[Bad_Wolf]

Hi,

Quote:
Moved that NZB ratify the following interpretation of Law 27B1(b) as adopted in some other jurisdictions:-
“(b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director’s opinion has the same distributional meaning as, or a more precise distributional meaning than, the insufficient bid (such distributional meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid), or the Director deems that the information gained by the insufficient bid is not likely to damage the non-offending side, the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following”
CARRIED

What are people's opinion of this. To me it reads more like a rewrite of the Law than an 'interpretation'.
Australia and New Zealand have agreed to this, I don't know what other 'jurisdictions' have.

[blackshoe]

"as adopted in some other jurisdictions" is intriguing. Which ones? And what does "distributional meaning" mean?

[Cascade]

Is this a new interpretation?

[Bad_Wolf]

 Cascade, on 2011-April-21, 19:12, said:

Is this a new interpretation?

Its in the minutes of NZ bridge meeting dated Feb 11th as circulated. Thats all I know.

Gerry

[gordontd]

 blackshoe, on 2011-April-21, 18:44, said:

"as adopted in some other jurisdictions" is intriguing. Which ones? And what does "distributional meaning" mean?

I believe Italy pioneered this approach. It takes an extremely liberal approach towards allowing replacement calls.

[campboy]

Presumably this means allowing calls which would be made on the same distributions or a subset thereof, even if the call is less precise in terms of strength. I suppose the typical application would be something like 1NT - pass - 1♥ - TD! and it is established that 1♥ bidder hadn't seen the opening, where this law would permit a 2♦ correction without silencing partner.

As you say, this seems like a different law entirely. It is certainly more liberal than the "liberal interpretation" discussed elsewhere.

[ggwhiz]

I made a ruling on this exact point last night. A player opened 1♠ in 4th position, the auction reverted to her lho who opened a weak 2♦.

I enforced a pass on her partner and after it was passed around to her, she bid 2♠ and the auction proceeded without sanction.

Given that these were intermediate (at best) players it seems like a non-punishing and legit way to go and to the benefit of clubs trying to encourage the newbies without the need to hire a lawyer.

Maybe a problem I haven't thought of in a tournament setting but I like the user friendliness of the approach.

[blackshoe]

 ggwhiz, on 2011-April-22, 11:00, said:

I made a ruling on this exact point last night. A player opened 1♠ in 4th position, the auction reverted to her lho who opened a weak 2♦.

I enforced a pass on her partner and after it was passed around to her, she bid 2♠ and the auction proceeded without sanction.

Given that these were intermediate (at best) players it seems like a non-punishing and legit way to go and to the benefit of clubs trying to encourage the newbies without the need to hire a lawyer.

Maybe a problem I haven't thought of in a tournament setting but I like the user friendliness of the approach.

Law 27B1{b} has nothing to do with this situation. You should have offered the bidder's LHO the opportunity to accept the BOOT, after which the auction would proceed normally (Law 29A). (Maybe you did this and didn't mention it). If LHO chose not to call over 1♠, then the 1♠ call is cancelled, LHO calls, BOOTer may make any legal call in his proper turn (Law 29B), but his partner must pass throughout the auction, and Laws 23 and 26 may apply (Law 31B).

Making "user friendly" rulings is fine, when they're within the laws. Making unlawful rulings is just wrong.

[AlexJonson]

 campboy, on 2011-April-22, 03:30, said:

Presumably this means allowing calls which would be made on the same distributions or a subset thereof, even if the call is less precise in terms of strength. I suppose the typical application would be something like 1NT - pass - 1♥ - TD! and it is established that 1♥ bidder hadn't seen the opening, where this law would permit a 2♦ correction without silencing partner.

As you say, this seems like a different law entirely. It is certainly more liberal than the "liberal interpretation" discussed elsewhere.

Agreed.

And your opinion?

Personally, allowing the auction to proceed normally is good (and if the Italians invented it, good for them).

Don't really care that much about potential cheats using insufficient bids.

[nige1]

Interpretations differ between legislatures but the the tendency is to make an already daft and woolly law even kinder to lawbreakers. The director has backtracking powers if an offender is over-rewarded for his infraction. In practice, however, how often does he use them? And If the director judges to use them, it negates the supposed point of the law -- to achieve a normal bridge result.

Some players like me think it's impossible to achieve a normal result after an insufficient bid and that the law should actively deter careless (or deliberate) insufficient bidders.

Anyway, the law seems to saddle the director with unnecessary chores and to increase his power to influence the result of a competition, in accordance with his subjective judgement.

TFLB, L40B3 said:

The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity

But the worst aspect of this law is the opportunity for partnerships to forge agreements contingent on the options that they they choose. Even in Ras that decide to disallow L40B3 special understandings, the options given to players over bids-out-of-turn and insufficient-bids still create unnecessary problems of interpretation.

[jallerton]

 Bad_Wolf, on 2011-April-21, 18:26, said:

Hi,

Quote:
Moved that NZB ratify the following interpretation of Law 27B1(b) as adopted in some other jurisdictions:-
“(b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director’s opinion has the same distributional meaning as, or a more precise distributional meaning than, the insufficient bid (such distributional meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid), or the Director deems that the information gained by the insufficient bid is not likely to damage the non-offending side, the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following”
CARRIED

What are people's opinion of this. To me it reads more like a rewrite of the Law than an 'interpretation'.
Australia and New Zealand have agreed to this, I don't know what other 'jurisdictions' have.

