[barmar]

Quote

Maybe Gerber but we haven't shown a fit yet ...

What a strange response. Many, if not most, players only use Gerber in NT auctions, so why would not showing a fit be a problem?

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2023-November-17, 10:51, said:

What a strange response. Many, if not most, players only use Gerber in NT auctions, so why would not showing a fit be a problem?

It's also a strange coincidence that she thought she saw 3C which she was sure about rather than 4C which she was not
But I think one has to be at the table to decide whether to give weight to that or not.

[jillybean]

sanst, on 2023-November-15, 03:11, said:

A result can be obtained on this board, so A+/A- is out of the question (12C2a).

What are you going to let them play in?

[sanst]

jillybean, on 2023-November-17, 18:18, said:

What are you going to let them play in?

You let them continue the auction with a sufficient bid, decide whether the partner is forced to pass, and let them play as usual. Afterwards you can adjust the score, if necessary.

[Gilithin]

jillybean, on 2023-November-17, 18:18, said:

What are you going to let them play in?

They play where they bid to. If you determine that that would be unlikely without the infraction, you try to recreate the auction as best you can. Generally in these cases, if they were heading to a doomed slam but manage to stop miraculously in 4NT, an adjustment to 6NT going down is indicated.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2023-November-18, 03:10, said:

You let them continue the auction with a sufficient bid, decide whether the partner is forced to pass, and let them play as usual. Afterwards you can adjust the score, if necessary.

You can adjust following substitution with the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s), or with a comparable call.
I still fail to see any Law that allows you to adjust the score if partner is forced to pass (except 72C if you are ready to rule "could have been aware" at the moment of the insufficient bid).

[blackshoe]

"Forced"?

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2023-November-20, 09:18, said:

"Forced"?

I was replying to a quote of Sanst, without bickering about his choice of terminology (goes for "can" rather than "shall" too).

[smerriman]

It took me the entire week but only now do I get what you were trying to say; that the laws say 27D only applies after 27B1, not 27B2, even though it's just as logical there.

There was a British football match recently when a goal was initially ruled out for offside, and was checked by the video referee, who saw it was clearly onside. But a slight mistake in communication resulted in the decision standing, and they played on. 5 seconds later they realised their mistake.. but they weren't allowed to go back after play restarted and the whole game's result was ruined.

And there was an incident in the Cricket World Cup where someone's helmet broke as they were about to bat, but they ended up being given out for the first time in history for not being ready in time even though that was never the intention of the law.. because the umpires had no choice to override the decision based on the laws.

That is all to say, sometimes I wish all sports had a law which says, if it is completely obvious to everyone involved what the Right Thing To Do is, then Do The Right Thing, above all other laws.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2023-November-20, 13:02, said:

It took me the entire week but only now do I get what you were trying to say; that the laws say 27D only applies after 27B1, not 27B2, even though it's just as logical there.

There was a British football match recently when a goal was initially ruled out for offside, and was checked by the video referee, who saw it was clearly onside. But a slight mistake in communication resulted in the decision standing, and they played on. 5 seconds later they realised their mistake.. but they weren't allowed to go back after play restarted and the whole game's result was ruined.

And there was an incident in the Cricket World Cup where someone's helmet broke as they were about to bat, but they ended up being given out for the first time in history for not being ready in time even though that was never the intention of the law.. because the umpires had no choice to override the decision based on the laws.

That is all to say, sometimes I wish all sports had a law which says, if it is completely obvious to everyone involved what the Right Thing To Do is, then Do The Right Thing, above all other laws.

There was a much worse example in F1 car racing this week, when during pre-race on a city centre circuit one car lifted a sewer cover due to under-car airflow and the car behind impacted it raised suffering severe damage. The commisars blindly applied the equally blind rules and sent the second car to the back of the starting grid for having changed battery

Bridge at least has the safety valve of the Laws Commentary, but in this case it is not much help: it does not mention any limitation on the ability to adjust, but the examples of adjustment are all related to comparable calls.
Next month I encounter a member of WBFLC and will hear what he has to say.

[smerriman]

Having said that, I still wouldn't classify it as getting out of jail free. If your normal bid would have gotten you to slam, that means 4NT should score worse on average than slam, even if it gets you an occasional good score. So you're still at a disadvantage in general. Perhaps that's sufficient punishment compared to a guaranteed disadvantage by making an innocuous mistake. (And if there was other factors that suggested you were already too high, that's when could have known comes in.)

