[bixby]

Lamford's suggestion that insufficient bids are not infractions is threatening to hijack the "hypothetical questions" thread, so I am addressing it separately here.

Lamford is correct that Law 18 could be better worded. It does not expressly state that a bid must be sufficient. But the Laws as a whole make clear that an insufficient bid is an infraction.

Law 27 covers insufficient bids. Law 27B says that "If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted . . . it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call." This necessarily implies that an insufficient bid is not a legal call.

Moreover, Law 27D provides that "If following the application of B1 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 (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score." In context, the phrase "the infraction" can only refer to the insufficient bid. This shows that an insufficient bid is an infraction. This law also refers to the "non-offending side," which implies that the side that made the insufficient bid is the offending side, which again implies that an insufficient bid is an infraction, or at least an irregularity.

And, as I said in our other thread on this topic, everyone knows that bids must be sufficient and that an insufficient bid is an infraction. If an insufficient bid is not an infraction, or at least an irregularity, why do we call the Director when one occurs?

[ArtK78]

Bixby: I don't think anyone (even lamford if he is thinking clearly) would have any doubt that an insufficient bid is an infraction. I don't even think that it was suggested that an insufficient bid was not an infraction. Lamford merely stated that he wanted chapter and verse in the laws showing that it was an infraction.

Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, this is just another instance of an otherwise unnecessary post created to respond to one of lamford's assertions.

[lamford]

bixby, on 2015-May-21, 11:28, said:

Lamford is correct that Law 18 could be better worded. It does not expressly state that a bid must be sufficient.

It does not even imply that a bid must be sufficient and we have to glean that from the application of other Laws. It is not disputed that "everyone knows bids must be sufficient", although some beginners do not. It is not disputed that we rule as though the IB is an infraction, and that was how I stated I would rule in the earlier thread. The original issue was whether someone who makes a deliberate insufficient bid should be referred to the Conduct and Ethics Committee. The cause of this unnecessary thread was the response by ArtK78 to an obviously satirical post.

[blackshoe]

Heh. Even after three years living in England, and I don't know how many in this forum and others with many English correspondents, there are still times when I don't "get" English humor. To an American, or at least to this American, what is obvious to an Englishman regarding English humor is frequently not obvious at all. Not to mention the difficulty in interpreting posts on the internet, where there are no visual cues.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-21, 13:03, said:

Heh. Even after three years living in England, and I don't know how many in this forum and others with many English correspondents, there are still times when I don't "get" English humor.

Maybe we need a visit to the Ministry of Silly Posts.

[Bbradley62]

Possible re-hijack... I'm surprised by the vote of the plurality in the poll, since hypothetical threads are already clearly identified: they have Lamford's name right there next to the thread title.

[aguahombre]

Well, you can't use the Law about paying attention to the game against me, Paul. Even though an IB is normally failure to pay attention, if I deliberately make an IB, I AM paying attention to the game. If I deliberately don't pay attention to the game you can get me...but not for deliberately making an IB.

[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2015-May-21, 19:28, said:

Possible re-hijack... I'm surprised by the vote of the plurality in the poll, since hypothetical threads are already clearly identified: they have Lamford's name right there next to the thread title.

Heard something on NPR's "Here and Now" today that made me think of that thread: "Hypotheticals are horrible".

The pundit was talking about the Republican presidential candidates this week, starting with Jeb Bush, all being asked "Knowing what we know today, would you have invaded Iraq?"