[gnasher]

bluejak, on Aug 27 2010, 12:53 PM, said:

In the same way, what would you expect to be told before you decide whether to accept an IB?

I'd *want* to be told what RHO would be allowed to correct it to without penalty. I don't know whether I can expect that, though.

[pran]

bluejak, on Aug 27 2010, 12:53 PM, said:

It is extremely complicated which calls are permitted under law 27B1B and which not, especially since the WBFLC has relaxed its requirements.  I do not believe that we can leave the players to decide this and believe we have to tell the player making the choice which call is a Law 27B1B one, which a 27B1A choice, and which neither.  True, this means we are making judgement decisions without consultation and consideration but the whole of the new Law 27B is against the general principles of the rest of the Law book.

I still think it more interesting what we should tell the table.  When a player has a major penalty card and the TD is called he and his partner are told the effects of their actions, so they can try to avoid a penalty that causes trouble, eg playing that suit to avoid the card being a forced discard.  In the same way, what would you expect to be told before you decide whether to accept an IB?

That if I accept the IB then the auction continues with no further rectification, as if the IB had been sufficient (as made).

That if offender's first bid was incontrovertibly not artificial and he chooses to replace it with the lowest legal bid in the same denomination and this replacement bid is also incontrovertibly not artificial then the auction continues with no further rectification.

That if this condition is not met and he replaces his IB with a call has the same or a more precise meaning than the IB apparently would have, i.e. that his replacement call could not have been made on any hand that would not have made the IB had this been sufficient (legal), then again the auction continues with no further rectification.

That if the Director after the replacement call has been made rules that these conditions were not satisfied then his partner will be silenced for the rest of the auction.

(I think it is worth noting that the default rectification in Law 27B includes silencing the offender's partner for the rest of the auction. The provisions in Law 27B1 must be seen as exceptions from this default rectification on very specific conditions).

[RMB1]

gnasher, on Aug 27 2010, 02:59 PM, said:

I'd *want* to be told what RHO would be allowed to correct it to without penalty. I don't know whether I can expect that, though.

You have my sympathy. At the moment we (EBU TDs) don't "know" whether you are allowed to know whether there are calls the offender can correct to without penalty.

It would be good if the "meaning" of the insufficient bid was available to the non-offenders, then they would be able to deduce if there were calls the offender can correct to without penalty.

[pran]

RMB1, on Aug 27 2010, 07:10 PM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 27 2010, 02:59 PM, said:

I'd *want* to be told what RHO would be allowed to correct it to without penalty.  I don't know whether I can expect that, though.

You have my sympathy. At the moment we (EBU TDs) don't "know" whether you are allowed to know whether there are calls the offender can correct to without penalty.

It would be good if the "meaning" of the insufficient bid was available to the non-offenders, then they would be able to deduce if there were calls the offender can correct to without penalty.

How shall the offender's LHO "know" if his side will gain from not accepting the IB?

I have no count of the times LHO "knew" that the offender's partner would be silenced whatever replacement call the offender selected and therefore refused to accept the IB only to end up with a bottom score because the offender made a direct game bid that he guessed would have a fair chance either for play or as a sacrifice, and shut out not only his partner but also his opponents.

LHO will have to make his choice from what he "knows" (and expects).

[blackshoe]

Bridge is not a game of perfect knowledge. Nor should it be. I see no reason to expect the TD to help me attain that unattainable goal.

[jallerton]

I agree with Robin that the present recommended approach to Law 27 is unsatisfactory and is in need of urgent review. This is underlined by Bluejak's report that three different members of the WBFLC gave him three different answers to a fairly fundamental question on what the LHO is or is not allowed to know.

Maybe it is time for regulatory authorities to appreciate that there is no obligation to follow any "recommended practice" and review their approach entirely; that review should start by considering the wording of the Law itself, rather than that of a contradictory WBLFC minute.

Law27B1[b said:

]if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director’s opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following.

Law27 footnote said:

[footnote: * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ]

If, as Law 27 seems to assume, it is possible for an insufficient bid to have a meaning at all, then presumably that meaning is known to the insufficient bidder's partner; hence there is an implicit partnership agreement and their opponents have a right to know that "meaning". Thus one possible procedure would be for the TD to send the insufficient bidder's partner away from the table to allow the insufficient bidder to explain the "meaning" of his bid to the opponents as well as to the TD. The TD could then advise these three players which calls, if any, would not silence the insufficient bidder's partner. When the partner returns to the table and a legal substitution is made, the TD will of course advise him whether or not he has been silenced!

[bluejak]

pran, on Aug 27 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 27 2010, 12:53 PM, said:

It is extremely complicated which calls are permitted under law 27B1B and which not, especially since the WBFLC has relaxed its requirements.  I do not believe that we can leave the players to decide this and believe we have to tell the player making the choice which call is a Law 27B1B one, which a 27B1A choice, and which neither.  True, this means we are making judgement decisions without consultation and consideration but the whole of the new Law 27B is against the general principles of the rest of the Law book.

I still think it more interesting what we should tell the table.  When a player has a major penalty card and the TD is called he and his partner are told the effects of their actions, so they can try to avoid a penalty that causes trouble, eg playing that suit to avoid the card being a forced discard.  In the same way, what would you expect to be told before you decide whether to accept an IB?

That if I accept the IB then the auction continues with no further rectification, as if the IB had been sufficient (as made).

That if offender's first bid was incontrovertibly not artificial and he chooses to replace it with the lowest legal bid in the same denomination and this replacement bid is also incontrovertibly not artificial then the auction continues with no further rectification.

That if this condition is not met and he replaces his IB with a call has the same or a more precise meaning than the IB apparently would have, i.e. that his replacement call could not have been made on any hand that would not have made the IB had this been sufficient (legal), then again the auction continues with no further rectification.

That if the Director after the replacement call has been made rules that these conditions were not satisfied then his partner will be silenced for the rest of the auction.

(I think it is worth noting that the default rectification in Law 27B includes silencing the offender's partner for the rest of the auction. The provisions in Law 27B1 must be seen as exceptions from this default rectification on very specific conditions).

Let me be absolutely serious: if I was an ordinary player who did not know the Laws and you said that to me I would assume you were being deliberately unhelpful.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on Aug 27 2010, 02:59 PM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 27 2010, 12:53 PM, said:

In the same way, what would you expect to be told before you decide whether to accept an IB?

I'd *want* to be told what RHO would be allowed to correct it to without penalty. I don't know whether I can expect that, though.

That is not unreasonable. However, I also do not feel that it is unreasonable to think that is too helpful. The compromise that I would like as a player is to know whether there exists a Law 27B1A correction, and whether there exists a Law 27B1B correction. Even without being told what calls they are I feel this might be adequate to get a feel for what is going on.

[pran]

bluejak, on Aug 28 2010, 01:13 AM, said:

Let me be absolutely serious: if I was an ordinary player who did not know the Laws and you said that to me I would assume you were being deliberately unhelpful.

I deal with all kinds of tournaments and all kinds of players. Probably the majority of players are those who do not know the laws.

And I have an unanimous feedback of being very helpful as Director. (Not just telling them the rules but making them understand.)