 does not apply.

[LH2650]

Yes, Law 23. This is the only way to get to clubs below slam, I suppose.

[blackshoe]

The actual case on which this is based came from New Zealand. One player said 4C would be Gerber, the other said not. Therefore, not "incontrovertibly not conventional", as I said.

Can you apply Law 12A1 when 23 does not apply? This smacks of "I'm gonna adjust the score, whatever the law says" to me.

As for working out possible outcomes, in an actual case, sure you'd need to see the hands. But this was presented as a hypothetical case, and I gave you the possible outcomes. Let's not get sidetracked.

[bluejak]

There are always some club players who agree with no thought whatever that 4♣ is always Gerber. I have in my years of playing run into such Gerber sequences as

1♣ p 2♣ p 3♣ p 4♣
1NT p 3NT p 4♣
1♥ p 4♣
1♠ p 2♣ p 4♣

and [a real beauty]

{2♥} 4♣

I am quite sure many players will take 4♣ as Gerber in the given auction.



You certainly cannot use Law 12A1 in this case since what is the infraction? Insufficient bids are covered by Law 27, infractions that damage opponents by Law 23. So if you cannot adjust under Law 23 or 27 then you do not adjust.

Law 27D does not apply, since the 4♣ bid fell under Law 27B2, so we are left with Law 23. And, yes, I would adjust under Law 23.

[Coelacanth]

bluejak, on Oct 5 2009, 08:32 AM, said:

There are always some club players who agree with no thought whatever that 4♣ is always Gerber.  I have in my years of playing run into such Gerber sequences as

1♣ p 2♣ p 3♣ p 4♣
1NT p 3NT p 4♣
1♥ p 4♣
1♠ p 2♣ p 4♣

I ran into the last of these this weekend, except the opening bid was 1♥.

The 4♣ bidder actually had a good club raise, but her partner thought she was bidding Gerber. He responded 4♠, which she corrected to 5♣. He now responds Kings and bids 5♥, ending the auction.

5♥ just made. Most of the field was in 5♣ making 6. One pair bid the good slam, so we salvaged a matchpoint.

Useful convention, that Gerber.

[bluejak]

Not as good as Blackwood. [I shall now be told off by Jeremy]

1♥ p 4♥ p
4NT p 5♣ p
5♥ p p p

A Welsh married couple bid this against me. 5♣ showed 0 or 4.

Naturally responder had all four aces. Also naturally, there were two natural trump losers and no matchpoints for David.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on Oct 5 2009, 03:32 PM, said:

There are always some club players who agree with no thought whatever that 4♣ is always Gerber.  I have in my years of playing run into such Gerber sequences as

1♣ p 2♣ p 3♣ p 4♣
1NT p 3NT p 4♣
1♥ p 4♣
1♠ p 2♣ p 4♣

and [a real beauty]

{2♥} 4♣

You missed another auction that I once ran into as a player:

4♣

(Yes, a 4♣ opening as Gerber)

Rik

[MFA]

A few years ago this sequence came up in our national pairs championship:

1♥ - pass - 2♦ - 4♣ Gerber!
pass - 4♦ - pass - 4♠
pass - pass - 4NT Blackwood!

6♥ bid (but not made as far as I remember). 4♣ was serious enough (although optimistic to find partner with 2 aces).

[jdonn]

Against a pair that thinks 4♣ is gerber here, if you adjust their score they will probably feel cheated no matter how clearly and calmly and accurately you explain the basis to them. I'm not saying not to adjust if it's lawful to do so, but I just think that warrants mentioning.

[Sadie3]

What about applying Law 21, "Call based on misinformation"? It seems to me that the player that believed this would be gerber was giving misinformation even tho he believed it himself. I think it is time to see what the hands look like.

