[blackshoe]

I would have thought the construction should be "it does convey willingness to play in the denomination named, if that is partner's suit".

[WellSpyder]

bluejak, on 2011-July-05, 18:47, said:

Having looked at hands which are considered wild or gambling, I do not think we consider accidents. In other words a call is wild if the player deliberately takes a wild action, and a call is gambling if the player deliberately gambles. So to deny redress woud need it to be a serious error unrelated to the infraction, and I do not think it unrelated.

I thought I recalled previous guidance that a revoke, for example, was indeed considered wild or gambling. Presumably the same logic would apply to making an insufficient bid, for example. Whether it can apply to accidentally accepting an opponent's IB, I'm less sure, though there is certainly a case for saying that deliberately accepting an IB is likely to be a gamble....

[barmar]

WellSpyder, on 2011-July-06, 01:42, said:

I thought I recalled previous guidance that a revoke, for example, was indeed considered wild or gambling. Presumably the same logic would apply to making an insufficient bid, for example. Whether it can apply to accidentally accepting an opponent's IB, I'm less sure, though there is certainly a case for saying that deliberately accepting an IB is likely to be a gamble....

I may have missed the thread, but I can't believe a revoke would be considered wild or gambling. However, it would presumably be considered a serious error, so it still falls under the SEWoG exception.

So the question then becomes whether inadvertently accepting an IB is also a SE. I suspect that in most cases, if it's an error at all, it's probably not a serious one. It would be in the same class as not playing a suit combination optimally -- just a typical judgement mistake.

[blackshoe]

The phrase the laws use is "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)". How can the infraction be unrelated to itself?

[Vampyr]

mrdct, on 2011-July-05, 20:29, said:

The bidding tray is only allowed to be moved by North and South. We are told that the insufficient bidder's screenmate pushed the tray through, so the insufficient bidder is either sitting East or West. Accordingly, we know that the tray has been pushed through by the insufficient bidder's RHO. The insufficent bidder's LHO never got an oportunity to express his wishes as to accepting the IB as his partner has already done it for him. It may very well have beeen against the wishes of the IB's LHO.

I have no idea who moved the tray. All I know is that there was an insufficient bid, then a pass, and then the tray was pushed.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-July-03, 15:14, said:

I have to admit I am confused by this thread in two distinctly different ways.
(i) Why is there 'bad luck' for the NOS? All you had to do was notice the insufficient bid and not accept it.
(ii) If this was played in Poznan, as you say, then screens were in use. In fact you didn't have the option whether or not to accept it, if you noticed it you were obliged to call the TD, and the insufficient bid must be rectified with no further penalty.

"b) Before an irregularity is passed through the screen the offender or his screenmate shall draw the Director's attention to it. Infringing calls shall not be accepted and shall be put right without other rectification (but see (a) (ii) above); "

(a)(ii) above says that "ii) if a player infringes the law and, inadvertently (otherwise Law 23 may apply), the irregularity is passed through the screen by his screenmate the latter has accepted the action on behalf of his side in situations where the laws permit LHO to accept it. "

so you can accept an IB inadvertantly (as apparently you did) but, playing with screens, you cannot choose to accept one.

p.s. the EBU screen regulations are slightly different - if an IB is passed under the screen, the other side are supposed to call the TD and it still gets rectified without penalty - now there are two OS.

I must admit to being the "dopey" partner who condoned the IB. After the board went through the first time, pushed by my RHO, not me, there was a delay at the other side and it was clear the director had been called. The auction then came back as (2♠)- Pass - (2♥) - Pass - (2♠) - Pass. There was much mirth, but a director was on hand at our side to confirm that we should just continue. Later in the auction, my RHO passed when she said she did not intend to, but the TD ruled that had to stand, and the final contract was some ludicrous 4♥ x - 5. I think it is surprising if my RHO did bid 2H over 2S, and I did not notice it, but I must admit that I might have breached 74B1. However, another possibility, and quite likely on reflection, is that the tray came through with (2♦) - Pass on it originally, with the the 2♥ and 2♠ cards just under the screen. They would have fallen back into place after the screen went back, and that now seems a very likely reason. Later in the hand, I was waiting for my partner to lead against 4♦x and I suspect at that moment it was me to lead against 4♥x, with a card again partially under the screen.

But I agree with all that Vampyr is not correct in thinking that there is anything wrong with the regulations because the OS could have gained, if there were an IB. It takes two to tango. And the habit of pulling the screen through just enough to see partner's bid can have this downside!

