Butler IMPs. Table result 4H-1.
This was an interesting hand from a North London club last night. South opened 4H, and West, who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, made the insufficient bid of 1C and the TD was called. He correctly offered North the opportunity to accept the IB, but North did not, and West substituted a Pass, silencing his partner. This drifted only one off, when the defence failed to find their trump promotion, but EW were delighted to see that this was worth 17 IMPs as all Easts at other tables protected with 4S over 4H, met with a firm double from North, who collected +1400.
North wondered if he should have allowed the 1C to stand, but SB stated that he would then pass the forcing 1S response by East, and the psyche would be exposed. The TD came back again, and wanted to rule under either Law 27D or Law 23, but SB was prepared for both. He pointed out that 27D only provided for an adjustment after the application of 27B1, and the law that had been applied was 27B2. His partner was not on lead, so no lead restrictions applied (although he did mention that there was probably director error in not giving South the opportunity to insist on or prevent a club lead when East won the first spade; as both lead to one down as well, he saw no reason for an adjustment for this reason). He also pointed out that an insufficient bid was not an irregularity, which requires a deviation from correct procedure, and Law 18A indicates the "Proper Form" for all bids, and nothing in 18D suggests that an insufficient bid is an irregularity, just as nothing in 18C suggests that a sufficient bid is an irregularity. Both are legal, just as forcing and non-forcing bids are legal. He also pointed out that Law 23 only permitted an adjustment following an irregularity. The TD thought he was being duped, and wants to know how you would rule.