[CamHenry]

---

Though N was dealer, South started off proceedings by bidding 1♥ out of turn. Director was called promptly, and started off giving a ruling:

"You can accept the call, in which case the auction proceeds normally as if South was dealer. As an alternative, you can reject the call out of turn, in which case bidding reverts to North and South is silenced throughout."

Here, South interrupted, and said "I don't think I'm silenced; can you show me that in the lawbook please?"

Director looked in the book, didn't see anything about South being silenced, and ruled that play continues unless South bid something other than hearts. The auction proceeded as in the diagram; S made 3HX for a top. Later on during the session, EW discuss the hand at your table (you're the club's chief TD), and explain the ruling. You recognise that something isn't right, confirm in the lawbook that North, not South, is silenced throughout, and have to unpick the mess. NS say "We just did what the director told us; we should get to keep our top!" whereas EW say "A correct ruling would probably lead to S opening 4♥, W doubles, and +100 to EW is a very good score".

How do you rule?

[lamford]

Firstly NS. I don't think the board can be scored normally, as we have no idea what South would bid without director error. Few Souths would open 4H in Standard Eustacian, and it is quite difficult to award EW a score. Both sides are treated as non-offending, and I would open 2H with a silent partner. West might double, and bid 3D over a putative 2NT from East. That will be -50 or -100 depending on whether NS find their club ruff. I think the latter, as they have two chances to find it. My guess is this one has to be 60% to both sides - a director error for which no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally (Law 82C). And the director should be advised to (re)take the excellent EBU club director course.

[pran]

CamHenry, on 2014-August-13, 02:36, said:

---

Though N was dealer, South started off proceedings by bidding 1♥ out of turn. Director was called promptly, and started off giving a ruling:

"You can accept the call, in which case the auction proceeds normally as if South was dealer. As an alternative, you can reject the call out of turn, in which case bidding reverts to North and South is silenced throughout."

Here, South interrupted, and said "I don't think I'm silenced; can you show me that in the lawbook please?"

Director looked in the book, didn't see anything about South being silenced, and ruled that play continues unless South bid something other than hearts. The auction proceeded as in the diagram; S made 3HX for a top. Later on during the session, EW discuss the hand at your table (you're the club's chief TD), and explain the ruling. You recognise that something isn't right, confirm in the lawbook that North, not South, is silenced throughout, and have to unpick the mess. NS say "We just did what the director told us; we should get to keep our top!" whereas EW say "A correct ruling would probably lead to S opening 4♥, W doubles, and +100 to EW is a very good score".

How do you rule?

I am surprised by the director:

Law 31 B said:

When the offender has bid at his partner’s turn to Call[...], offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply.

and is both simple and straight forward.

So we have:

Law 82 C said:

If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose.

The statement from NS is irrelevant, TD made an incorrect ruling and NS is not entitled to keep the result from this error.
The statement from EW is unfounded, South has little reason to open 4♥ with a silenced partner.

The main question is whether we can find a way to score the board "normally", I tend to rule NO and thus award Ave+ (60%) to both sides.

[blackshoe]

So far, we are unanimous.

[ahydra]

I think I'll join lamford and pran on the 60%/60% side of the fence. I don't believe South would open 4H even if North can't bid.

ahydra

[barmar]

While I agree with the recommended 60/60 adjustment, I don't understand why people think that 4♥ is outrageous? Isn't it fairly common to gamble on a game bid when you have an opening hand opposite an unpassed but silenced partner? With no major, people often shoot out 3NT, but with a 6-card major it seems appropriate to try for game there.

[campboy]

NS are to be treated as non-offending. I don't think that is compatible with giving them an adjustment that is less than the result they actually obtained.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2014-August-13, 11:00, said:

NS are to be treated as non-offending. I don't think that is compatible with giving them an adjustment that is less than the result they actually obtained.

Based on what legal argument, and using which laws?

[pran]

campboy, on 2014-August-13, 11:00, said:

NS are to be treated as non-offending. I don't think that is compatible with giving them an adjustment that is less than the result they actually obtained.

The result they actually obtained is void because of the director's error and because they were offending in the irregularity that the director mis-ruled.

[pran]

barmar, on 2014-August-13, 10:24, said:

While I agree with the recommended 60/60 adjustment, I don't understand why people think that 4♥ is outrageous? Isn't it fairly common to gamble on a game bid when you have an opening hand opposite an unpassed but silenced partner? With no major, people often shoot out 3NT, but with a 6-card major it seems appropriate to try for game there.

South has a 6-losers hand. For EW to be heard on an assertion that the director should award an assigned adjusted score based on South opening 4♥ needs more solid foundation than that this bid is not outrageous.

[barmar]

pran, on 2014-August-13, 11:37, said:

South has a 6-losers hand. For EW to be heard on an assertion that the director should award an assigned adjusted score based on South opening 4♥ needs more solid foundation than that this bid is not outrageous.

I never said they should be. I specifically said that I agreed with the 60/60 ruling. To assign a score based on him opening 4♥, I'd have to consider it very likely, not just "not outrageous".

My comment was just a tangent, expressing disagreement with those who seemed to say that EW's suggestion was ridiculous.

[kenrexford]

For my part, I would like to see TD's get more procedural penalties.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-13, 11:23, said:

Based on what legal argument, and using which laws?

