[WellSpyder]

 PeterAlan, on 2011-May-21, 11:41, said:

Of course it shows a biddable ♥ suit. But if you have the same information from a UI source then you can't use it - 16B kicks in. That's the "UI trumps AI" point.

I don't think it helps to confuse the issue with this view of UI (which is misleading anyway).

But I find your interpretation of the other laws that have been discussed very convincing. To me what you are saying is simply:

1) the IB is not UI since 16D doesn't apply
2) however, it is EI (extraneous information) so can't be used in determining bids, etc.

Of course, the effect of EI may be pretty close to that of UI for practical purposes, but so be it - that is what a lot of people feel is appropriate anyway.

[kevperk]

 WellSpyder, on 2011-May-24, 10:51, said:

I don't think it helps to confuse the issue with this view of UI (which is misleading anyway).

But I find your interpretation of the other laws that have been discussed very convincing. To me what you are saying is simply:

1) the IB is not UI since 16D doesn't apply
2) however, it is EI (extraneous information) so can't be used in determining bids, etc.

Of course, the effect of EI may be pretty close to that of UI for practical purposes, but so be it - that is what a lot of people feel is appropriate anyway.

The title of Law 16 is titled Authorized and Unauthorized Information, not Authorized, Unauthorized, and Extraneous Information. Seems to me EI must either be UI or AI. Or did the lawmakers mistitle this law? The laws do give times when EI is AI, and times when EI is UI. If it was separate, wouldn't the laws more clearly define it as such?

[jhenrikj]

 WellSpyder, on 2011-May-24, 10:51, said:

2) however, it is EI (extraneous information) so can't be used in determining bids, etc.

This will end up in very strange situations..1♦ - (1♠) - 1♥ corrected to 2♥, now no one, not the NOS, not the OS have the right to use the information that the IB hand has hearts since they received that information from EI....

[blackshoe]

The headings in the law book have no legal standing.

[PeterAlan]

 WellSpyder, on 2011-May-24, 10:51, said:

But I find your interpretation of the other laws that have been discussed very convincing. To me what you are saying is simply:

1) the IB is not UI since 16D doesn't apply
2) however, it is EI (extraneous information) so can't be used in determining bids, etc.

Of course, the effect of EI may be pretty close to that of UI for practical purposes, but so be it - that is what a lot of people feel is appropriate anyway.

That's it in a nutshell.

 WellSpyder, on 2011-May-24, 10:51, said:

I don't think it helps to confuse the issue with this view of UI (which is misleading anyway).

I'm not at all clear about the position, and I'd be grateful for any clarification. My concern is that if the 1♥ overcall is UI then all sorts of natural continuations from the 2♥ correction could be ruled out by the wide scope of 16B. My understanding is that information being AI from the 2♥ bid is of no help if it's also UI.

[kevperk]

 blackshoe, on 2011-May-24, 14:15, said:

The headings in the law book have no legal standing.

That is why I asked if they mistitled it, not say that they did.

[shintaro]

And I thought this heading was 'Simple Rulings'

If the book says 16D is not to be used We use 27

We just apply the book surely NO ARGUMENT

[jallerton]

 shintaro, on 2011-May-27, 12:47, said:

And I thought this heading was 'Simple Rulings'

If the book says 16D is not to be used We use 27

We just apply the book surely NO ARGUMENT

That's the problem. When we apply the book, we don't get the answer most people expect. Maybe we also do not get the answer intended by the lawmakers, but that doesn't really matter: we are obliged to follow what the Laws as written tell us to do.

[shintaro]

 jallerton, on 2011-May-28, 03:09, said:

That's the problem. When we apply the book, we don't get the answer most people expect. Maybe we also do not get the answer intended by the lawmakers, but that doesn't really matter: we are obliged to follow what the Laws as written tell us to do.

But that is my point exactly jeffery we just use the Law book If it is conceived to be an ass then so be it BUT we as TD's cannot bend it we just apply it

[jillybean]

Playing at the club today we had the third instance of (1♠) 2♦ (1N) oops 2N , benifiting the opps.

What does it take to fix this loophole in the laws?

