BBO Discussion Forums: How do you rule? - BBO Discussion Forums

All I can say about that is, shame on Tom Kooijman and on the player who would pass 2NT.

aguahombre, on 2011-May-05, 11:01, said:

You do know who Ton Kooijman is I hope....

jhenrikj, on 2011-May-05, 11:11, said:

My error. I forgot that who a person is makes him right or wrong.

aguahombre, on 2011-May-05, 11:01, said:

There is no shame in following the laws as they are rather than as you wish they were.

If partner was required to treat 2NT as a "real" 2NT bid, then there would be no way to get to a reasonable spot on the hand - passing would bar partner, and bidding 2NT would get you too high. Now maybe you think that's just tough luck from making an insufficient bid, but that isn't what the laws intend to happen. You're allowed to have a chance at recovering.

That said, with competent directing I wish most of the laws on illegal calls were changed to "Do whatever you want and your partner has UI (that they must deal with appropriately)."

aguahombre, on 2011-May-05, 11:14, said:

You actually think that the official guide on how to interpret the laws from the WBF LC is wrong? Why don't you just give up and admit you are wrong. This is the law and doing anything else as director is absolutely wrong.

aguahombre, on 2011-May-05, 11:01, said:

There is no shame in following the laws as they are rather than as you wish they were.

If partner was required to treat 2NT as a "real" 2NT bid, then there would be no way to get to a reasonable spot on the hand - passing would bar partner, and bidding 2NT would get you too high. Now maybe you think that's just tough luck from making an insufficient bid, but that isn't what the laws intend to happen. You're allowed to have a chance at recovering.

That said, with competent directing I wish most of the laws on illegal calls were changed to "Do whatever you want and your partner has UI (that they must deal with appropriately)."

aguahombre, on 2011-May-05, 11:14, said:

Your error lies in assuming that he's wrong because you disagree with him.

My error, I guess was assuming that the rules would protect us against the opponents using the only available "tool" (whether accidentally or not)to get to exactly 2NT on both the OP hand and the example cited by the exalted ruler.

I was also wrong in believing that, either the sense of right by the partner of the offender or the phrase "could have known" applied to the offender himself would operate.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-May-05, 12:46

In both cases (Jillybean's and Kooijmans'), the ability of the player to legally take advantage of unauthorised information is more theoretical than real. If the 2NT contract leads to a good result, there will be an adjustment under 27D because the the outcome of the board could well have been different without the infraction, i.e. if the offender had passed instead of bidding 2NT.

nigel_k, on 2011-May-05, 14:44, said:

Yep, that might get the NOS back to even. The OS would not get what they deserve, but what the heck. It was a free shot.

Ton Kooijman said:

As aquahombre points out, this law rewards "careless" offenders.

aguahombre, on 2011-May-05, 15:04, said:

Well, don't forget L72B1 "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept."

So, say the auction would have, if the person had noticed and not made the insufficient bid, gone 1S-2H-X-p-2S-AP. Of course, if partner doubles now, he's barred partner, so effectively he has no bid for this hand. And, just by luck, it turns out that NT makes the same number of tricks as spades - 8, after they take all their hearts, they're squeezed, say.

What you want is for opener to be barred, *or* for North to have to sacrifically overbid. What the Laws say is that because the only way to allow the auction to continue with any semblance of sanity is to allow the use of the insufficient bid's information, we will do so. If it turns out that they got to a contract that is both reasonable and not available without the IB, we don't let them IB and find it; if it turns out that they got to a contract that flukes into a good score (but where nobody would *want* to be), then that's rub of the green.

You are allowed to not like it (I do, in general - it keeps with the "equity, not penalty" goal of the Laws); you are allowed to think that it's unreasonable, and puts too much judgment on "how lucky is too lucky" on the TD (I know I do); but it is the Law, and it is how it works.

mjj29, on 2011-May-05, 16:37, said:

If we start accusing every player of cheating, pretty soon we won't have any players.

What worries me about all this is that in Ton's example, where the auction has been 1♠-2♥-1NT... oops, 2NT, West is apparently allowed to know that his partner has not seen the overcall, rather than that his partner has pulled the 1NT card by mistake when he intended to pull the 2NT card. Under what Law is West entitled to this information?

It is not enough to say simply "Law 16D does not apply, so the information that East intended to bid 1NT is authorised to West." This implies that it is legal for East-West to pursue at will either of the following paths:

East says "sorry, I didn't notice the overcall". Now West knows that East has a 1NT bid, not a 2NT bid.

East says "sorry, I pulled the wrong bidding card". Now West knows that East has a 2NT bid, not a 1NT bid.

What Ton may have been saying is that West must ignore any explanation by East as to why he made an insufficient bid in the first place, but if West guesses correctly, he is allowed to keep his result. Whereas I don't like this any more than aguahombre or jillybean do, I can (nay, must) accept it if it is the Law.

But if what Ton was actually saying is that West is allowed to know why East made an insufficient bid in the first place, I cannot accept that. Such use of extraneous information is a violation of Law 16B, not Law 16D, and there is no provision in Law 27 to the effect that Law 16B does not apply.

Not only is David Burn right on, but ---since in both cases we do know why the insufficient bid occurred (didn't see the call by RHO), there is no "lucky guess" to be made and 2NT cannot be allowed to stand if his pard has full values to accept an invite.

If, perchance, pard of the offender does the right thing (say, 3NT), and it makes, so be it. That would be the luck of the green, or whatever.

I do not think there is any implication in the law that a player may make extraneous remarks with impunity. Indeed, Laws 16 and 73 strongly suggest otherwise.

Well, East doesn't have to say anything except as instructed by the TD. If the TD determines it's Law 25A, then everyone will know that East meant to pull the 2NT card, and didn't, and has the full value. If the TD determines it's Law 27, then everyone will know that East meant to pull 1NT - why doesn't really matter, didn't see the overcall, thought it was 1H, whatever - and, within the bounds of L27D, West is entitled to do what he can to save the auction after 2NT.

Effectively the TD will make the reason AI by the ruling.

I'm also not sure this is the best answer, as I said above; but it is the Law as it stands, and it's stood for a while.

16A1© says that information arising from legal procedures authorized by the law or regulations is AI.

Correcting an UC or IB is such legal procedures.

jhenrikj, on 2011-May-05, 11:26, said:

The guide by Ton on the Laws is NOT official, it is his own personal view. There are certainly some parts of it that members of the EBU L&E disagree with and would rule in accordance with their own views.