[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-17, 14:22, said:

It took me three readings and some thought to figure out what you were getting at with your "simple" test, Sven.

Right,
and it took an alert from me while we translated the new laws (and probably the same also from others) to warn WBFLC that the first issue of L27 seemed meaningless, resulting in a complete rewrite of this law after its first version had been in force for a month or two.

The intention with L27 is very simple, but writing it down in easy to read legal terms is certainly not simple.

[alphatango]

bluejak, on 2011-June-17, 07:59, said:

The recommended method is to ask what he meant by the insufficient bid. (snip)

FWIW, my (current and very shaky) viewpoint is that so long as offender has not restricted the possible intended meanings by some extraneous remark or gesture, he may choose a call whose meaning is fully contained within that set. In my example above, the player would be allowed to replace 2H with 4H. (Had he said something at the table like, "Oops, thought you bid 1H", or similar, that would restrict the set of possible intended meanings and thus restrict the allowable 27B1b replacements.)

So, I suppose, that means one should offer the following: "When we return to the table, (LHO) will have the opportunity to accept your insufficient bid. If not, you can replace it with (27B1a) without penalty. If not, you may choose to replace it with a call with a meaning at least as precise as the insufficient bid, and there will be no penalty. If you want to do that, you must tell me now so I can rule on whether or not your proposed call meets the criteria. Otherwise, you may choose any call and partner will be barred." Which, of course, is too complicated for club level, but it might be a sensible way to proceed with more experienced competition.

I'm not sure I can find solid textual support in laws for this viewpoint, although I do think the parenthetical clause of 27B1b points that way. That is, I read

"(such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid)"

as

"(such meaning being fully contained within the possible intended meanings of the insufficient bid)".


(Postscript: I know the issue of what knowledge LHO is entitled to before he chooses to accept/reject has come up before, but I don't remember if there was consensus. IIRC, there seemed to be support for the view that LHO is entitled to know which calls will be allowed under 27B1b (and 27B1a, if applicable) -- and presumably the meanings of those calls.)

[pran]

alphatango, on 2011-June-18, 10:55, said:

[...]
I'm not sure I can find solid textual support in laws for this viewpoint, although I do think the parenthetical clause of 27B1b points that way. That is, I read

"(such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid)"

as

"(such meaning being fully contained within the possible intended meanings of the insufficient bid)".
[...]

Fair enough.

The "easy" rule is that partner must not have any reason from hearing (or seeing) the replacement call only, to be prepared for a hand that would not also be contained within the agreements for the insufficient bid had the situation been such that this bid had been legal. (It doesn't matter at all if the insufficient bid "contains" hands that are not "contained" within the replacement call)

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-June-16, 17:58, said:

There may be, sure: but if the player makes no effort to change it, Law 25A does not apply.

Yes, I am just pointing out for people who may not know that there will be a delay if the director is called, and that attempting to change the call may consist of asking the director if he (the player) has any options.

[barmar]

As I understand it, the purpose of the law as written is to try to get an auction that's as close as possible to the auction we'd have had without the IB mistake. That's why it's appropriate to ask the IB'er what he intended, and allow him to replace it with a valid bid that shows the same thing or more specific.

[bluejak]

alphatango, on 2011-June-18, 10:55, said:

Postscript: I know the issue of what knowledge LHO is entitled to before he chooses to accept/reject has come up before, but I don't remember if there was consensus. IIRC, there seemed to be support for the view that LHO is entitled to know which calls will be allowed under 27B1b (and 27B1a, if applicable) -- and presumably the meanings of those calls.)

There was no consensus when I asked four leading members of the WBFLC at San Remo, so I think we can safely say there is no consensus.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-June-19, 07:10, said:

Quote

Postscript: I know the issue of what knowledge LHO is entitled to before he chooses to accept/reject has come up before, but I don't remember if there was consensus. IIRC, there seemed to be support for the view that LHO is entitled to know which calls will be allowed under 27B1b (and 27B1a, if applicable) -- and presumably the meanings of those calls.)

There was no consensus when I asked four leading members of the WBFLC at San Remo, so I think we can safely say there is no consensus.

Surprising.
Honestly I would expect that after a correction of an insufficient bid has been granted under Law 27B1 (partner not forced to pass for the rest of the auction), by inference from the law both the insufficient bid and the replacing call must have meanings according to agreement or partnership understandings.

I don't understand how Law 20F1 can be read in any other way than that opponents are entitled to full explanations on both the insufficient bid and the replacement call.

If such correction is denied so that offender's partner is forced to pass during the rest of the auction the reason can be that no meaning could be assigned to the insufficient bid; then there is no explanation of this bid available. However, in this situation opponents still have their right to request explanation about relevant alternative calls available that were not made

[bluejak]

Your comment suggests you have misunderstood mine. Of course they have a right to know meanings - Bavin said so, no-one I know has disagreed. But that does not mean they have a right to know which meanings the TD will rule are under Law 27B1B [or even 27B1A] before they decide to accept/reject the insufficient bid. Ok, some of the four did think they had a right to know, but not all four. When the player has decided which bid to make if the insufficient bid was not accepted, again it may/may not be told to opponents whether he had alternatives under Law 27B1A/B.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2011-June-19, 08:29, said:

Surprising.
Honestly I would expect that after a correction of an insufficient bid has been granted under Law 27B1 (partner not forced to pass for the rest of the auction), by inference from the law both the insufficient bid and the replacing call must have meanings according to agreement or partnership understandings.

