[blml] Illegal Convention (Bermuda Bowl CoC)

[Adam Beneschan]

Bob Geller wrote:
 
[regarding an example of using an unannounced convention to get to an
unbeatable grand slam]
> I don't think there would be any adjustment in the situation you describe
> (the slam convention).  It's hard to imagine any way it could have been
> deemed to damage the oppts.

I agree here.
 
> OTH, suppose, as a (extreme) example, the bidding goes (P)-P-(1S ALERT)
> and you ask LHO (screenmate) for an explanation, only to learn the 1S opening 
> in 3rd hand shows a weak hand with a 6 card club suit, but nothing was listed
> on the oppts convention card.  Further suppose that you and your partner don't 
> get to your cold  6S, where you reasonably would have done so had the oppts 
> not thrown a curve at you.  
> 
> The above is the kind of stuation where an adjustment would be rendered.

I'm not so sure... partly because I'm not sure which kind of curve you
mean when you refer to "throwing a curve".  (I'm assuming that both
you and your partner were informed of the real meaning of 1S before
your next turn to call.)

IMHO, the "real" violation here is the failure to properly inform you
of this convention according to the SO regulations.  This could damage
you in a couple ways: (1) since you didn't know about this convention
beforehand, you didn't have the opportunity to discuss your defense to
it; (2) knowing about the possibility of this convention *could*, in
certain circumstances, caused second hand to take a different action
besides passing.  If one of these situations arose, then you were
probably damaged, although in case #1, if you had a generic defense
against artificial weak bids that you would have used anyway, there
may not have been any damage.  But my *feeling* about this is that the
adjustment should be based on how the auction would have gone if you
had known about the 1S convention beforehand---*not* about how it
would have gone if third hand hadn't been allowed to bid 1S.  That
seems just to me.  If the 1S bid would have screwed up your auction
irreparably even if you had been properly informed, then assigning
your side the score for 6S making is not restoring equity.

However, the precise wording of Law 40B seems to make the 1S bid
itself the irregularity, so technically perhaps it's correct to assign
damage based on how the auction would have gone after three passes
("had the irregularity not occurred": Law 12C2).

I'm really just talking out of my hat here.  I can understand either
interpretation; I hope someone who is much more knowledgeable than I
will tell us which one is correct.

                                -- Adam