[bali 2]

Suppose the auction is illegal ( for example containing an inadmissible double ), the players do not notice and arrive to 3NT. The contract is played and made, but at the end one of them realises what happened and calls the TD.

Are the contract and score obtained canceled or maintained ?

In each case, what is the law applied ?

Many thanks in advance, AL. Ohana

[pran]

bali 2, on Nov 21 2009, 09:49 AM, said:

Suppose the auction is illegal ( for example containing an inadmissible double ), the players do not notice and arrive to 3NT. The contract is played and made, but at the end one of them realises what happened and calls the TD.

Are the contract and score obtained canceled or maintained ?

In each case, what is the law applied ?

Many thanks in advance, AL. Ohana

The applicable law is 35, and in the case of an inadmissable double or redouble after which the offender's LHO has subsequently called before rectification Law 36A:

If offender’s LHO calls before rectification of an inadmissible double or redouble the inadmissible call and all subsequent calls are cancelled. The auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call and proceeds as though there had been no irregularity. The lead restrictions in Law 26 do not apply.

The situation is now that we are back within the auction period, and all 52 cards have been exposed during the auction (Law 24)! Consequently the board has been destroyed beyond repair, and legally the obtained result cannot stand but must be replaced by an artificial adjusted score (both sides at fault).

In practical bridge I would use my common sense and judge if the obtained result was at all reasonable (for both sides) had the irregularity not occurred.

[blackshoe]

If that's what the law says, Sven (and I'm not prepared to stipulate either way, at the moment), then the law is an ass. OTOH, what you're proposing to do ("use common sense") is outwith the law. So if that's what the law says, you (the TD) are screwed either way: you can choose to follow the law and make a ridiculous ruling, or you can choose to ignore the law and make an illegal one. Not much of a choice, if you ask me.

I'll have to think about whether the law actually says that, and if so whether there's a legal way out.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Nov 21 2009, 05:34 PM, said:

If that's what the law says, Sven (and I'm not prepared to stipulate either way, at the moment), then the law is an ass. OTOH, what you're proposing to do ("use common sense") is outwith the law. So if that's what the law says, you (the TD) are screwed either way: you can choose to follow the law and make a ridiculous ruling, or you can choose to ignore the law and make an illegal one. Not much of a choice, if you ask me.

I'll have to think about whether the law actually says that, and if so whether there's a legal way out.

I try to maintain the standard that what I enter in blue is a direct quote. (Usually, like in this case, with copy and paste.) Bold emphasises are usually my own.

Depending on the nature of the event I sometimes, but very seldom (mainly in judgement situations) "bend" the laws when I feel that the event calls for it.

In this case the only really legal ruling would be to cancel the board and award an artificial adjusted score. In a not too serious club event when 3NT made is the only reasonable outcome I just might let that result stand.

And I do see why the law is as it is, there are IMHO indeed sound reasons for it.

[duschek]

pran, on Nov 21 2009, 08:49 PM, said:

In this case the only really legal ruling would be to cancel the board and award an artificial adjusted score. In a not too serious club event when 3NT made is the only reasonable outcome I just might let that result stand.

If cancelling the board from the inadmissible double, the TD will have to consider the auction so far and decide on an adjusted score. For example, the legal auction might have made a favourable result for one of the sides very likely, and in that case I think you cannot just reward that side with an A or A-.

If the likely outcome cannot be established, you might resort to A-/A via Law 12C1d (it seems to me that the side not making the inadmissible double gets an average, but I am not sure at all about this).

[pran]

duschek, on Nov 22 2009, 07:05 AM, said:

pran, on Nov 21 2009, 08:49 PM, said:

In this case the only really legal ruling would be to cancel the board and award an artificial adjusted score. In a not too serious club event when 3NT made is the only reasonable outcome I just might let that result stand.

If cancelling the board from the inadmissible double, the TD will have to consider the auction so far and decide on an adjusted score. For example, the legal auction might have made a favourable result for one of the sides very likely, and in that case I think you cannot just reward that side with an A or A-.

If the likely outcome cannot be established, you might resort to A-/A via Law 12C1d (it seems to me that the side not making the inadmissible double gets an average, but I am not sure at all about this).

Thanks, your comment reminds me that I indeed have a legal cover for my intuitive reaction to let the table result stand if I judge it to be the only reasonable outcome.

As for awarding A- or A, don't overlook that both sides are directly at fault here, one for making an inadmissible call and the other for just bidding on.

[blackshoe]

"Directly at fault" for what? The original infraction? Something else?

[LH2650]

I think that Law 41C is applicable.

C. Opening Lead Faced
Following this clarification period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably,...

So we cannot go back to the auction period. Presumably the auction and the result stand.