[Gilithin]

smerriman, on 2023-November-20, 13:56, said:

Having said that, I still wouldn't classify it as getting out of jail free. If your normal bid would have gotten you to slam, that means 4NT should score worse on average than slam, even if it gets you an occasional good score.

No, you are missing the point. If the avoided slam makes then there is no damage. This is not the scenario we are discussing. Rather, we need to consider the hands where slam is not making but Responder's 4♣ is likely to reach it. One example - in Forum D and SEF, Opener's 2NT in this auction shows 15-17 but at club level this is commonly forgotten and bid with 12-14 hands. Let us say that Responder's 4♣ (legally) woke up Opener and now they want to find a way to slow things down and (not legally) use an IB for that purpose. If the bad slam can be avoided through this method then the TD has to go through the aforementioned procedure. What matters is what the auction would likely have been without the infraction, whether there was damage and, for the 72C adjustment being discussed here, whether the "offender could have been aware at the time of histheir irregularity that it could well damage the non-offending side". You cannot just hold your hands up and assume 4NT is going to score poorly; you actually have to work out the probable auction and result.

[smerriman]

Gilithin, on 2023-November-20, 16:43, said:

No, you are missing the point. If the avoided slam makes then there is no damage. This is not the scenario we are discussing. Rather, we need to consider the hands where slam is not making but Responder's 4♣ is likely to reach it. One example - in Forum D and SEF, Opener's 2NT in this auction shows 15-17 but at club level this is commonly forgotten and bid with 12-14 hands. Let us say that Responder's 4♣ (legally) woke up Opener and now they want to find a way to slow things down and (not legally) use an IB for that purpose. If the bad slam can be avoided through this method then the TD has to go through the aforementioned procedure. What matters is what the auction would likely have been without the infraction, whether there was damage and, for the 72C adjustment being discussed here, whether the "offender could have been aware at the time of histheir irregularity that it could well damage the non-offending side". You cannot just hold your hands up and assume 4NT is going to score poorly; you actually have to work out the probable auction and result.

I don't see what point I'm missing. We're specifically discussing the situation where 4NT is a top score - i.e. slam is going down but you were going to end up being there.

If there is a reason that opener can foresee that they don't want to be in slam despite responder's interest, and the only way to do so is to fake an insufficient bid, then they 'could have known' their insufficient bid would help them, and they're adjusted based on the likely contract and outcome had they not made the insufficient bid, as I said above.

But in most scenarios like this, they often have no way of knowing that getting out in 4NT is the best outcome; they have to gamble between high and low, so you cannot adjust based on 72C. Initially I was thinking if they gamble correctly, and would have possibly reached a worse contract without the insufficient bid, you still adjust based on 27D, but as pescetom has pointed out, the law doesn't allow that as written. Instead, they get stuck with their gamble - whether it's a fluky good score, or a bad score - but it's more likely to be the bad score since they have less information to go on. So it's not a case that the law lets them "get out of jail free" with the insufficient bid - it will cost them in the long run, even if they would gain occasionally by pure luck.

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2023-November-20, 07:15, said:

You can adjust following substitution with the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s), or with a comparable call.
I still fail to see any Law that allows you to adjust the score if partner is forced to pass (except 72C if you are ready to rule "could have been aware" at the moment of the insufficient bid).

You’re right, 27D is about 27B1. Although I don’t think that the Laws need a complete rewrite, I would like the laws about insufficient bids and calls out of turn to be simplified. Let the auction continue in a legal way, including the possibility of accepting by the LHO, and adjust the score afterwards if necessary. That way the whole comparable call rigmarole can be skipped and it also covers the situations where a player intentionally silences the partner, which is difficult to prove but highly unethical.
BTW: you’re bickering when you write that you’re not. This is about a card game, not a law suit.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2023-November-21, 03:48, said:

You’re right, 27D is about 27B1.
...
BTW: you’re bickering when you write that you’re not. This is about a card game, not a law suit.

I was sore to be bickered about someone else's quote that I had scrupulously if reluctantly avoided bickering

I doubt anyone takes things over seriously here, certainly not me nor you I think.