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?

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

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

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

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