[gordontd]

bluejak, on Oct 15 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

So I would have adjusted it from 6♠ making to 6♠ making.

That's what I did, having consulted with David and others.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Oct 15 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

My own view - without being able to speak to the pair concerned - is that there is a danger that a player with [say] Qxxx will always bid 4♠ not 3NT. Thus, while I believe pass of 4♠ is not an LA, I think the 6♠ bid was illegal because, without the BIT, you could be missing an ace.

So I would have adjusted it from 6♠ making to 6♠ making. It makes no difference, you say. I think it establishes a view, and makes it clear to the player what I think of his failure to follow the Laws, and how he was lucky on this occasion.

If, having received feedback from the pairs concerned, you felt it necessary to adjust from 6♠= reached via an illegal route to 6♠= reached via a legal route, why did you not give a procedural penalty for the 4NT bid?

Surely that would be a clearer way to get over the message of what you think of the player's "failure to follow the Laws".