Law 23C

 

Anyone know where to find guidance on how to interpret the new Law 23C?

That is when "assistence gained through the infraction" applies and when it is just bad luck for the non-offenders

For example a player makes a non-system call  when the systemic one would be non-comparable (and therefore partner would have to pass)

He gets into an inferior contract but through good luck and/or less than optimum defence (but not a "serious error") he gets a better result than would have been the case without the infraction

There would be many scenarios on a similar theme

Any National directors help?
Or provide a reference?

Started by NICK WHITTEN on 03 Aug 2017 at 12:10PM

Post a Comment

You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.

Latest Posts on this Thread

  1. NICK WHITTEN19 Nov 2017 at 10:15AM

     

    We don't seem to be inundated with suggestions here!

     

    What about some specific examples?

    Imagine this situation:

    North dealer
    South pass out of turn
    North opens 1H
    South has 5242 8-count and bids 1NT (because to bid 1S would not be comparable)

    Scenario 1

    South declares a NT contract when normal bidding would have North declarer in the same contract, and

    [a]   South makes more tricks than North would have as the best lead is obvious to East but not to West

    [b]   South makes more tricks because he has a double stopper in clubs (Qx opposite Ax when West has the king and a club lead is "obvious" to East or West

     

    Scenario 2

    North has 4423 shape and raises NT
    NS miss their spade fit but the same tricks are available in spades or notrumps so NT NS get a better MP score

     

    Scenario 3

    North has 4423 shape and a "good" 15-count and passes 1NT
    But over 1S North would have bid 3S and get to 4S which goes down whereas 1NT makes

     

    Scenario 4

    South declares 3NT, the same as he would have had he been able to bid 1S, but West, whose only 4-card suit is spades, leads one. And that is the only lead to give the declarer his 9th trick

     

    My inclination would be to regard all of these cases as bad luck for the non-offenders rather than "assistance" from the infraction so no adjustment would be called for

    But I would like to see guidance from a National director or any laws reference

    Can anyone help?

  2. HELENE LABRECHE22 Feb 2018 at 10:08AM

    Hi Nick, I am preparing a workshop at our club for our directors on 23 and it's application on laws 29-32.

    My feeling would be, in the situation cited above (but bear in mind I am no National Director)...whether the bid was accidental or intentional,lucky or unlucky,  I would use 72C to redress any damage caused to the non-offendiing pair.  Tough luck for the Offending pair. 

    Just my 2 cents worth!

    Cheers

    Helene

     

  3. NICK WHITTEN24 Feb 2018 at 09:20PM


    Hi Helene

    Talking to other experienced directors I have come to the conclusion an adjustment applying 23C should be made WHENEVER a player improvises in order to keep his call comparable.

    So it would be the case in all my examples earlier in this thread.

    But that is applying 23C NOT 72C as the offending player would not know his error would benefit his side at the time he made it
    (although the outcome would be the same)

     

    This makes me wonder, if the call the offending player would normally make is NOT comparable, he shouldn't try to find a "comparable" alternative.
    If that leads to a good result he loses it.

    So he would be better off to take a punt at the best contract, barring partner from the bidding.
    In that case, if it does lead to a good result, the director can't take it off him.

    Nick

     

  4. Dougal WATSON22 Apr 2018 at 03:17PM

    I am not a Director, far less a National Director, but hey ….

    As I read it Law 23C applies to when non-offenders are damaged as a result of assistance gained through the infraction. IDK that that would be “just bad luck” for them, it’s one of the things that can happen and Law 23C is there to help rectify that sort of happening.

    Your example seems to relate to the offending side gaining some advantage from their infraction. Wouldn’t that be the same as the non-offending side suffering damage?

    The ACBL manual provides a few examples, but not really any sort of guidance section.

    I’d have thought that the offending side gaining some advantage from the infraction, thereby disadvantaging the non-offenders, is something that warrants Director consideration under Law 23C. Whether or not the ‘outcome of the board could well have been different’ would be a matter for the Director to determine and then, possibly, the appropriate score adjustment to be applied.

    Concerning your example of a non-system call. It is legal to make calls outside of your system agreement, providing your partners is no more aware of that than your opponents (Law 40C1). It’s also okay for a player to choose the most advantageous action available to them after an irregularity (Laws 10C3 and 10C4). I’d have thought, therefore, that it is entirely open for a player to choose a comparable call despite that call not being correct in the context of the partnership agreement – subject to the other requirements relating to psych bids (Law 40C).

    Am I missing or misinterpreting anything important here?

  5. GILES HANCOCK23 Apr 2018 at 09:31AM

     

    These documents may help :

     

    Max Bavin :

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kK0Aibp7h0nZDbVaWt-rZkuo3vZmlM45

     

     

    Laurie Kelso :

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6BYUB2QX9YfWEptODdFWlhOLTdRU0FieHFoNEtwRzItWjJN

     

     

     

  6. Dougal WATSON23 Apr 2018 at 06:01PM

    good reads. thanks.

  7. NICK WHITTEN08 Jul 2019 at 04:50PM

     

    I think a careful study of the wording in the law gives the answer
    In particular the use of the word "assistance"

    If a player makes a mistake which prevents him from doing what he wanted to do
    And the alternative happens, by good luck, to produce a better result
    That is not "assistance" IMO

    If an adjustment was called for in my examples earlier in this thread Law 23C would read something like this:

    "If, following the substitution of a comparable call, the offending side obtains a better result than would have happened without the infraction, the director shall adjust the result and Law 10C4 does not apply"

    Max Bavin (link in Giles' post here) makes it clear

    cheers
    Nick

  8. NICK WHITTEN11 Nov 2020 at 12:30PM

     

    Have a listen to Patrick Carter on the Bridge Zone radio show today (Nov 11)
    (FF to 20' into the show if you are not interested in hearing all about the Congress at New Plymouth in March)

    He is saying "assistance" only occurs if there is extra information from the withdrawn call  (not contained in the replacement comparable call) and it assists the offending side finding the best contract

    Otherwise if the offending side gets lucky they keep their good result

You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.
Our Sponsors
  • Tauranga City Council
  • tourismbop.jpeg
  • TECT.jpg
  • NZB Foundation