[mrdct]

lamford, on 2011-July-06, 12:50, said:

I must admit to being the "dopey" partner who condoned the IB. After the board went through the first time, pushed by my RHO, not me, there was a delay at the other side and it was clear the director had been called. The auction then came back as (2♠)- Pass - (2♥) - Pass - (2♠) - Pass. There was much mirth, but a director was on hand at our side to confirm that we should just continue. Later in the auction, my RHO passed when she said she did not intend to, but the TD ruled that had to stand, and the final contract was some ludicrous 4♥ x - 5. I think it is surprising if my RHO did bid 2H over 2S, and I did not notice it, but I must admit that I might have breached 74B1. However, another possibility, and quite likely on reflection, is that the tray came through with (2♦) - Pass on it originally, with the the 2♥ and 2♠ cards just under the screen. They would have fallen back into place after the screen went back, and that now seems a very likely reason. Later in the hand, I was waiting for my partner to lead against 4♦x and I suspect at that moment it was me to lead against 4♥x, with a card again partially under the screen.

But I agree with all that Vampyr is not correct in thinking that there is anything wrong with the regulations because the OS could have gained, if there were an IB. It takes two to tango. And the habit of pulling the screen through just enough to see partner's bid can have this downside!

I'm a little bit confused. Can you tell us who was North, South, East & West (perhaps with the full hand diagram and auction)? It seems that the tray may have been moved by East or West which is incorrect procedure and we may not, therefore, have a situation of a player accepting an IB on his sides behalf.

However, we now seem to have an entirely different problem as if the 2♥ bid was made under a misapprehension that it was in response to a 2♦ opening because the bidding cards weren't properly arranged on the tray, that is probably the fault of North-South who are generally responsibly for ensuring that the tray goes back and forth with all of the bids intact. So I think it's now even more important to establish which way the 2♠/2♥/2♠ bidders were sitting. Also, what were the alerts on your side of the screen?

[Vampyr]

mrdct, on 2011-July-06, 18:18, said:

I'm a little bit confused. Can you tell us who was North, South, East & West (perhaps with the full hand diagram and auction)? It seems that the tray may have been moved by East or West which is incorrect procedure and we may not, therefore, have a situation of a player accepting an IB on his sides behalf.

Sorry for the confusion. This is not, however, what the thread was intending to address. I was interested in the fact that it is very difficult to know whether to accept an insufficient bid now that the IB is UI to the bidder's partner, and the replacement bid, since it is based on the IBer's earlier intention, will clear it up. If the bid is accepted, partner will not know what the IBer's state of mind was, ie why the latter made an insufficient bid -- on the other hand, the OS may have the opportunity to use the extra room for great gain. I wonder if this is too large a burden for the NOS, since they will not know whether there is anything really useful that the OS can use the room for; such as indicating that a potential weak 4-card second suit is actually a powerful 6-carder. This is what got me thinking, not anything to do with how the tray was handled. The NOS also aren't, if I understand correctly, permitted to be told whether the IBer has a free replacement, and would have trouble guessing even if they knew the opponents' system really well, because the replacement still depends on the state of the IBer's mind.

Quote

... North-South who are generally responsibly for ensuring that the tray goes back and forth with all of the bids intact. So I think it's now even more important to establish which way the 2♠/2♥/2♠ bidders were sitting... Also, what were the alerts on your side of the screen?

Again, I am sorry. I have already admitted that I chose the wrong example to illustrate my point. I did not mention the use of trays in the OP, and in fact did not myself bring up the subject at all. Questions of proper tray procedure are interesting, to be sure, but perhaps another thread is a better place for them?

[alphatango]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-06, 21:36, said:

The NOS also aren't, if I understand correctly, permitted to be told whether the IBer has a free replacement, and would have trouble guessing even if they knew the opponents' system really well, because the replacement still depends on the state of the IBer's mind.

I'm still not convinced that the available replacement calls should depend on IBer's intention. But I argued that point in the "Meaning of insufficient bid" thread.

Of relevance is that I asked in that thread what information IBer's LHO is entitled to before accepting or rejecting the IB, and bluejak (here) said there was no consensus even among the WBFLC. (FWIW, I am in favour of telling NOS at least what free replacement bids are available.)

Note that if one chooses to give that information to the NOS and believes that the replacement bids are dependent upon IBer's intention, one should probably give the info to the NOS away from the table (or send IBer's partner away). This avoids transmitting UI in the case where the IB is subsequently accepted and IBer's original intention is not already clear.

[Vampyr]

alphatango, on 2011-July-07, 02:36, said:

I'm still not convinced that the available replacement calls should depend on IBer's intention.

I'm completely convinced that it is ludicrous, but there you are.

Quote

Of relevance is that I asked in that thread what information IBer's LHO is entitled to before accepting or rejecting the IB, and bluejak (here) said there was no consensus even among the WBFLC. (FWIW, I am in favour of telling NOS at least what free replacement bids are available.)

So am I, but I believe that EBU guidance says otherwise. This puts the NOS in a real dilemma.