[bluejak]

What loophole?

[jillybean]

 bluejak, on 2011-July-13, 07:47, said:

What loophole?

The partner of the player who made the IB is allowed to use the information that his partner
had a 1N response, not a 2N response.

[blackshoe]

Hm. Were this pair playing Forcing NT?

[jillybean]

 blackshoe, on 2011-July-13, 08:38, said:

Hm. Were this pair playing Forcing NT?

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

A 1n response to 1x (overcall) is very different to a 2n response.

[mycroft]

Did they get to a contract they couldn't have got to without the IB? If so, was it ruled against? If not, what was the problem?

Seriously, though, what is a better rule? Remember, that in exchange for being allowed to know it's a 1NT call (over something), the only non-forced pass call they can make is 2NT.

But now that I look at it, I have Ed's question. Were they playing Forcing NT? Because if they were, it is "not incontrovertably not artificial" (what else could it be? 1S-X-1NT, I guess, but likely 1S-p-1NT,) and now opener should be required to pass throughout no matter what call is taken.

[jillybean]

 mycroft, on 2011-July-13, 09:30, said:

Did they get to a contract they couldn't have got to without the IB? If so, was it ruled against? If not, what was the problem?

Seriously, though, what is a better rule? Remember, that in exchange for being allowed to know it's a 1NT call (over something), the only non-forced pass call they can make is 2NT.

But now that I look at it, I have Ed's question. Were they playing Forcing NT? Because if they were, it is "not incontrovertably not artificial" (what else could it be? 1S-X-1NT, I guess, but likely 1S-p-1NT,) and now opener should be required to pass throughout no matter what call is taken.

I think the problem falls outside the realm of some club directors, the bid is simply made sufficient and that is the end of the problem, the rub of the green. I understand that partner should be barred from the auction if they are playing forcing 1N however I think that benefits the OS as it is the only way to stop in 2N.

I will catch up with this later. I'm off to the club with a new, heightened awreness of insufficient 1N bids.

[gordontd]

 mycroft, on 2011-July-13, 09:30, said:

But now that I look at it, I have Ed's question. Were they playing Forcing NT? Because if they were, it is "not incontrovertably not artificial" (what else could it be? 1S-X-1NT, I guess, but likely 1S-p-1NT,) and now opener should be required to pass throughout no matter what call is taken.

Not necessarily. What would 1S-(2D)-2NT show? 11-12 balanced with a diamond stop? And how would you show 11-12 balanced with a diamond stop in an uncontested auction? By way of a forcing NT. So I think it would be likely to be allowed under L27B1b, especially under the recent more liberal interpretation.

[aguahombre]

 gordontd, on 2011-July-13, 10:32, said:

Not necessarily. What would 1S-(2D)-2NT show? 11-12 balanced with a diamond stop? And how would you show 11-12 balanced with a diamond stop in an uncontested auction? By way of a forcing NT. So I think it would be likely to be allowed under L27B1b, especially under the recent more liberal interpretation.

Where it would get complicated would be that, although the IB corrected is AI to opener --as previously discussed ad nauseum -- can he pass 2NT with a decent 14 count?

On one hand, he knows 1N followed by 2NT is an invite. On the other hand, he knows that might not have been his partner's intent. If he guesses right with extra AI, is that just the cut of the green?

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2011-July-13, 09:30, said:

Seriously, though, what is a better rule?

The best rule, of course, is that after an IB that is not accepted, offender's partner is silenced. But that is too comprehensible and intuitively fair to be in the Lawbook...

but making the IB UI to the OS is a start.

[blackshoe]

 jillybean, on 2011-July-13, 09:09, said:

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

A 1n response to 1x (overcall) is very different to a 2n response.

If, in the uncontested auction 1♠-(P)-1NT, responder's bid was "Forcing NT", then a Law 27B1{a} correction is not permitted, because 1NT is not "incontrovertibly not conventional". Probably a 27B1{b} correction is not permitted either. I was just trying to figure out the basis for the TD's ruling.

Edit: just saw Gordon's post about 2NT being allowed under 27B1{b}. Maybe. I'd have to think about it.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2011-July-13, 13:58