[blackshoe]

LH2650, on Nov 22 2009, 01:07 PM, said:

I think that Law 41C is applicable.

C. Opening Lead Faced
Following this clarification period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably,...

So we cannot go back to the auction period. Presumably the auction and the result stand.

Ha! I knew there was something!

[bluejak]

pran, on Nov 22 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

As for awarding A- or A, don't overlook that both sides are directly at fault here, one for making an inadmissible call and the other for just bidding on.

Nothing in my Law book suggests that a player is at fault for bidding on in any situation where his side has committed no infraction.

[axman]

LH2650, on Nov 22 2009, 01:07 PM, said:

I think that Law 41C is applicable.

C. Opening Lead Faced
Following this clarification period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably,...

So we cannot go back to the auction period. Presumably the auction and the result stand.

I'm not sure that there is even a specification that there can be no further auction once an OL is faced. However, there is a situation when the law specifies that there be an auction after the OL, the provision being found in 2008L17D2.

[blackshoe]

Um. While it makes sense to me that when a player has cards from the wrong board, we should apply 17D even if the problem isn't discovered until play has started, I don't see where the law (17D2) actually says that. There may be an LC interpretation on it, I don't know.

[gordontd]

L17D is a change from the previous Laws (which did allow us to return to the auction in these circumstances), and the current law says:

Quote

If offender’s LHO has called over the cancelled call the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s substituted call differs from his cancelled call (offender’s LHO must repeat the previous call) or if the offender’s partner has subsequently called over the cancelled call

This doesn't appear to allow a return to the auction (or indeed to allow a return very far back within a current auction). The one thing that bothers me in this wording is the word "subsequently", for which I can see no purpose, and which might suggest another interpretation.

[iviehoff]

This case would be even more amusing if the auction proceeded
... Double - Pass - Redouble - All pass

If play proceeds, when we arrive at scoring up is the contract doubled or redoubled?

[pran]

I presented the question and have received the following comment from Grattan Endicott (as his personal opinion, not in his formal capacity as secretary to WBFLC):
(The enhancement is mine)

+=+ I understand this concerns a double or redouble that is not permitted by Law 19.
In Law 41C there is a point of no return from which, when reached, there can be no re-entry into the auction period.
However, if it is discovered after the opening lead has been faced there has been no rectification of a double or redouble not permitted by Law 19, no lawful contract has been established for a declarer to win a given number of odd tricks (see Definitions). It should be noted that Law 36 is triggered by the occurrence and has effect without need for attention to be drawn to the irregularity.
In these circumstances the conditions are present, I shall argue, for the application of Law 12A2.
~ Grattan ~ +=+

The only remaining question then seems to be whether the side that doubled illegally is alone responsible for the situation; I tend to consider both sides responsible as they have enganged in play without any contract established..

[blackshoe]

pran, on Nov 24 2009, 03:42 AM, said:

I presented the question and have received the following comment from Grattan Endicott (as his personal opinion, not in his formal capacity as chairman to WBFLC):

That's good, since unless something has changed very recently he isn't the Chairman.

[bixby]

Why isn't this a suitable case for application of Law 11A?

Quote

The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director.
The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law.

In the case stated in the OP, after an inadmissible bid was made, the non-offending side continued in the bidding and play without summoning the Director. Shouldn't the Director at least consider the possibility that the non-offending side has forfeited its right to rectification of the irregularity?

The second sentence of Law 11A may not apply (the non-offending side may not have gained), but that is just an "example" of when the Director may apply this law.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Nov 24 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 24 2009, 03:42 AM, said:

I presented the question and have received the following comment from Grattan Endicott (as his personal opinion, not in his formal capacity as chairman to WBFLC):

That's good, since unless something has changed very recently he isn't the Chairman.

True, and my fault, he is secretary to WBFLC

[manudude03]

iviehoff, on Nov 23 2009, 09:08 AM, said:

This case would be even more amusing if the auction proceeded
... Double - Pass - Redouble - All pass

If play proceeds, when we arrive at scoring up is the contract doubled or redoubled?

I've heard of something like that happening.

The auction apparently went:

P-P-P-X
P-P-XX-AP.

Luckily "declarer" wasn't sure what was going on and called the TD to ask what trumps are and how many tricks he had to make.

It was in a schools field (not very strong here) and they were basically told that the opps have to bid something to double and told to do the auction again (properly).

In similar fields, I've seen auctions like:

3C-P-X

The doubler had a 12 count 4450, I told her she wasn't allowed to double her own partner. The reply? "But I have a takeout double of clubs!"

In your auction though, I think it should be scored as XX if it made (assuming it was the non-offending side) and X if it went down