[pran]

 alphatango, on 2011-May-17, 22:38, said:

Well, as a player, I do care somewhat. If there is UI, then I am under an obligation to carefully avoid taking advantage. That is manifestly different to a situation where I have no UI; now I can simply take the best action available to me and let the director sort out whether any advantage was in fact gained, even if I expect the score to be adjusted under 27D.

One example that caused the inclusion of law 27D is the auction: 1♠ - 1♥ (IB) replaced by 2♥.

The insufficient bid and the replacement bid are both incontrovertibly not artificial and the replacement bid is the lowest legal bid in the same denomination as the insufficient bid.

But while the insufficient bid showed opening values the replacement bid just showed values for an overcall. This difference could be important for partner's assessment of game possibilities.

Law 27D gives the Director the power to judge if because of the insufficient bid a partnership has reached a contract they might not have reached absent this irregularity, and if as a result of this opponents have been damaged.

Note that in the example given just the mere fact that the replacement bid shows less values than the insufficient (opening) bid does not automatically excludes the possibility of reaching game. Absent the irregularity the offender could for instance have doubled and shown opening values with hearts that way, after which reaching game is still likely.

[PeterAlan]

 bluejak, on 2011-May-17, 18:26, said:

I am not saying per se that it is difficult, I am saying the conclusion is absurd. Literally, absurd. We have a Law that says something. You then try to say that while it means something, we shall do the exact opposite because of another Law. No, that is not sensible.

Of course some Laws could [and may be should] be better worded. But it is unhelpful to go on and on on that subject. We know it. Maybe Law 16A should have an exception noted in brackets "[but not the contents of ...]" or something. But the fact it does not is no reason to ignore the Law as written.

According to Law 27, badly worded maybe, a withdrawn action where the action was an insufficient bid is not unauthorised. So Law 16A does not over-rule this: that is an absurd conclusion.

David, the difference between us is simply this. I am starting with no preconception about what Law 27 says or means, so I read it to see what's there. I see nothing that says, as you assert, "a withdrawn action where the action was an insufficient bid is not unauthorised." I do see the words "Law 16 D does not apply" so I cross it out when reading Law 16 to see what is authorised or not - I do not instead interpret it as meaning "the converse of selected parts of Law 16 D does apply". I am, however, still left with Law 16A, which says what it says. Since I have no preconceptions that Law 27 has some other effects, I don't find myself reaching any form of contradiction or absurd conclusion; I merely note that where I end up is not the same as the generally-handed-down view that information from the insufficient bid is authorised.

You, on the other hand, start from the happy position of knowing what Law 27 means and says (though you don't actually show any part of it that says what you assert it does), and I am being absurd because where I end up contradicts that. Because you know what Law 27 means, you don't actually have to bother to follow why I might disagree and whether there's any merit in the arguments I'm putting forward, with which you don't deign to engage - you can instead dismiss them by ad hominem remarks and assertions, with an occasional nod to "bad wording". Personally, I think rather more acknowledgment of the deficiencies in the wording would be appropriate if you want to take a stance on the true meaning of Law 27, but what really gets my goat is that you conclude by accusing me of "ignoring the Law as written"!

I'm not trying to be personal in saying this - I'd take the same line with anyone that took such an approach - but I do think there is a genuine problem here. I'll probably sound a bit sharp in trying to make my point, so please don't take it personally, but to the relative newcomer like me to bridge, its laws and their interpretation there's a real difficulty. It feel very much like there's the chosen few, who are blessed with knowledge of what the Laws mean, whatever they may happen to say, and there are the rest of us, who, since we don't have access to that corpus of knowledge, instead naively start by reading the Laws as they are written and trying to interpret them. Every so often - and this is such a case, as is the definition of "Logical Alternative" - we discover that what the Laws actually appear to say is not the same as what they are generally taken as being intended to say. On other occasions, and whether or not it seems sensible (see the Defective Trick thread, for example), we are confronted with an exceedingly literal interpretation of what's written, and there's quite frankly no way for the tyro to tell which attitude (s)he's going to run into on any particular occasion.

Your response would seem to be "Spend lots of time here, and you'll gain experience from those wise in these matters". I think it would be better if we acknowledged frankly the problems with the Laws each time a difficulty appears, instead of adopting an attitude of denial, which, in the absence of any engagement with what I actually say, is, I'm afraid, what I see in your response. The "Changes" forum is a nod to this, but the starting point is a cultural one. The air transport industry became a lot safer when the culture changed from covering up incidents so as to avoid blame to acknowledging them all and learning from them. Could we not try to move in a similar direction?