Law 12B1. "The objective of a score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction." We can't take away the advantage NS gained, because we have to treat them as non-offending. As they are a notionally non-offending side, any adjustment to NS's score must be to redress damage, and they aren't damaged. EW are damaged, of course, but the adjustment we make to their score should not affect NS's score.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2014-August-13, 15:58, said:

Law 12B1. "The objective of a score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction." We can't take away the advantage NS gained, because we have to treat them as non-offending. As they are a notionally non-offending side, any adjustment to NS's score must be to redress damage, and they aren't damaged. EW are damaged, of course, but the adjustment we make to their score should not affect NS's score.

Nonsense. We are no longer in the realm of 12B1, we are dealing with a director's error. Also, we are constrained to award an artificial adjusted score, because there is no way to rectify the director's error so as to achieve a result at the table. 12C2{a} is specific: both sides are considered "in no way at fault" so both sides get average plus. If it turns out that average plus is not as good as the result they got when they thought they were playing bridge, well, them's the breaks.

[pran]

campboy, on 2014-August-13, 15:58, said:

Law 12B1. "The objective of a score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction." We can't take away the advantage NS gained, because we have to treat them as non-offending. As they are a notionally non-offending side, any adjustment to NS's score must be to redress damage, and they aren't damaged. EW are damaged, of course, but the adjustment we make to their score should not affect NS's score.

As Ed wrote: Nonsense

But maybe you can see light if you realize that we are dealing with two different irregularities here:

First we have the bid out of turn by South.

Second we have a TD error.

This second irregularity destroyed every possibility of a rectification that would allow the board to be scored normally.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-13, 18:50, said:

Nonsense. We are no longer in the realm of 12B1, we are dealing with a director's error. Also, we are constrained to award an artificial adjusted score, because there is no way to rectify the director's error so as to achieve a result at the table. 12C2{a} is specific: both sides are considered "in no way at fault" so both sides get average plus. If it turns out that average plus is not as good as the result they got when they thought they were playing bridge, well, them's the breaks.

Law 12C2a applies when "owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained". A result has been obtained. Owing to an irregularity (TD error) it was not the result that should have occurred, but it was still a result. We are in 12A3 territory, as there has been incorrect rectification of an irregularity, and that law just says that an adjusted score may be awarded (not an "artificial adjusted score"). 12B1 tells us what our objectives are when we give an adjusted score.

Pran: yes, of course there are two irregularities. That's the reason we should adjust for EW. It is the second irregularity, not the first, which damaged them.

[pran]

campboy, on 2014-August-14, 02:48, said:

Law 12C2a applies when "owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained". A result has been obtained. Owing to an irregularity (TD error) it was not the result that should have occurred, but it was still a result. We are in 12A3 territory, as there has been incorrect rectification of an irregularity, and that law just says that an adjusted score may be awarded (not an "artificial adjusted score"). 12B1 tells us what our objectives are when we give an adjusted score.

Pran: yes, of course there are two irregularities. That's the reason we should adjust for EW. It is the second irregularity, not the first, which damaged them.

What result do you consider "normal" as rectification for the bid out of turn by South once North (incorrectly) bid on, assuming that the Director had not erred?
(And please do not avoid the question by quoting Laws 9, 10 and/or 11!)

And BTW: while Law 12A3 does not specify "artificial adjusted score" nor does it specify "assigned adjusted score", the Director may award either under this Law.

[WellSpyder]

campboy, on 2014-August-14, 02:48, said:

Law 12C2a applies when "owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained". A result has been obtained. Owing to an irregularity (TD error) it was not the result that should have occurred, but it was still a result. We are in 12A3 territory, as there has been incorrect rectification of an irregularity, and that law just says that an adjusted score may be awarded (not an "artificial adjusted score"). 12B1 tells us what our objectives are when we give an adjusted score.

Pran: yes, of course there are two irregularities. That's the reason we should adjust for EW. It is the second irregularity, not the first, which damaged them.

I started off in the 60/60 camp, but I must admit campboy seems pretty convincing to me.

[campboy]

pran, on 2014-August-14, 03:27, said:

What result do you consider "normal" as rectification for the bid out of turn by South once North (incorrectly) bid on, assuming that the Director had not erred?
(And please do not avoid the question by quoting Laws 9, 10 and/or 11!)

Irrelevant. The word "normal" does not appear in law 12C2 so the result obtained does not need to be normal.

Quote

And BTW: while Law 12A3 does not specify "artificial adjusted score" nor does it specify "assigned adjusted score", the Director may award either under this Law.

Not true. Law 12C1A: "When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so."

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-August-13, 11:00, said:

NS are to be treated as non-offending. I don't think that is compatible with giving them an adjustment that is less than the result they actually obtained.

I can't agree with this. If the director had ruled something like "Ah, yes, an opening bid out of turn, I think I know that one. The board is immediately scored using the par Deep Finesse score, and I see that is +140 for NS. Please enter that and play the next board." On your basis, you would give NS that (or 60% whichever is the greater), and EW 60%. And say that you swap East's two of clubs with South's two of diamonds. Now the par Deep Finesse NS score is +420 (the play is interesting for those that care) and now you would allow NS that score, as the director had given them that score erroneously!