Join Bridge Winners
ACBL Bulletin Ruling the Game column - adjusted score or not?

In the most recent (June 2017) Ruling The Game column in the ACBL Bulletin, the auction with none vulnerable was



which stemmed from an auction that started Pass-Pass-3-1, the insufficient 1 bid was not accepted and corrected to a 3 bid, and three passes followed.  Nine tricks were scored for 140.  Partner of the 3 overcaller held Q105 AK7 932 10543 and the question of whether that hand should (would normally) raise a 3 overcall of 3 to game was briefly mentioned.

The column correctly stated that the UI law (Law 16D) does not apply after an insufficient bid is corrected to the lowest legal (natural) bid in the same (natural) denomination, but that Law 27D might be used to by the Director to award an adjusted score.

Law 27D:  "... the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged ..., he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred."

The article never shows what the spade bidder holds.  Nor does the article ever say under what conditions an adjusted score should be warranted.

So should 3 making 9 tricks for 140 stand?  Under what circumstances should an adjusted score be applied and for what reason?

3 making for 140 stands - I don't need to see the spade bidder's hand
If it's very unlikely a 3 overcall would normally be made over 3, then adjust the contract to 3 (if down 2 or less)
Adjust to 4 down 1 because normally advancer would raise a "normal" 3 overcall to game

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top