[campboy]

Trinidad, on Oct 5 2009, 04:20 PM, said:

You missed another auction that I once ran into as a player:

4♣

(Yes, a 4♣ opening as Gerber)

Lol, I was just going to post the same thing. It happened to me at the University club's fresher event some years ago. A (Polish) pickup partner opened 4♣ intended as Gerber. I decided from my Qxxxxxx in clubs that something funny was going on, and assumed she must think it was Namyats. My 4♥ must have confused her, as she had all the aces herself (and was intending to check on kings). She bid 5♦ which ended the auction, with 7♦ cold

[nigel_k]

4♣ always Gerber is fairly common in New Zealand among weak to average players. You can laugh all you want but if the only slam investigation tool you know how to use is asking for aces, you may as well choose the lowest ranking one. I'll bet the pair in question would do as well or better with 4♣ ace asking after the double than with 4♣ natural.

I want to clarify what blackshoe and bluejak said about 12A1.

Law 23 covers a situation where 'an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side'. I would not infer from this that you cannot adjust if the offender could not have been aware. So falling back to 12A1 would not be 'I'm gonna adjust the score, whatever the law says'. In any case, 12A1 does appear to give a broad power to adjust a score any time there has been an infraction leading to a result the director thinks is unfair and the other laws don't provide a remedy.

If this is wrong I would be interested to know when 12A1 should be used.

[bluejak]

Sadie3, on Oct 5 2009, 05:47 PM, said:

What about applying Law 21, "Call based on misinformation"?  It seems to me that the player that believed this would be gerber was giving misinformation even tho he believed it himself.

Law 21 refers to opponents' bidding being affected by being told the wrong thing about a partnership agreement. None of that applies here.

nigel_k, on Oct 5 2009, 09:15 PM, said:

Law 23 covers a situation where 'an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side'. I would not infer from this that you cannot adjust if the offender could not have been aware. So falling back to 12A1 would not be 'I'm gonna adjust the score, whatever the law says'. In any case, 12A1 does appear to give a broad power to adjust a score any time there has been an infraction leading to a result the director thinks is unfair and the other laws don't provide a remedy.

If this is wrong I would be interested to know when 12A1 should be used.

An example of Law 12A1 is if a player puts down dummy with a card concealed. That is an infraction per Law 41D but no remedy is given in that Law so Law 12A1 can be used.

However we are talking of a law which does have a rectification attached. So either there is an infraction of Law 23 in which case we follow the rectification therein or there is not an infraction of Law 23 in which case no rectification is suitable.

To apply Law 12A1 you have to find an infraction with no rectification.

[blackshoe]

I asked for an explanation of reasoning. The three or four responses which suggested applying Law 23 didn't give one - or at least not one that makes sense to me. Law 23 depends, it seems to me, on the premise that the offender "could have known..." Fair enough, but I don't think it's enough to say "of course he could have known" or "any idiot could have known". How could he have known it?

[nigel_k]

blackshoe, on Oct 6 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

I asked for an explanation of reasoning. The three or four responses which suggested applying Law 23 didn't give one - or at least not one that makes sense to me. Law 23 depends, it seems to me, on the premise that the offender "could have known..." Fair enough, but I don't think it's enough to say "of course he could have known" or "any idiot could have known". How could he have known it?

All he has to know is the following:

If he bids 4♣ directly his partner could well decide to show aces. If he bids 3♣ then 4♣ his partner is barred so will pass. Therefore the infraction could well allow his side to play 4♣ when they could not otherwise do so. 4♣ could well be the best contract for his side.

Taken together, these mean that the insufficient bid could well damage the non-offending side.

[blackshoe]

How much credence should we give to the idea that Joe AveragePlayer is that familiar with the laws?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Oct 6 2009, 11:21 PM, said:

How much credence should we give to the idea that Joe AveragePlayer is that familiar with the laws?

It doesn't matter. That is why the phrase "could have known" is used rather than "knew" "probably knew" or "was familiar enough with the Laws to figure out".

What is the alternative? Give players an annual quiz on the Laws, and if they fail allow the opponents to be damaged when they commit an irregularity?