[blml] 27B1(a) enquiry.

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*************************
"Since few women ever pass forty,
maximum fascination can continue
indefinitely."
                    { Christian Dior }
*************************

+=+ Readers may be interested in my reply, expressing
personal opinions, to the following enquiry.
                                    ~ Grattan ~   +=+
====================================

(Question put:)
Has anything changed, deliberately or accidentally, in the 27B1(a)
situation - natural bid replaced with natural bid - from the old 1997
law?

2S opening. 1NT 'undercall' - didn't see the opening bid. Was trying
to open a 14-16 1NT.

A 2NT overcall would normally show 17-20 for the pair concerned.
The normal action would be to pass with 14-16, after which the
contract would be quietly played out in 2S which would make (i.e.
neither of the other players would have bid either).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(Grattan replies  +=+)
The player decides to overcall 2NT anyway. I think we can quickly
agree that it is AI that he has only 14-16 HCP(?).

+=+ Yes+=+
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

a) partner holds 8 points, and passes (not the normal action facing
17-20, but entirely normal facing 14-16). 2NT makes 8 tricks.

+=+ In 1997 the partner has legitimately chosen a LA suggested
by the information that the offender has 14-16. If the information from
the IB conveyed such information as to damage the NOS the Director
adjusts the score; the Director must examine whether the IBer has
conveyed information that he was unable to convey in an irregularity
free (IF) auction.
         In 2007 the partner has chosen a LA suggested by the AI that
the offender has 14-16. If the Director judges that without assistance
gained through the infraction the result could well have been different
and the NOS is damaged he adjusts the score. I see no way in which
the result could well have been different unless the IB has been able
to convey information that the IBer would be unable to convey in an
IF auction. (A subtle question here just might arise if the method of
getting the information across in an IF auction were obscure in some
circumstances and unlikely to come to mind. I think we can dismiss
this scenario from our discussion other than to say the Director should
remain alert to the question.)
        Superficially at least, it seems to me that the question in both
Codes is whether the IBer has an agreed method of showing his
balanced 14-16 over the 2S opener. If he would have passed the
score should be adjusted under both Codes. The score would be
put back to 2S. +=+
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

b) partner holds 8 points, and raises to 3NT (the normal action facing
a 17-20 2NT, but not facing 14-16). 3NT makes 9 tricks.

+=+ Am I missing something here? The partner has ignored the IB and
the AI from it and has, in effect, taken a shot at 3NT.  In 1997 the IB
has not conveyed any information on which the partner has acted.
There is no basis for score adjustment.
        In 2007 the Director asks himself in what way the OS has gained
through the infraction, in what way has the OS been 'assisted' by the
infraction? I may be thinking slowly, but when the partner defies the
odds and gets lucky I do not see it as anything but rub-of-the-green.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

c) partner holds 11 points and raises to 3NT - the normal thing to
do facing either range. 3NT makes 10 tricks.

+=+ Now we have a tricky situation. The IB has (1997) 'conveyed such
information as to damage the NOS', the OS has (2007) assistance
gained through the infraction. So the score is to be adjusted.
        The 2007 requirement is to "recover as nearly as possible the
probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred".
Now I must challenge the assertion that following the IBer's Pass his
partner would also pass. With eleven points, knowing that the player
would pass a balanced 14-16 you are asking me to believe that the
partner would take no action, whereas I am thinking that a proportion
of players using these methods would not pass in the partner's position
with 11HCP. (What proportion would be down to the class of player.)
Unless forbidden by regulation a weighted adjusted score seems a likely
decision to me.
        For the 1997 basis of adjustment we must go to Law 12, and a
12C3 adjustment would be targeted "to do equity". What is 'equity'?
In 2007 the Law 12C1(c) 'in order to do equity' is probably the same
thing as 'the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not
occurred' (Law 27D) but, whatever, the latter is what applies here. +=+
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

+=+ I feel that I have not grasped your point. .   I have wrestled
with the above opinions, largely because I worried that your gremlins
did not seem to be biting me. But until my eyes are opened some
more these are my best efforts. In case (c) the IB has helped the side
to its action in a situation where if offender had passed his partner
would have had to judge whether to balance or not.  With a full
opener opposite a smoothly passing player the partner, if at all awake,
would have a near 100% probability of doing so; with 9-11HCP in
a situation where the partnership method over a weak two is to pass
a balanced 14-16, the partner is under pressure to judge his action.+=+
================================================