[shevek]

---

2♠ made for -470 NS.
EW were an average, elderly club pair.
2♠ non-forcing in the traditional style.
Unclear to me whether East would have bid 2NT over this, though this level of player is likely to make bids like that.

In fact, West had bid 2♦ over 2♥, presumably natural. These players have a vague grasp of 4th suit forcing.
Anyway, she corrected to 2♠, barring partner.
Assuredly, this West had no awareness that "this could well damage the non-offending side."

Your ruling?

[barmar]

Law 23 doesn't require that the player actually be aware that the irregularity could damage the opponents, only that they could have been aware of it.

However, your question raises the issue: when it says "could have been aware", is it referring to this specific player, players of their calibre, or players in general? If the first or second, it seems to suggest that novice players get a pass on Law 23, since they generally have enough trouble planning ordinary auctions, one would not expect them to be able to foresee how irregular auctions will turn out. Also, it's unlikely that they would know the rectification for an IB well enough to know that partner would be barred because of this sequence.

[iviehoff]

barmar, on 2012-August-01, 00:06, said:

However, your question raises the issue: when it says "could have been aware", is it referring to this specific player, players of their calibre, or players in general?

The law says
"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..." (emphasis added).

Because of the choice of words I have emphasised, I take that as meaning the specific offender. It also makes sense to interpret it that way. OP has judged that this specific offender could not possibly have been aware of it, so there is no possibility that they were doing it deliberately to take advantage. What the law is for is to prevent people deliberately taking advantage, but without requiring the director to make the judgment of whether they were actually doing so deliberately. If it is clear that the specific offender could not possibly have been doing it for the purpose of taking advantage, then there are no grounds for adjustment.

Btw, did the other side actually complain, or is this something you merely spotted?

[RMB1]

I don't see the damage: if 2♠ would be non-forcing (by partnership agreement) surely West would bid 2♠ and East would Pass.

[iviehoff]

RMB1, on 2012-August-01, 05:05, said:

I don't see the damage: if 2♠ would be non-forcing (by partnership agreement) surely West would bid 2♠ and East would Pass.

No doubt East should pass. But East has extra values ("I had 17 points partner") and will imagine partner being in the range 6-9. East probably even thinks he is well-located in relation to the other side's strength. So I expect quite a few Easts in this class will produce an invitational 2N bid at this point. If I was adjusting, I'd have a quite a chunky percentage for 2N.

[Hanoi5]

So, South's double should allow N-S to win the hand no matter what? I think this kind of actions shouldn't be rewarded by Directors.

I recently had this auction:

Pa-4♥-Pa*-Pa
4♠-Pa**-Pa-5♥
All pass

*BIT
**Player called the Director because of the BIT and subsequent action

5♥ went down, the Director reverted the result to 4♥ making. And although I agreed that the BIT had influenced the 4♠ bid I couldn't help but think 5♥ was a no lose bid, for if it made nothing happened and if it lost it was reverted. Is this correct? Wouldn't it be better to have a side take 5♥ -1 while the other takes 4♥ made?

[Hanoi5]

Double post

[gnasher]

iviehoff, on 2012-August-01, 02:49, said:

The law says
"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..." (emphasis added).

Because of the choice of words I have emphasised, I take that as meaning the specific offender.

To make it specific, they could have said "the offender" or "this offender". If anything, the use of the word "an" suggests that we're not talking about this specific offender.

I don't think the use of the word "his" has any significance - that would be used regardless of whether it referred to a specific offender or a general one.

[blackshoe]

In the original case, I do not believe Law 23 has been breached. I would rule accordingly.

In Hanoi5's case, what did the director say when originally called?

[bluejak]

Hanoi5, on 2012-August-01, 05:43, said:

So, South's double should allow N-S to win the hand no matter what? I think this kind of actions shouldn't be rewarded by Directors.

I recently had this auction:

Pa-4♥-Pa*-Pa
4♠-Pa**-Pa-5♥
All pass

*BIT
**Player called the Director because of the BIT and subsequent action

5♥ went down, the Director reverted the result to 4♥ making. And although I agreed that the BIT had influenced the 4♠ bid I couldn't help but think 5♥ was a no lose bid, for if it made nothing happened and if it lost it was reverted. Is this correct? Wouldn't it be better to have a side take 5♥ -1 while the other takes 4♥ made?

Why? If you do not want to be ruled against, don't commit infractions.

There are certain situations where one side commits an infraction and the other side might be in a better position because of it. That is no reason whatever to penalise the non-offenders. Suppose in the case you cite the 5♥ bidder misjudged slightly and expected 5♥ to make. He is in a position he would not have been in but for the infraction. So why should he lose?

And, importantly, the Laws do not suggest he loses. So, rule it back to 4♥ and do not worry about non-offenders gaining.

[iviehoff]

Hanoi5, on 2012-August-01, 05:43, said:

So, South's double should allow N-S to win the hand no matter what? I think this kind of actions shouldn't be rewarded by Directors.

You may think that, but it is not what the rules say. The double shot is not specifically illegal. It is only the if "non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action" L12C(1)(b) that we look at doing something different. Arguably more extreme double shots might be found to be "gambling". The double is poor, but it isn't bad enough to be denied full adjustment (if in fact one decided to adjust). The fact that the opposition do sometimes have good hedging strategies in response is another good reason not to abuse unauthorised information or commit other irregularities.

[mycroft]

Okay, if this pair is bad enough that the auction without the irregularity wouldn't be an insta-pass with East's hand (given that 2♠ is NF) *and* good enough to know that by insufficient bidding they can make a *really* NF 2♠ call, then it might be a Law 23 case.

"It's a 17-count" - yeah, but he's shown 16 good already. It's all Aces and Kings - okay that argument I might listen to. The fact that these guys don't play reverses showing extras because they don't understand that it really should - that argument I might listen to, too, but then I get back to the original question.