[barmar]

I didn't mean to mock anyone, either.

27D refers to "assistance gained through the infraction". I'm not sure how replacing the insufficient bid with an overbid provides assistance to the OS. There may be assistance from advancer's knowledge that the 3♦ bid may be an overbid. But if the lawgivers didn't want him to be able to use that, why did they explicitly say that 16D doesn't apply? It makes no sense that this should be what 27D is talking about.

[mycroft]

The difference is between "must carefully avoid using the fact that partner has a different hand from the one he's shown" - going out of your way to treat it as the hand it would be, knowing that he's likely to have a hand that would have made a different, more descriptive call, if that hadn't silenced partner - and "contract could well have been different, and damage occurred" - basically, "they wouldn't have got to this contract without the IB" (note, not "without the information from the IB", or "under the restrictions of Law 73").

We can remove this loophole, which rarely if ever gets used(*), and make it a clear L16 case; if we do that, we almost have to remove the bidding restrictions on the IB player, or the severity of the rectifiction becomes insanely greater, immediately. If we remove the bidding restrictions, now suddenly instead of 1% of IBs causing a lookback with Law 27D, now about 30% of IB auctions will have to be looked at under Law 16. I bet we'd have a lot more "this isn't fair" resolutions after that (from both sides!)

(*) I mean in good games with knowledgable TDs. It rarely gets used in those other games, because the TDs tend not to remember Law 27D exists, and rule it with the restrictions *and Law 16*, or rule it with the restrictions, but without any safety net for the NOS at all. But we shouldn't be worrying about that, should we?

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure I see a "loophole" here. Law 27 explicitly says that 16D does not apply - there is no UI from the withdrawn IB. That's not a "loophole" to me. The law goes on to say that if the OS "gained assistance through the infraction" the score shall be adjusted. Whatever "gained assistance" means, it does not mean "used UI", because there isn't any.

Note: the law assumes the IBer doesn't make extraneous remarks ("I didn't see the 3♣ opening"). Such remarks may provide UI independently of the IB itself.

[c_corgi]

"... without assistance gained through the infraction..." is indeed a peculiar phrase. It doesn't say "... without assistance gained through the infraction coupled with a correcion as per 27B1..." The infraction is the insufficient bid rather than the correction. Since the only advantage to be gained through the infraction itself is the information that the offenders hand is more likely to resemble the insufficient bid than the correction, it is strange that this is not dealt with by the UI laws. It seems the intent is to reduce the impact on the offenders, so that they are less constrained than if 16D were in force. They are able to use what would have been UI if 16D were in force to avoid a silly disaster, but they are not allowed to use it to score a goal. So:

paua, on 2012-December-08, 14:26, said:

Or if Advancer has a balanced 10-11 and passed the 2NT overcall, +120.

This is a "goal", which the offending side would not have scored without assistance gained through the infraction. NOS recieve rectification.


As above, but advancer has only 8-9HCP: The offending side are permitted the auction (2S) 2NT (P) P when it leads to +120, even though they would not be if 16D were in force (advancer must raise). They have used assistance gained through the infraction, but have only to control the random consequences of the infraction. They have scored a "goal", but through 27B1 rather than the infraction. If they were only making 6 tricks in NT, conceding -100, they are permitted to use the infraction to avoid conceding -500 in 3NTX.


I am not sure I advocate the above approach, but I can't see how else the laws make sense. But like Agua and Barmar, I see no reason to punish the offending side for trying to avoid gaining assistance from the [infraction coupled with 27B1 procedure] by raising to 3NT on 8-9 knowing they were facing 12-14 and getting a lucky +600.

[iviehoff]

aguahombre, on 2012-December-08, 00:43, said:

In your alleged EBU teaching situation, a player via irregularity has shown 12-14 when he tried to open 1NT not noticing a 2-bid on his right. He makes the bid sufficient by showing what would normally be a very good 15 to 18 hand. His partner with 8-9 raises to game, even though he knows the points are not present for game and even though the current IB rules incorrectly allow him to take the IB into account.

It is not a violation of the rules to overbid and get lucky. It would have been within the rules for advancer to pass as well (until the powers fix the unfortunate loophole).

There is no legal basis to disallow the 3NT raise.

If UI laws were in operation at this point, it would be quite clear that 3NT was the ethical bid. But the UI laws are not in operation at this point, we have the rather different Law 27D. And Law 27D says we should adjust if the "outcome of the board could well have been different". Now 3N was ex ante a poor contract, but by luck it made. Was "the outcome of the board" the bad 3N contract they played in, or was it the good +400/600 score they luckily got from playing in that bad contract? I think it has to be the score. So I think that Mamos is right, even though it seems quite wrong when compared with the UI laws we are more familiar with.

[Zelandakh]

c_corgi, on 2012-December-10, 12:00, said:

Since the only advantage to be gained through the infraction itself is the information that the offenders hand is more likely to resemble the insufficient bid than the correction,

One of the main advantages that can be gained is by barring partner from bidding, thus allowing for a "free" psyche. I thought this tactic was the origin of this particular clause in the Laws.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-11, 04:37, said:

One of the main advantages that can be gained is by barring partner from bidding, thus allowing for a "free" psyche. I thought this tactic was the origin of this particular clause in the Laws.

Perhaps so. Does that mean that only that tactic is verboten?

[Zelandakh]

No, but then I am one of those who cannot see why this is a Law 16 exception. I think both a limited 27 and 16 should apply. That is, the withdrawn call is UI and you are also ruled against if you could have known at the time of making the IB that it might work to your advantage.

[blackshoe]

Well, that's not what the law says.

