[jallerton]

bluejak, on Aug 31 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

We are trying to decide how the Laws should be applied, not whether they should be applied.  There are nearly always problems when there is more than one infraction because the Laws do not deal well with multiple infractions.  In cases like this, where the infractions are connected, it is less obvious still.

In this case, non-compliance with the rules has led to a further breach [or perhaps it would have happened anyway].  You cannot just ignore th first infraction.

Furthermore, with the mess that exists in Law 27 anyway, it is not entirely obvious how to rule under Law 27.  So the thread is an interesting one.

OK, what do you think of this answer?

1. Apply Law 27 as in any normal insufficient bid case and ask the players to conclude the auction and play. If necessary, apply Law 27D to adjust the table result.

2. At the end of the hand, consider whether there is any damage from the first infraction (the non-STOP): judge whether the auction might have been different had the jump bidder's LHO been shown the STOP card.

2[a] If there is no damage from the non-STOP infraction, the (27D adjusted) table result obtained in step 1 stands.

2[b] If there is damage from the infraction, then:

(i) the non-STOP bidder's side's is given an assigned adjusted acore (weighted if necessary).

(ii) the other side is deemed to have taken a wild action (not taking care to see what bid was actually made) and so under Law 12c1[b] should be denied redress for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted, which in this case would be keeping the table score.

3. The non-STOP bidder should be given a warning or procedural penalty (if he had previously been warned) for failing to use the STOP card.

[bluejak]

While that is a reasoned approach, I wonder whether an action that is really careless can be judged wild?

[blackshoe]

I would think not. A careless action is "normal", a wild action is not normal.