PeterAlan

[bluejak]

 blackshoe, on 2011-May-17, 22:20, said:

The only time 16D does not apply is when an insufficient bid is replaced by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, and both bids are incontrovertibly not artificial. I don't see why we should care whether there is UI here - Law 27D will suffice to adjust the score if the OS gained from the infraction.

Not so. Suppose you have a hand which would be a 50/50 decision whether to pass or bid Blackwood if partner overcalled 4♥ over 3♠. In fact, owing to a bad trump break, ten tricks are the limit of the hand.

The auction goes 3♠ by LHO, 3♥ by partner, not condoned, and partner bids 4♥ under 27B1A. You now decide to pass because he only overcalled 3♥.

If this was a UI case we would disallow the pass, since pass and 4NT are both LAs and the UI suggests pass. So we would adjust to 5♥ -1.

But it isn't. The 3♥ bid is AI. Now, does 27D apply? No. The interpretation that the WBFLC seem to have given us [and the old French/Dutch/European interpretation under earlier Laws] is that since 4♥ could have been reached without the insufficient bid then 27D does not apply.

[lamford]

 bluejak, on 2011-May-18, 06:21, said:

Not so. Suppose you have a hand which would be a 50/50 decision whether to pass or bid Blackwood if partner overcalled 4♥ over 3♠. In fact, owing to a bad trump break, ten tricks are the limit of the hand.

The auction goes 3♠ by LHO, 3♥ by partner, not condoned, and partner bids 4♥ under 27B1A. You now decide to pass because he only overcalled 3♥.

If this was a UI case we would disallow the pass, since pass and 4NT are both LAs and the UI suggests pass. So we would adjust to 5♥ -1.

But it isn't. The 3♥ bid is AI. Now, does 27D apply? No. The interpretation that the WBFLC seem to have given us [and the old French/Dutch/European interpretation under earlier Laws] is that since 4♥ could have been reached without the insufficient bid then 27D does not apply.

Surely Law 23 applies, in that the person overcalling 3H and then 4H, thereby showing a weaker hand, could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could damage the non-offending side. Or has the WBFLC ruled that Law 23 does not apply either?

[blackshoe]

 bluejak, on 2011-May-18, 06:21, said:

Not so. Suppose you have a hand which would be a 50/50 decision whether to pass or bid Blackwood if partner overcalled 4♥ over 3♠. In fact, owing to a bad trump break, ten tricks are the limit of the hand.

The auction goes 3♠ by LHO, 3♥ by partner, not condoned, and partner bids 4♥ under 27B1A. You now decide to pass because he only overcalled 3♥.

If this was a UI case we would disallow the pass, since pass and 4NT are both LAs and the UI suggests pass. So we would adjust to 5♥ -1.

But it isn't. The 3♥ bid is AI. Now, does 27D apply? No. The interpretation that the WBFLC seem to have given us [and the old French/Dutch/European interpretation under earlier Laws] is that since 4♥ could have been reached without the insufficient bid then 27D does not apply.

Where is this WBFLC interpretation written? As for "the old French/Dutch/European interpretation under earlier Laws", I don't much care about that, for several reasons, not least of which is that it is 180 degrees from what Law 27D actually says. There's a 50% chance that you would have bid on over 4♥ has partner not bid 3♥ to begin with, so without assistance gained through that infraction the outcome could well have been different. Therefore 27D does apply. If this is yet another Humpty Dumpty law, well, all I can say is that it's absurd that we have any such laws.

[kevperk]

All those who argue against the IB being AI, how does the line "Law 16D does not apply, but see D below" apply? If it is in the laws, it must apply somehow.

[PeterAlan]

 kevperk, on 2011-May-18, 14:02, said:

All those who argue against the IB being AI, how does the line "Law 16D does not apply, but see D below" apply? If it is in the laws, it must apply somehow.

It's "but see D following" and refers to Law 27D. I think that speaks for itself.

[kevperk]

 PeterAlan, on 2011-May-18, 16:58, said:

It's "but see D following" and refers to Law 27D. I think that speaks for itself.

Law 27D doesn't say that the info from the insufficient bid is unauthorized. If your argument has always been that Law 27D needs to be applied, I think there is more consensus than first appeared.

[PeterAlan]

 kevperk, on 2011-May-18, 19:33, said:

Law 27D doesn't say that the info from the insufficient bid is unauthorized. If your argument has always been that Law 27D needs to be applied, I think there is more consensus than first appeared.

