Home EBU TDs

Law 27C

I was recently called to the table after an insufficient bid was made by S and a pass had been substituted. I initially ruled that the substitution was not allowed, and started on the options, but N (very experienced and knowledgeable) informed me that once the pass had been made, it had to stand. I assumed I had got it wrong, and allowed the pass to stand. EW bid on and went one off.

At the end of the session, W came up and we looked at the law book (law 27 c) which clearly states that LHO has the option of accepting the original insufficient bid. I got it wrong in not checking the rule book immediately. But what is the correct procedure now? W claims that if he had accepted the 3C bid, his partner would have doubled it for 2 off, a top. N claims that since the ruling had not been made at the time (and in view of the inconsistencies, allowing the pass etc.), the score should stand.
Could I have some guidance, please?

Comments

  • Maybe partner would have doubled, maybe not. Just score it up as director error.

    As an aside, did you inform North that he was barred from bidding again after the substitution of the pass?

  • Law 82 is the law that covers errors by the TD.

    Yes, the premature substitution of the Pass before you arrived means that under 27C, the offender doesn't get any option other than to pass IF the 3 !c insufficient bid is not accepted.

    Would West have accepted the 3 !c bid if given the opportunity? If he clearly would, and if it would certainly have ended in 3 !c doubled minus 2, then you can adjust to that for both sides. But if any of that is in doubt, you are looking (under Law 82C) at giving a different set of weighted scores for both sides, giving each side benefit of doubt so that the scores for both sides may end up adding to more than 100% for the board.

    And then you can think about fining North for bullying you into a wrong ruling! :)

    Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live

  • What you should have done is explain that West has the option of accepting the insufficient bid, and that if they choose to do so the auction proceeds from there with no further penalty, but if they don't it must be replaced by the original choice of replacement call, i.e. a pass (L27C). The auction proceeds from there, but North has to pass for the remainder of the auction (assuming that pass was not, by some unlikely happenstance, a comparable call), and lead penalties may apply if NS become the defending side (L26B). You may also have to award an adjusted score if NS gain from the insufficient bid (L27D).

    After you have inadvertently made an incorrect ruling and the board has been played, you should as Tag says, rule it as "director error" (L82C) and award an adjusted score based on the outcomes that were likely had you ruled correctly. You should consider West's claim that he would have doubled and taken it two off, but check how likely this is, whether double would have been unequivocally for penalties (or for takeout and partner would definitely pass), that the opponents wouldn't rescue themselves into another contract, whether it would really be two off. Make sure you consult some good and trustworthy players and try to work out all the possible likely outcomes.

    If there's only one likely outcome, award that to both sides. If there are more than one, award a weighted average to each side separately, giving each side a slightly favourable weighting, as L82C tells you to treat both sides as non-offending. For instance, if you think EW would bid on to 4 !h and go one off 50% of the time, and defend 3 !c X the rest of the time, getting it either one or two off with equal probability, award something like:

    to NS 60% of 4 !h (W)-1, 20% of 3 !c X (S)-1, 20% of 3 !c X (S)-2

    to EW 40% of 4 !h (W)-2, 30% of 3 !c X (S)-1, 30% of 3 !c X (S)-2

    Don't be too hard on North if he was just trying to help, but make sure he knows he was wrong and doesn't know as much as he thinks about the laws. And don't be too hard on yourself either, working out what you should have done and getting it right next time is a common way of learning how to give rulings.

  • I would just like to check on one part of the comment above, namely "award an adjusted score based on the outcomes that were likely had you ruled correctly". The discussion under Law 12 says that the objective is to "redress damage ... because of an infraction" and the way "infraction" is defined in the rules it is distinctly not something the Director can cause ("a player's breach ...").

    So is the mission in the adjusted score to get the most equitable result on the board, or to get the correct application of the Laws. I ask because there are times that the Laws impose an arbitrary penalty on the offenders, which goes quite often a long way beyond restoring equity. Is the corrected ruling by the Director to go beyond equity and to aim to restore any penalty as well?

  • You are aiming for the outcome had you ruled correctly. Whenever that outcome is uncertain, you give a split ruling, resolving questions of doubt in favour of each side in turn.
Sign In or Register to comment.