Law 23 C (OOR ) and Law 73 E 2 ( hesitation)
Hello ,
May I have your comments on the two cases , of which the detail and lay outs are indicated below ?
Case 1 ( Law 23 C )
N is dealer but S opens 1H ( OOR ) . Td is called. After all explanation by TD regarding the infraction W does not accept the bid.. Auction reverts to N . N opens 1nt . E passes . S bids 3nt ( no comparable call ) . All pass.
E leads the D8 and contract is made +2 .
Td is called by E complaining that they have lost because of the infraction by S . İf there had been no infraction N-S would have played the contract 4H and with the outcome -1.
Question : Does Law 23 C apply ? your comments please.
Case 2 ( Law 73 E2 ( hesitation)
S opens the bidding with 1Sp . W overcalls 2cl. N Passes. E thinks for about 15-20 seconds and then passes. S passes as well.
the contract is down 2.
At the end of the play S calls the Td and complains that he couldn't double 2cl contract because of the hesitation made by E ,
which misled him. They ask the score adjustment for 2cl dbld -2 The td asks E the reason why he thought so long . He said " I was thinking about raising the contract to the 3 level."
Question :
Does Law 73 E2 apply ? What would your ruling be ?
Your kind interest is very much appreciated.
Regards
Secaaddin Özdeniz
Comments
Case 1: No - 23C does not apply since the substituted call was not comparable. The only thing to check was whether the opening bid by North was affected by the UI - Law 31B 1. Since the call was not comparable 16C, 26B 72C applies although as N is declarer 26B has no effect and it is hardly likely that 72C would apply either (South did not know anything about North's hand or that of the opponents). South is allowed to know that North will have to pass any non-comparable call for one round.
Even if the call was comparable, the fact that the final contract was 3NT and not 4H was not made with the assistance of a comparable call. South was stuck for a bid - in other words he is under a handicap, that other players did not have. The necessity of making a comparable call would normally have worked against him. He was just lucky. *
Case 2: assuming that East was actually thinking about raising to the three level (why? since 2CX went two off) then that is a demonstrable bridge reason and Law 73D1 applies (South can make inferences only at his own risk). The TD would probably have to poll to see if other East players would be considering a raise.
So: my ruling would depend on the results of the poll - There may be situations where a poll may not be needed e.g. East had 6 points and a singleton club,, but if East had three card support, even if weak, then some players might raise feeling protected by THE LAW (Of Total tricks). I need to find out whether East's stated reason for the pause is an actual demonstrable bridge reason or cut out of whole cloth.
It is a question of whether East has paused for a demonstrable bridge reason (allowed) or if he has paused to try and communicate that he holds values that he does not in fact hold (an infraction).
South opens 1NT (15-17) when it is East's turn to bid: East opens 1 Spade.
South now overcalls 1NT (16-18) - this is a comparable call since the overlap (16-17) is greater than the discrepancy (18) - which is a common way of assessing if a NT call is comparable.
North has 9 points: he is allowed to know that South has 15-17 points instead of 16-18 (UI does not apply to a comparable call - Law 23B), so he decides to pass or raise to 2NT rather than bidding 3NT. South has 15 points and passes.
1NT / 2NT makes 8 tricks. Now EW HAVE been damaged since without the assistance of the infraction, NS would have played in 3NT going one off.
Thank you very much for your explanation. it has really helped.
Regards.
Secaaddin Ozdeniz