If the insufficient bid had no meaning, then any replacement bid would have a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-June-19, 11:43, said:

Your comment suggests you have misunderstood mine. Of course they have a right to know meanings - Bavin said so, no-one I know has disagreed. But that does not mean they have a right to know which meanings the TD will rule are under Law 27B1B [or even 27B1A] before they decide to accept/reject the insufficient bid. Ok, some of the four did think they had a right to know, but not all four. When the player has decided which bid to make if the insufficient bid was not accepted, again it may/may not be told to opponents whether he had alternatives under Law 27B1A/B.

Yes, then I misunderstood.

But I still am of the opinion that the opponent who has the choice whether or not to accept the IB is entitled to know what understanding will be applied on this bid for a possible Law 27B1 ruling before he decides if he will accept the IB.

It is his turn to call once the IB has been made unless the offender is granted a Law 25A1 correction.

[bluejak]

Fine. That is your view. But it is not the view of some very eminent members of the WBFLC.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2011-June-19, 13:34, said:

If the insufficient bid had no meaning, then any replacement bid would have a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid.

"More precise" requires that the insufficient bid, in a situation where it had been legal, would have been used for any and every hand with which the replacement call can be used.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2011-June-19, 23:32, said:

"More precise" requires that the insufficient bid, in a situation where it had been legal, would have been used for any and every hand with which the replacement call can be used.

The wording used in the original EBL & EBU advice was:

“Would all hands which might make the new call (the replacement bid) have also made the old call (the insufficient bid)?”

In the situation where the insufficient bid has no meaning at all (because, for example, the player is thinking of another hand altogether and simply pulls out a bidding card without thought), then any hand which might make the new call might also have made the old call - which adds no information to the auction.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2011-June-20, 00:59, said:

The wording used in the original EBL & EBU advice was:

“Would all hands which might make the new call (the replacement bid) have also made the old call (the insufficient bid)?”

In the situation where the insufficient bid has no meaning at all (because, for example, the player is thinking of another hand altogether and simply pulls out a bidding card without thought), then any hand which might make the new call might also have made the old call - which adds no information to the auction.

There is a significant difference between the words "might" and "would".

The advice says "might make the new call" and "would [...] have also made the old call".

[gordontd]

pran, on 2011-June-20, 01:48, said:

There is a significant difference between the words "might" and "would".

The advice says "might make the new call" and "would [...] have also made the old call".

The point is whether there is any more information contained in the Replacement Bid + Insufficient Bid than in the Replacement Bid without the Insufficient Bid.

[bluejak]

I was wandering along, half-reading this thread, which seemed correct when suddenly .....

If the bidding goes 2♣ {2♠} 2♦ and responder had not noticed the 2♠ bid, and a 2♦ response to 2♣ is mandatory [as I have played] then any replacement call is acceptable under Law 27B1B. No problem.

But suppose the bidding went 2♣ {2♠} 2♥ with the same agreements [and when he has not seen the 2♠ bid]? Now 2♥ has no meaning but are you sure Law 27B1B applies? No replacement call exists that would have bid 2♥ in the first place, surely?

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2011-June-22, 07:11, said:

But suppose the bidding went 2♣ {2♠} 2♥ with the same agreements [and when he has not seen the 2♠ bid]? Now 2♥ has no meaning but are you sure Law 27B1B applies? No replacement call exists that would have bid 2♥ in the first place, surely?

It certainly seems to satisfy the requirements of the Law itself: a call with a meaning has a more precise meaning than a call with no meaning.

But I would want to investigate a bit further as to why responder chose to make this meaningless bid, and check that it really did have no meaning at all.

[barmar]

This is why you have to find out what the IBer thought was going on.

If he thought the auction was 1♣ (1♠) 2♥, it's presumably natural, with strength that depends on whether they play negative free bids. If their 2♣ agreement doesn't have a bid that shows such a hand then there is no call that satisfies 27B1B. For example, a common agreement is that pass is the only strength-showing bid when they interfere over your strong 2♣; double is a weak takeout and suits are natural and very weak. In this case, whatever he does will bar partner: Pass shows the strength, but isn't specific about a suit, and suit bids show the suit but imply different strength.

[bluejak]

gordontd, on 2011-June-22, 07:30, said:

It certainly seems to satisfy the requirements of the Law itself: a call with a meaning has a more precise meaning than a call with no meaning.

But I would want to investigate a bit further as to why responder chose to make this meaningless bid, and check that it really did have no meaning at all.

Are you sure? We generally say that a call is allowed if any hand that would make the call would also make the original call. If the original call has no meaning then this is certainly not the case.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2011-June-22, 17:21, said:

Are you sure? We generally say that a call is allowed if any hand that would make the call would also make the original call.

We do generally say that, and it's a helpful aid in most circumstances. But it's not what the Law itself says, and in this unusual circumstance (where people make calls with no meaning at all) I think we need to go back to the original text.