[blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S ..

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Grabiner" <grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu>
To: "koen" <kgrauwel at hotmail.com>; <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S ..


> Koen writes:
>
>> We have 3 "Club TD's" (Posting here I had to put these quotes ;) ) at
>> the club who know a bit about the rules. They are also playing at the
>> club tournement and as a consequence they don't have the required time
>> to direct.
>>
>> MP's: S/All
>> South opens 1NT (15-17) and West passes.
>> Then South corrects to 1C and West (one of the playing TD's) tells South
>> that by making this change he will score a maximum of 40%. The other
>> TD's are not called because they are busy playing. West tells the table
>> he keeps his rights and bids 1S.
>
> This is an error under L25B.  South is not allowed to change his call 
> after
> West has passed, unless he mispulled.  (If he did mispull, he is allowed 
> to
> correct under L25A with no penalty.)
>
> When there is a TD at the table and the ruling is mechanical (as L25B 
> should
> be), there is no need to call another playing TD, particularly since this
> might spoil the board for another table.  I would thus rule that both 
> sides
> fulfilled their obligation to call the TD for an irregularity.
>
> The TD (West) made an incorrect ruling, so we use L82C.  That is, we
> determine the likely results if South had been required to open 1NT with 
> the
> 1C call treated as UI, and give both sides the most favorable result that 
> is
> likely.
>
>> South has 4=4=3=2 and 14 HCP. NS play 5 card majors and 4 card diamonds,
>> making 1C the systematic bid with this hand.
>> The final contract is 3NT by South and this makes for an absulote top
>> because EW don't cash their Club tricks (East had a 6-card Club)
>
> We need to see the hands to determine the likely results.  For example, if
> South had opened 1NT, would East have been able to double a 2C bid to get 
> a
> club lead against the eventual 3NT contract?  If so, we might adjust to 
> 3NT
> going down, or if both double and pass are likely calls, adjust to 3NT 
> going
> down for E-W and 3NT making for N-S.
>
> The 1C bid is AI to E-W, and would still be AI if the ruling had been
> correct.  It's just unlucky that it deterred E-W from attacking clubs.  (I
> don't believe that South could have known that the error would work to his
> advantage.)
>
>> When entering the score West sees that this will be a zero for them and
>> calls you.
>> Asking South why he changed 1NT to 1C he tells you that he mispulled,
>> but this is not really convincing to you.
>>
>> This is all info I remember. Hope it is sufficient. How do you rule?
>> Does it matter that West is one of the club TD's?
>
> Yes, it matters.  If players make a ruling at their table without calling
> the TD, then both sides have infracted L9B, and when we adjust to what 
> would
> happen with a correct TD ruling, we treat both sides as offending.  The
> adjustment might then be to 3NT going down for N-S and 3NT making for E-W.



I think that the muck is a bit deeper.



I believe that the role of W here is that of player [there being other club 
directors in the room] that makes an incorrect ruling by a player.



As W alludes to the 40% provision of L25B4b it can be inferred that L25A has 
not been satisfied [NS did not protest it] for correcting a call without 
penalty.  I conclude that the 1C call was not a correction.



As W has called subsequent 1N  then 1C is not permitted [L25B] to be a 
change of call.  What it is an IB that is a COOT.  Ruling that it is a 
change of call does not change the  fact that it is a COOT.  Apparently the 
auction continued whereby W condoned [L27A & L29A] S's COOT/IB without 
penalty by his own behest and misunderstanding. L11A speaks somewhat to the 
matter of the NOS misleading the OS by making a table ruling- the effect 
being that EW suffer at west's own hand [or mouth as may be].  As such there 
are no 'rights' to reserve by W.



As the COOT was condoned without penalty there is very little recourse to 
EW- namely if an infraction of L16 took place.  However, since 1N was legal, 
and 1C was legalized by condoning then there were no calls canceled that 
provide UI so UI would need to derive from a different source.



Anyway, EW had the opportunity to benefit from NS poor bidding so the 
question of damage is mute.  And EW can moan and groan about their 
culpability in what led to result stands.



regards

roger pewick



ps  Things would be much different had W not accepted the 1C.