I don't think Law 27D comes into this particular part of the debate: yes, it's there as a fallback to restore equity, but it says nothing about what's authorised information and what isn't.

The central point's a very simple one: Law 27B1(a) says do not apply Law 16D, and when you do that all you're left with regarding what's authorised is Laws 16A, 16B and 16C. 16B&C essentially deal with other special cases, so we're left with 16A which says (omitting extraneous stuff):

Law 16A said:

A. Players’ Use of Information
1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:
[a] it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or
[b] it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or
[c] it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following);

...

3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous)

...

I then simply said that there is clearly nothing in Law 16A1 that makes the withdrawn bid AI (with the possible exception of an extremely stretched interpretation of "arising from the legal procedures" which is surely there for different forms of information and / or entirely different purposes), since

• it is not a legal call
  
• it is not an illegal call that has been accepted, and
  
• it can not come under (b) authorised information from a withdrawn action, since that is only created by the disapplied D

The problem is that there is a general acceptance that this was not what was intended, but instead of admitting that the Laws do not say what's wanted we're treated to endless assertions that "Law 27 says that UI does not apply to an insufficient bid" when it patently does not. It says "Law 16D does not apply", and the only way bluejak et al can justify that assertion is by interpreting, as they appear to, "Law 16D does not apply" not as "Law 16D does not apply" but instead as "Law 16D1 continues to apply, and the converse of the first sentence of Law 16D2 applies too". This is Humpty Dumpty interpretation (the Laws mean just what I choose them to mean - neither more nor less) and, as Jeffrey first pointed out, potentially involves all sorts of logical fallacies and / or unintended consequences too.

Now it may well be that I've made a mistake, and missed something. But no-one's attempted to engage with what I've said or to point out any flaw in the argument above: instead, there are only unreasoned assertions to the contrary. That just sounds like "black is white because I say so", which is frankly very irritating.

That's all there is to it.

[kevperk]

 PeterAlan, on 2011-May-19, 04:47, said:

I don't think Law 27D comes into this particular part of the debate: yes, it's there as a fallback to restore equity, but it says nothing about what's authorised information and what isn't.

The central point's a very simple one: Law 27B1(a) says do not apply Law 16D, and when you do that all you're left with regarding what's authorised is Laws 16A, 16B and 16C. 16B&C essentially deal with other special cases, so we're left with 16A which says (omitting extraneous stuff):


I then simply said that there is clearly nothing in Law 16A1 that makes the withdrawn bid AI (with the possible exception of an extremely stretched interpretation of "arising from the legal procedures" which is surely there for different forms of information and / or entirely different purposes), since

• it is not a legal call
  
• it is not an illegal call that has been accepted, and
  
• it can not come under (b) authorised information from a withdrawn action, since that is only created by the disapplied D

The problem is that there is a general acceptance that this was not what was intended, but instead of admitting that the Laws do not say what's wanted we're treated to endless assertions that "Law 27 says that UI does not apply to an insufficient bid" when it patently does not. It says "Law 16D does not apply", and the only way bluejak et al can justify that assertion is by interpreting, as they appear to, "Law 16D does not apply" not as "Law 16D does not apply" but instead as "Law 16D1 continues to apply, and the converse of the first sentence of Law 16D2 applies too". This is Humpty Dumpty interpretation (the Laws mean just what I choose them to mean - neither more nor less) and, as Jeffrey first pointed out, potentially involves all sorts of logical fallacies and / or unintended consequences too.

Now it may well be that I've made a mistake, and missed something. But no-one's attempted to engage with what I've said or to point out any flaw in the argument above: instead, there are only unreasoned assertions to the contrary. That just sounds like "black is white because I say so", which is frankly very irritating.

That's all there is to it.

Once again, then why is the phrase "Law 16D does not apply"? If we strike it from the law book, how does that change the way you think these laws should be applied? It seems to me that it doesn't, so it can't mean what you think it to mean. Law 16A1© "it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these Law and in regulations" seems to cover it.

[blackshoe]

 kevperk, on 2011-May-19, 11:22, said:

Law 16A1© "it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these Law and in regulations" seems to cover it.

In what way does it cover it?

[kevperk]

 blackshoe, on 2011-May-19, 13:00, said:

In what way does it cover it?

The lawmakers making it a point of Law 16D not applying.

[blackshoe]

Let me rephrase: what does 16A1c say about whether information gleaned from an IB is authorized?

[PeterAlan]

 kevperk, on 2011-May-19, 11:22, said:

Once again, then why is the phrase "Law 16D does not apply"? If we strike it from the law book, how does that change the way you think these laws should be applied? It seems to me that it doesn't, so it can't mean what you think it to mean.