Yes, this reads like a rewrite of the Law. However, the new New Zealand "interpretation" is no more illegal than the approach which has been encouraged by the WBFLC and adopted in many other jurisdictions.

The wording of the Law:

Law27B(1)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.

uses "same meaning, or a more precise meaning"; it does not say "similar meaning",

The part in brackets say "such meaning being fully contained within"; it does not say "such meaning being mainly contained within..".

 blackshoe, on 2011-April-22, 13:04, said:

Making "user friendly" rulings is fine, when they're within the laws. Making unlawful rulings is just wrong.

I agree, but if the WBFLC issues an "interpretation" which is plainly contrary to its own Laws and the Regulatory Authority asks its TDs to adopt this approach, what is the poor TD to do?

[campboy]

 AlexJonson, on 2011-April-22, 13:25, said:

Agreed.

And your opinion?

Personally, allowing the auction to proceed normally is good (and if the Italians invented it, good for them).

Don't really care that much about potential cheats using insufficient bids.

My opinion, FWIW, is that the law as written is ridiculous, this interpretation is different but still ridiculous, and that if you are going to use a ridiculous law you may as well use the one that's actually in the book so we all rule the same way.

If I were to write the law on IBs it would be something like "An IB may be accepted; if not it may be replaced by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination without penalty (but the TD may adjust under law 23) or any other sufficient bid or pass in which case partner is silenced (ditto)."

[blackshoe]

 jallerton, on 2011-April-22, 16:08, said:

 blackshoe, on 2011-April-22, 13:04, said:

Making "user friendly" rulings is fine, when they're within the laws. Making unlawful rulings is just wrong.

I agree, but if the WBFLC issues an "interpretation" which is plainly contrary to its own Laws and the Regulatory Authority asks its TDs to adopt this approach, what is the poor TD to do?

Quoting me out of context. The unlawful ruling to which I referred was about a BOOT, not an IB. AFAIK, neither the WBFLC nor any RA has issued an interpretation of the BOOT laws which would allow requiring a player to pass for one round when the law clearly says he should be required to pass throughout the auction.

Yes, if an RA (or the WBFLC) issues an interpretation, TDs are bound to follow it. But that's not what I was talking about.

[Cascade]

 jallerton, on 2011-April-22, 16:08, said:

Yes, this reads like a rewrite of the Law. However, the new New Zealand "interpretation" is no more illegal than the approach which has been encouraged by the WBFLC and adopted in many other jurisdictions.

Where do I find the WBFLC approach?

[blackshoe]

 Cascade, on 2011-April-22, 17:36, said:

Where do I find the WBFLC approach?

In the minutes of WBFLC meetings, on the WBF website. For example

Quote

Meeting of Oct 12, 2010: 6. Further ideas about applications of Law 27 were discussed. It was decided not to add to the advice in the minutes of 10th October, 2008, which Regulating Authorities may apply as they think fit. It was noted, however, that efforts to allow calls that it is hoped will achieve normal bridge results are protected by the possibility of recourse to Law 27D at the end of the play.

and

Quote

Meeting of October 10, 2008: 3 (in part). Law 27B – Mr. Endicott’s statement on interpretation was adopted and agreed viz:– The Committee has noted an increasing inclination among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the Director judges that the outcome could well have been different without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in consequence the non‐offending side has been damaged).

It was also agreed that where it says in Laws 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) that ‘the auction proceeds without further rectification’ this is interpreted as meaning that the auction and play continue without further rectification.

[barmar]

 campboy, on 2011-April-22, 16:50, said:

My opinion, FWIW, is that the law as written is ridiculous, this interpretation is different but still ridiculous, and that if you are going to use a ridiculous law you may as well use the one that's actually in the book so we all rule the same way.

But do we? Ever since the new IB law was written, we've had debates over whether various replacement bids fit its criteria. TDs do need guidance.

[jallerton]

 blackshoe, on 2011-April-22, 13:04, said:

Making "user friendly" rulings is fine, when they're within the laws. Making unlawful rulings is just wrong.

 jallerton, on 2011-April-22, 16:08, said:

I agree, but if the WBFLC issues an "interpretation" which is plainly contrary to its own Laws and the Regulatory Authority asks its TDs to adopt this approach, what is the poor TD to do?

 blackshoe, on 2011-April-22, 17:19, said:

Quoting me out of context. The unlawful ruling to which I referred was about a BOOT, not an IB. AFAIK, neither the WBFLC nor any RA has issued an interpretation of the BOOT laws which would allow requiring a player to pass for one round when the law clearly says he should be required to pass throughout the auction.

Yes, if an RA (or the WBFLC) issues an interpretation, TDs are bound to follow it. But that's not what I was talking about.

Sorry, I didn't mean to quote you out of context. The paragraph I quoted 'Making "user friendly" rulings is fine, when they're within the laws. Making unlawful rulings is just wrong.' looked like a general statement to me; if so, it is a sentiment with which I agree. In my opinion, it is worse still when the lawmakers encourage RAs/TDs to break the Law. If the WBFLC doesn't like its own Law any longer then it should make use of its powers to change it; but to pretend that the current Law says something it clearly doesn't by issuing an "interpretation" is ridiculous.

[blackshoe]

No worries, Jeffrey. Sounds like we're pretty much in agreement on "interpretations" anyway.