Quote

Note that if one chooses to give that information to the NOS and believes that the replacement bids are dependent upon IBer's intention, one should probably give the info to the NOS away from the table (or send IBer's partner away). This avoids transmitting UI in the case where the IB is subsequently accepted and IBer's original intention is not already clear.

Your position is interesting. You believe that even IBer's RHO is entitled to the knowledge of the replacement bids, and IBer's intention? Maybe this is right.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-07, 10:05, said:

So am I, but I believe that EBU guidance says otherwise. This puts the NOS in a real dilemma.

I am not sure this is correct. Which guidance?

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-July-07, 10:23, said:

I am not sure this is correct. Which guidance?

I think that I may have learnt this on the County Director Course, but this was in the early days of the new Laws, so practice may not have been really agreed upon. Can you get more accurate information, David? I would really like to know how to proceed as a director and what to expect as a player.

[alphatango]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-07, 10:05, said:

Your position is interesting. You believe that even IBer's RHO is entitled to the knowledge of the replacement bids, and IBer's intention? Maybe this is right.

If LHO is entitled to know what "free replacement" bids are available, I think IBer's RHO is also so entitled. It seems a bit silly otherwise -- the decision LHO makes about whether or not to accept the IB may be dependent on that knowledge, and RHO shouldn't have to guess what LHO was trying to do.

IBer's intention is a separate matter: I think it is AI to NOS, but NOS are not necessarily entitled to know what the intention was. (Same approach as misunderstandings: the fact that they are having a misunderstanding is AI, but you are not entitled to that knowledge.)

(Of course, if one adopts the paradigm, as (I think) the EBU has, in which one determines the "free replacement" bids based on IBer's intention, then yes, NOS are entitled to that information via the knowledge of the meaning of the free replacements available to IBer.)

[bluejak]

In view of the lack of agreement even amongst WBFLC members, I am not sure the EBU has certain guidance on this matter. It has been discussed here, of course, and it might be worth finding the thread, especially the views of senior EBU TDs, eg Gordon, Mike, Robin.

I do not think there is any doubt that the player may ask the meanings of bids before deciding, but how much info the TD gives is not an agreed matter.

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-July-07, 13:56, said:

In view of the lack of agreement even amongst WBFLC members, I am not sure the EBU has certain guidance on this matter. It has been discussed here, of course, and it might be worth finding the thread, especially the views of senior EBU TDs, eg Gordon, Mike, Robin.

I do not think there is any doubt that the player may ask the meanings of bids before deciding, but how much info the TD gives is not an agreed matter.

Frightening but this is one of the more dreadful laws

[RMB1]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-07, 12:41, said:

I think that I may have learnt this on the County Director Course, but this was in the early days of the new Laws, so practice may not have been really agreed upon. Can you get more accurate information, David? I would really like to know how to proceed as a director and what to expect as a player.

The EBU's approach to Law 27 as codified at the Panel TD weekend last autumn is:

• Take the offender and way from the table, and discover the intended meaning of the insufficient bid (or whether this is in fact a Law 25 case).
  
• Return to table and give LHO his options.
  • Do not tell LHO if Law 27B1a applies or which (if any) calls would be permitted by Law 27B1b.
    
  • But LHO is allowed to ask questions about their agreements.
  
  
• If the insufficient bid is not accepted, offer to discuss the possible calls with offender away from table.
  
• Once offender has made his replacement call, apply law 27B and follow up as necessary (including Law 27D).

See my updated spiel for law 27.

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2011-July-07, 16:06, said:

[*]Do not tell LHO if Law 27B1a applies or which (if any) calls would be permitted by Law 27B1b.

This is unfortunate. I suppose it's best to always accept an insufficient bid, since it is an illegal call and is not permitted to mean anything at all.

[blackshoe]

Then you get, when you ask about IBer's partner's call "We have no agreement in this context, since my bid has no meaning." Something doesn't seem right here.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-07, 20:56, said:

Then you get, when you ask about IBer's partner's call "We have no agreement in this context, since my bid has no meaning." Something doesn't seem right here.

Well, if the IBer did try to answer the question, it would probably reveal something about his intent when he made the IB, which, since the IB was accepted, has not become AI. It does seem to be a problem, but the Law doesn't offer any solutions. What do you propose?

[rant]
There are so many advantages to a Law 27B that states that after an insufficient bid is not accepted, the offender's partner is barred. What players and directors want is rules that are easy to understand and easy to implement. But the WBFLC don't seem to realise this at all, and since they are apparently appointed for life and answer to no one, the situation is not going to change with the next or any other future version of the laws; it will probably just get worse.[/rant]

[blackshoe]

I don't propose anything at the moment. I don't know what would be best. I'm not even sure what would work.