[Vampyr]

The auction has gone (2♥)-P-(4♥)-3♠-(P).

I think that this is a clear L23 case, as this is the only way the 3♠ bidder can consult with partner as to the merits of a 4♠ contract.
If the IB is not accepted, the 3♠ bidder can take his chances in 4♠.

Another poster suggested that L23 did not apply, since the advantage was gained not through the irregularity, but by LHO's acceptance of the insufficient bid.
I do not think that this is right. Poor LHO had to do something; the irregularity is still the source of the problem. Does LHO really have to be in the position where:

He accepts the IB and the next player can choose whether to accept the invitation

OR

He doesn't accept, so the 3♠ bidder bids 4S, when the next player wouldn't accept an invitation and 4♠ makes

OR

He doesn't accept and the 3♠ bidder passes, and neither side can make anything?

I don't think it is his problem to solve. He didn't ask to have to choose an option over an IB.

[Chris3875]

I don't understand the full ramifications of what you are saying - it seems pretty simple to me that Law 27A1 would apply - any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO. It is accepted if that player calls.

[peachy]

It could be a clever ploy to bid an insufficient 3S (although it might have been a simple mispull) if partner is weak we may get to play 3S, and if partner has values he can raise to 4S. Disciplined 2H opener is truly put into a bind through the opponent's infraction, I think the TD should use his power given in the Laws 'when no law is directly applicable to redress damage' to make sure the infracting side does not gain from the infraction.

[bluejak]

peachy, on Dec 21 2009, 09:43 AM, said:

It could be  a clever ploy to bid an insufficient 3S (although it might have been a simple mispull) if partner is weak we may get to play 3S, and if partner has values he can raise to 4S.  Disciplined 2H opener is truly put into a bind through the opponent's infraction, I think the TD should use his power given in the Laws 'when no law is directly applicable to redress damage'  to make sure the infracting side does not gain from the infraction.

We have Law 23: if it is a Law 23 case then we can adjust thereunder: if it is not a Law 23 case then he you have decided he has not "done a clever ploy" so there is no reason to adjust under Law 12A1 or whatever the Law is these days.



The problem with treating it as a Law 23 case is that you are basically putting yourself as TD in a position where any natural insufficient bid becomes a Law 23 case. Take the sort of auction that seems to lead to the most common insufficient bid:

1♥ 1♠ Dbl 3♠
3♥

This is the sort of sequence where every so often some mediocre player bids 3♥ and has always been the basic reason for the rule allowing a player to "make it good": little harm comes from a correction to 4♥. Yet the logic applies just as much as in the OP sequence.

While I can see the logic behind the OP I believe this is not a path that TDs should follow. The reason for Law 23 and its predecessors is to control forms of abuse. As a practical matter, you want some real suspicions of the possibility of abuse before you invoke Law 23. With the given sequence where there is a theoretical possibility, but where it is not abusive the vast majority of the time, I believe you should leave Law 23 well alone.

[duschek]

Vampyr, on Dec 21 2009, 12:32 AM, said:

I don't think it is his problem to solve. He didn't ask to have to choose an option over an IB.

RHO's insufficient bid provides you with two options.

1) Requiring the bid to be replaced, in which case the auction is restored to normal, but with certain restrictions on the opponents.

2) Accepting the insufficient bid, with whatever advantage you might see for your side.

I fail to see how this matches with the conditions for using Law 23. If you decide that you cannot solve such problems, you can always fall back on requiring the bid to be replaced. RHO already had the option of taking his chances in 4♠, so you have not lost anything by requiring him to once again choosing between pass and 4♠ (on the contrary, he may have given you information about his hand that you were not supposed to receive).

[Vampyr]

duschek, on Dec 21 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

I fail to see how this matches with the conditions for using Law 23.

The application of L23 is fairly simple. By bidding 3♠ you will, if the bid is accepted, have the opportunity to solicit partner's opinion about a 4♠ contract. (And what I particularly don't like about this situation is that if the IB is not accepted, you have lost nothing.)

David, I would have thought that L23 has a much less restricted application, and is to be used whenever an unfair advantage is gained by the OS; much like use of UI, which carries no implication that anything wrong was done on purpose. In any event, since if this were done on purpose it would be a win/break even proposition for the IBer. Don't we want to penalise rectify action which were what a cheat would do, without suggesting that the infractor is a cheat? A side consideration is that if the answer is no, then all applications of L23 will carry a suggestion of impropriety, which would seem not to be what is wanted.

Is your viewpoint backed up by EBU or WBF guidance?

[bluejak]

So give me a sequence where there is a natural insufficient bid that you think is not covered by Law 23, please.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Dec 21 2009, 08:23 PM, said:

So give me a sequence where there is a natural insufficient bid that you think is not covered by Law 23, please.

The same sequence where the IB is not accepted is one example.

I think that when a bid in competition is insufficient, it will tend to (potentially, especially if accepted) give the offenders an extra sequence that would not have been available without the insufficient bid. So if the offenders gain from this extra sequence, I think it makes sense to apply L23. As in the case under discussion, it will usually be pretty obvious how advantage might be obtained.

But I am someone strongly opposed to the increasing leniency in the Laws for people who do not take the trouble to make a legal call or play a legal card.

[bluejak]

So if an a natural insufficient bid in competition is accepted you will always see it as a Law 23 case? I think that is very much against the views of the lawmakers, and the approach of TDs and ACs around the world. If the lawmakers really wanted this to happen I do think the Law would just be different.

I think that approaching every situations which a fervent imagination could imagine to be a Law 23 case is against the general ethical approach to the game. it will denigrate the game to an unworkable degree, and fortunately it just does not happen.

[nige1]

bluejak, on Dec 21 2009, 08:01 PM, said:

So if an a natural insufficient bid in competition is accepted you will always see it as a Law 23 case?  I think that is very much against the views of the lawmakers, and the approach of TDs and ACs around the world.  If the lawmakers really wanted this to happen I do think the Law would just be different.

I think that approaching every situations which a fervent imagination could imagine to be a Law 23 case is against the general ethical approach to the game.  it will denigrate the game to an unworkable degree, and fortunately it just does not happen.

Always a potential law 23 case?