Law 16D is part of the general Law (16) on what is AI / UI and what is not. It deals with what normally applies when there has been a withdrawn bid or play for whatever reason.

Law 27B1(a) then limits (slightly) Law 16D's application by saying that in the specific case of an insufficient bid that is replaced by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination [etc] then the provisions of Law 16D do not apply. This is an exception to the general case. I don't understand the problem that you have with this.

 kevperk, on 2011-May-19, 11:22, said:

Law 16A1© "it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these Law and in regulations" seems to cover it.

I consider that this is a catch-all provision intended to cover all kinds of other miscellaneous information that might be made available in all kinds of circumstances too numerous and varied to try to list (I'm sure you can think of all the types of actions and events that might take place at the table, when a TD is called, in the course of the TD sorting out a problem, and a whole host of other eventualities). I don't suppose that it was intended to cover bids (which are explicitly dealt with elsewhere), and anyway in the context of this Law I would question whether information about the insufficient bid should be regarded as "arising" from a legal procedure.

[kevperk]

 PeterAlan, on 2011-May-19, 17:06, said:

Law 16D is part of the general Law (16) on what is AI / UI and what is not. It deals with what normally applies when there has been a withdrawn bid or play for whatever reason.

Law 27B1(a) then limits (slightly) Law 16D's application by saying that in the specific case of an insufficient bid that is replaced by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination [etc] then the provisions of Law 16D do not apply. This is an exception to the general case. I don't understand the problem that you have with this.


I consider that this is a catch-all provision intended to cover all kinds of other miscellaneous information that might be made available in all kinds of circumstances too numerous and varied to try to list (I'm sure you can think of all the types of actions and events that might take place at the table, when a TD is called, in the course of the TD sorting out a problem, and a whole host of other eventualities). I don't suppose that it was intended to cover bids (which are explicitly dealt with elsewhere), and anyway in the context of this Law I would question whether information about the insufficient bid should be regarded as "arising" from a legal procedure.

I don't have a problem with it.?!? What makes you think I do? You didn't answer my question, if it was stricken, how one rule different, if we rule the way you suggest?

I consider what I posted to cover this situation too.

[aguahombre]

 kevperk, on 2011-May-19, 19:55, said:

I don't have a problem with it.?!? What makes you think I do? You didn't answer my question, if it was sticken, how one rule different, if we rule the way you suggest?

I consider what I posted to cover this situation too.

I live in a neigboring state. Could someone translate?

[kevperk]

I don't think either sides are going to convince the other. I would like someone to tell me why the laws even mention that Law 16D doesn't apply in this situation. If the insufficient bid is still unauthorized, then we should all take a marker and remove this line in the laws, as it has no real application. It seems that the other side wants the info to be unauthorized, so are interpreting the law so this is the case.

[kevperk]

 blackshoe, on 2011-May-19, 15:54, said:

Let me rephrase: what does 16A1c say about whether information gleaned from an IB is authorized?

Law 16D makes insufficient bids unauthorized. Law 27D says 16D doesn't apply. To me, that satisfies law 16A1c. I understand that others don't see it that way.

Other can rule as though the laws don't say that law 16D doesn't apply, but I read it there and think it has to have some weight in ruling.

I will even now admit that I am not sure I even like that the info is authorized, but it is the law (to me, at least)

Kevin

[blackshoe]

Let me try again. 16A1{c} says that a player may use information if it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized. Absent Law 16D, there is no law I can think of which specifies that information from a withdrawn insufficient bid is authorized. 16A1{c} also says that a player may use information if it arises from the legal procedures authorized in law and regulation. But the information from the withdrawn IB did not arise from legal procedures, it arose from the IB itself. So I do not see how 16A1{c} says that information from a withdrawn IB is authorized.

[jhenrikj]

 blackshoe, on 2011-May-19, 22:45, said:

Let me try again. 16A1{c} says that a player may use information if it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized. Absent Law 16D, there is no law I can think of which specifies that information from a withdrawn insufficient bid is authorized. 16A1{c} also says that a player may use information if it arises from the legal procedures authorized in law and regulation. But the information from the withdrawn IB did not arise from legal procedures, it arose from the IB itself. So I do not see how 16A1{c} says that information from a withdrawn IB is authorized.

If you are saying that the information is UI, then you are applying 16D (there is no other law that says that information from the IB is UI). You are not allowed to do that. The only possible outcome is to say that the information from the IB is AI.