[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-07, 21:17, said:

I don't propose anything at the moment. I don't know what would be best. I'm not even sure what would work.

Me neither

[alphatango]

bluejak, on 2011-July-07, 13:56, said:

In view of the lack of agreement even amongst WBFLC members, I am not sure the EBU has certain guidance on this matter. It has been discussed here, of course, and it might be worth finding the thread, especially the views of senior EBU TDs, eg Gordon, Mike, Robin.

Is this the thread to which you refer, bluejak? Or is there another one out there for which I should be searching?

[jallerton]

RMB1, on 2011-July-07, 16:06, said:

The EBU's approach to Law 27 as codified at the Panel TD weekend last autumn is:

• Take the offender and way from the table, and discover the intended meaning of the insufficient bid (or whether this is in fact a Law 25 case).
  
• Return to table and give LHO his options.
  • Do not tell LHO if Law 27B1a applies or which (if any) calls would be permitted by Law 27B1b.
    
  • But LHO is allowed to ask questions about their agreements.
  
  
• If the insufficient bid is not accepted, offer to discuss the possible calls with offender away from table.
  
• Once offender has made his replacement call, apply law 27B and follow up as necessary (including Law 27D).

See my updated spiel for law 27.

I know you do not like this Law at all, Robin, but thanks for summarising this guidance.

My advice to the LHO of the IBer is as follows:

Ask the IBer's partner to explain the meaning of the IB.

Case 1.: He gives an explanation of the meaning. I now ask the IBer's partner the meaning of pertinent sufficient bids in this auction and conclude which sufficent bids have the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid. I use this information when deciding to accept the IB. There are now two possibilties:
(a) LHO's explanation of the meaning accords with the intended meaning the IB'er (or at least what the IB'er told the TD the intended meaning was). No problem: I have been told what I needed to know.
[b] LHO's explanation of the meaning does not accord with the intended meaning the IB'er (or at least what the IB'er told the TD the intended meaning was). If, unexpectedly to me, a 27B1b replacement call is allowed, and I feel damaged as a result, I call the TD back at the end of the hand and ask for an adjusted score, citing the misinformation Laws.

Case 2: He explains that the IB does not have a meaning consistent with any hands at all. As all plausible replacement sufficient bids do mean something, I observe that none of these plausible replacement sufficient bids has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid and that therefore none of these bids can be substituted under Law 27B1b.

[* the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ]

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on 2011-July-08, 10:39, said:

what the IB'er told the TD the intended meaning was

How would LHO possibly gain access to this information?

[jallerton]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-08, 10:42, said:

How would LHO possibly gain access to this information?

The IBer's LHO would only be damaged if (i) he believed when he chose not to accept the IB that a correction to call Z would silence the IBer's partner find out and (ii) a correction to call Z did not transpire to silence the IBer's partner after all.

In this case the IBer's LHO would find out soon enough because after the correction to call Z the TD would explain to the table that the auction should continue with the IBer's partner being able to make any call he liked.

[bluejak]

alphatango, on 2011-July-08, 09:12, said:

Is this the thread to which you refer, bluejak? Or is there another one out there for which I should be searching?

I just knew we had discussed it. In how many threads I do not know.