[mycroft]

You want the Law 16 UI restrictions *and* the Law 27 "restriction of calls that don't bar partner" restrictions? That seems - brutal. In the majority of L27B1 situations we get back to equity without the infraction with proper use; in the majority of those that aren't, the OS is damaged. The number of times the OS "gets away with it", given a competent TD that checks against L27D, is very small.

[RMB1]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-11, 04:37, said:

One of the main advantages that can be gained is by barring partner from bidding, thus allowing for a "free" psyche. I thought this tactic was the origin of this particular clause in the Laws.

If the advantage gained is by barring partner, then the relevant law is Law 27B2 which points to Law 23 (a "could have known" law). The "particular clause" (Law 27D) only applies to Law 27B1(a/b), not when the correction of the insufficient bid silences offenders partner.

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2012-December-11, 13:30, said:

You want the Law 16 UI restrictions *and* the Law 27 "restriction of calls that don't bar partner" restrictions? That seems - brutal. In the majority of L27B1 situations we get back to equity without the infraction with proper use; in the majority of those that aren't, the OS is damaged. The number of times the OS "gets away with it", given a competent TD that checks against L27D, is very small.

It has always confused me as to how people think allowing a sufficient raise (for instance) after an insufficient raise is getting back to equity.

1D (P) 1H (2s)
2H. Opener gets to bid 3H, and responder gets to know he doesn't have a 3H bid. Where is the equity? Opener did not have a way to show a hand with no extra strength but with heart support, but he has found a way. The interference screwed up their "equity", and it was legal. The OS is not entitled to equity via an IB

I would be content if the same rule applicable to conventional replacement bids applied to natural bids as well. The replacement bid should be within the same strength range as the IB (or more precise) and the combination of the two bids should not provide more information than the replacement bid itself.

In my example, if the OS can show they have a GB 2NT agreement which includes the possibility of heart support, then opener would be allowed to bid 2NT. If they didn't have that convention, or it only showed long diamonds, then they couldn't do it. Even if they did have GB, responder could not use the extra knowledge from the IB to bid more hearts if there is a spade raise next.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2012-December-11, 13:30, said:

You want the Law 16 UI restrictions *and* the Law 27 "restriction of calls that don't bar partner" restrictions? That seems - brutal.

Do you consider that a problem? The recent laws make bidding sufficiently optional, but many of us still think it is required.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2012-December-15, 22:52, said:

It has always confused me as to how people think allowing a sufficient raise (for instance) after an insufficient raise is getting back to equity.

1D (P) 1H (2s)
2H. Opener gets to bid 3H, and responder gets to know he doesn't have a 3H bid. Where is the equity? Opener did not have a way to show a hand with no extra strength but with heart support, but he has found a way. The interference screwed up their "equity", and it was legal. The OS is not entitled to equity via an IB

I would be content if the same rule applicable to conventional replacement bids applied to natural bids as well. The replacement bid should be within the same strength range as the IB (or more precise) and the combination of the two bids should not provide more information than the replacement bid itself.

In my example, if the OS can show they have a GB 2NT agreement which includes the possibility of heart support, then opener would be allowed to bid 2NT. If they didn't have that convention, or it only showed long diamonds, then they couldn't do it. Even if they did have GB, responder could not use the extra knowledge from the IB to bid more hearts if there is a spade raise next.

You are aware, I hope, of:

Law 27 D said:

If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred.

This should eliminate the problem in your example.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, I wonder if Ed or David has ever applied that. I have pointed out that we were damaged by the very existence of the IB and the "16D does not apply" clause on more than a few occasions and merely been told that is the way it is. Even on a thread here over a year ago, we were told the IB is AI and basically to get over it.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2012-December-16, 12:27, said:

Yeh, I wonder if Ed or David has ever applied that. I have pointed out that we were damaged by the very existence of the IB and the "16D does not apply" clause on more than a few occasions and merely been told that is the way it is. Even on a thread here over a year ago, we were told the IB is AI and basically to get over it.

They must of course answer for themselves, but we have in Norway been fully aware of what was Law 27a in 1975, Law 27B1b in 1987 and 1997, and is Law 27D since 2007.

[blackshoe]

For me, it has never come up. If it did, I would apply it. I do check 27D in 27B1 cases.

[mycroft]

I direct you to my footnote above :-)

Yes, I have ruled L27D; and I certainly have looked at whether the ruling would apply. More often, the players treat it as if Law 16 applied (despite my explanation), and get very confused when I tell them it doesn't, but.

I would worry about it usually when it's a hand like the original - where a "not-real-but-natural" minor opening becomes a "would normally be a real" minor overcall. If applied properly, the OS shouldn't be advantaged by the IB; just not necessarily disadvantaged.

Maybe that's too lenient. I don't know.

I do believe that even with the fact that club TDs don't know L27D, that changing the Law so that the IB is UI would cause a fair bit more bad club TD rulings - how many bad UI rulings (especially "okay, then A+/A-") do we get at the clubs? If we say "IB is UI *and* Law 27B2 applies", a non-trivial IB becomes a death sentence - might as well just gamble out 3NT and hope it's a good score. And then the NOS freaks out because "they would never have gotten there without the IB"; especially if they would have defended better in a normal auction where they'd have more information. I know that last for a fact, because that's what happens now.

[bluejak]

The current methods for IBs seem to be that in effect if you correct to a legal call that permits the auction to continue, the IB is AI, and the result stands unless you could not have reached the final contract without the IB.

If you think my simple statement of it is wrong, feel free to tell me why I am wrong.

If you think the law should be changed, please start a thread in the correct forum.