[nige1]

IMO...

nige1, on 2014-October-01, 20:34, said:

it would be simpler and fairer if the illegal call were cancelled and the offender's partner silenced for the remainder of that auction

helene_t, on 2014-October-02, 03:10, said:

Simpler but not fairer IMO. If the conditions for 27B1(b) are met, the IB does not give any UI to partner. The only (slight) problem is that everyone has EI from the next player's decision not to accept the IB. If it is possible to get the board back on the trails and get a real bridge result from a normal auction, it is much preferable.

Vampyr, on 2014-October-01, 20:55, said:

It totally would be, and it might be best, but I would be content with a limited application df 27B1(a). Perhaps this could be achieved, if, say, and NBO produced guidance to the effect that the conditions of 27B1(b)can virtually never be met, so that the Law can be ignored. It would not surprise me if this was already the case in numerous clubs. After all "in the Director's opinion" offers a lot of leeway, and any director can truly claim not to know enough about the OS system or style to be sure that the conditions are met. Although, Nigel, you can't disallow LHO to accept the bid. A case can certainly be made for this, but then you would have to penalise a dozy opponent who acted over the bid. I don't think that the NOS should be in danger of incurring a penalty.

gordontd, on 2014-October-02, 03:25, said:

On the contrary, the WBFLC issued guidance some years ago that they favour a liberal interpretation of 27B1(b).I think we'll have to wait to see what they come up with for the next set of laws, although I doubt they will choose to reduce the application of this aspect.

Rulings involving illegal calls generate fascinating controversy. Few directors agree on the interpretation of relevant rules, especially in the case of insufficient bids. Some aspects of the rules seem daft, e.g. after a corrected IB, it seems that inferences from the original bid are AI to offender's partner.

Among the worst aspects of the rules regarding illegal calls and "unintended" actions is that they provide strange new options for players.

TFLB, L40.B.3. said:

The regulating authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity.

Amazingly, the default is to allow such agreements, even after a question, and even by the offending side. You may wonder if law-makers read what they write. Where on your system-card, are you meant to disclose such agreements? In the case of IBs and BOOTs, however, even if the regulating authority decides to officially ban such agreements, problems remain e.g.

Partner opens 4♠, RHO bids 4♥. After the director explains your options, you accept the IB and double. If 4♥ had been sufficient, your agreement is that double would be for take-out. Arguably in this context, however, by "Bridge Logic", double is for penalty. So you argue that is not a "prior agreement". But what if you discuss this kind of thing or it happens more than once, with the same partner? Is it now an implicit agreement?

Far simpler to confine partnership communication to normal calls and plays. e.g. Disallow options over infractions. Don't allow a player to correct a mechanical error. Cancel illegal calls and silence the offender's partner for the rest of the auction. Many players and directors would be able to understand and implement such rules.

A controversial consequence of such rules is that a player would not be allowed to "condone" RHO's illegal call with a subsequent call. That would be another infraction -- choosing an illegal option.

What about frail and handicapped opponents, prone to mechanical and other errors? Where bridge players are ladies and gentlemen, that wasn't a problem in the past and wouldn't become one now. Simply ask the director to exercise his option to waive rectification.

[pran]

nige1, on 2014-October-02, 09:04, said:

[...]
Partner opens 4♠, RHO bids 4♥. After the director explains your options, you accept the IB and double. If 4♥ had been sufficient, your agreement is that double would be for take-out. Arguably in this context, however, by "Bridge Logic", double is for penalty. So you argue that is not a "prior agreement". But what if you discuss this kind of thing or it happens more than once, with the same partner? Is it now an implicit agreement?
[...]

I have never understood why NOS should be barred from utilizing the extra bidding space given to them with an insufficient bid.

And note also that the laws as written forbid a partnership from varying their agreements/understandings because of their opponents' answers to questions. The consequence is that when opponents tell you that their preemptive bid is solid you are not permitted to have an agreement varying your double from penalty (which you normally use) to takeout.

The laws very unfortunately do not distinguish between information you and/or your partner receive strictly from opponents answers to your questions and information you or your partner receive from your opponents questions and your own questions or answers.

[nige1]

pran, on 2014-October-02, 09:29, said:

And note also that the laws as written forbid a partnership from varying their agreements/understandings because of their opponents' answers to questions. The consequence is that when opponents tell you that their preemptive bid is solid you are not permitted to have an agreement varying your double from penalty (which you normally use) to takeout.

If you've previously agreed to double "solid" pre-empts for take-out but others for penalty, IMO, you can keep that agreement even if it takes a question to determine opponents' relevant agreement. Furthermore, when unsure, you are morally obliged to ask, rather than make an assumption, before you double.

[barmar]

pran, on 2014-October-02, 09:29, said:

I have never understood why NOS should be barred from utilizing the extra bidding space given to them with an insufficient bid.

And note also that the laws as written forbid a partnership from varying their agreements/understandings because of their opponents' answers to questions. The consequence is that when opponents tell you that their preemptive bid is solid you are not permitted to have an agreement varying your double from penalty (which you normally use) to takeout.

The laws very unfortunately do not distinguish between information you and/or your partner receive strictly from opponents answers to your questions and information you or your partner receive from your opponents questions and your own questions or answers.

The Laws DO allow you to vary your agreements depending on the opponents' agreements, don't they? Are you suggesting that if the RA prohibits varying your methods based on answers to questions would prohibit you from doing this if you find out the opponents' agreement by asking a question? That surely couldn't have been intended, and only SB would try to interpret it that way.

Clearly, the intent of the clause about prohibiting variations based on questions and answers is intended to prohibit something like the following: If we ask and then double, it's takeout; if we don't ask and then double, it's penalty.

[pran]

barmar, on 2014-October-02, 13:16, said:

The Laws DO allow you to vary your agreements depending on the opponents' agreements, don't they? Are you suggesting that if the RA prohibits varying your methods based on answers to questions would prohibit you from doing this if you find out the opponents' agreement by asking a question? That surely couldn't have been intended, and only SB would try to interpret it that way.

Law 40 B 3 said:

The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response given by own side to a question, or any irregularity committed by own side.

I have added in red what I think should have been included in this Law.

barmar, on 2014-October-02, 13:16, said:

Clearly, the intent of the clause about prohibiting variations based on questions and answers is intended to prohibit something like the following: If we ask and then double, it's takeout; if we don't ask and then double, it's penalty.

That is still taken care of with my proposed change. But this Law (as currently written) prohibits adaption to our system following a surprising response given by opponents, and also the possibility to utilize for instance the extra bidding space made available by accepting opponent's insufficient bid.

Some thirty years ago I had a situation in the Norwegian Masters League: A 4NT bid was followed by 4♦ from LHO. When I explained the available options the next player in turn happily accepted the IB, he and his partner were both top players fully capable of deploying the extra 5 calls made available to them trusting partner to understand the added options. Of course they had no previous agreement for such situations, but should they really have been deprieved the possibility to take advantage of opponents' irregularity? (You could say that they had backgrounds giving them some implied partnership understandings for such abnormal situations)