[pran]

PeterE, on Aug 23 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

I agree with David and I disagree with Sven.

Law 27B1 a+b only work "normal" with no UI from the offender how he came to the IB. Only in that case offender's partner is entitled to make a (correct) guess about offender's intention. And only in that case there is no recourse to Law 16D.

And furthermore: Law 16 is not a general law; it is an universal law. That means Law 16 is always applicable - as long, as it is not explicitely excluded.

The reference in Law 27 B1a regarding the non-applicability of Law 16 D is for the IB itself (and the information guessed from it). It does - of course - not mean further UI is also allowed to be used.

When we are dealing with insufficient bids then that is an irregularity that is completely handled by law 27.

If in connection with an insufficient bid a player makes some extraneous remarks then that is a separate irregularity which must be handled on its own. And for that irregularity the appropriate law is of course Law 16. We must not mix the two irregularities and treat them as one.

[jallerton]

CSGibson, on Aug 23 2010, 12:00 AM, said:

pran, on Aug 22 2010, 03:20 PM, said:

CSGibson, on Aug 22 2010, 11:12 PM, said:

I have a question on this:  If the insufficient heart bidder instead decided to substitute a michaels 2♠ bid, under what circumstances would that be legal?

It is sufficient and thus of course legal.

But partner would have to pass whenever it is his turn to call.

Even if the pair has an agreement showing approximately opening hand, or at least overcall, strength (maybe vul vs not)? Wouldn't that encompass hands that would overcall 1 ♥, but also be more defined, and thus legal?

Not necessarily.

With the two hands below:

[a] x AQJxx x AKJxxx
[b] void AKQJxxx AKQJxx void

(i) what would you open; and (ii) would you make a Michaels cue bid over a 1♠ opening?

However, I believe that a correction to an intermediate jump overcall of 3♥ would be permitted under Law 27B1[b] without silencing partner as all IJO hands would open 1♥.

[jallerton]

RMB1, on Aug 23 2010, 08:45 AM, said:

jallerton, on Aug 22 2010, 10:59 PM, said:

It seems to me that neither Law 81C2 nor Law 10C authorises the TD to explain the consequences of selecting a particular option.  I realise that it is generally accepted TD practice around the world to explain which calls would or would not bar partner, but this practice would appear to be legal only if you consider the Laws themselves to be available authorised information.

Is this line of argument specific to Law 27 or a general point about whether the laws are available authorised information?

Are you suggesting we should not read Law 31A2 before giving a non offender the option of accepting a bid out of rotation, or not reading Law 50C or Law 50D to a non offender before playing on once there is a penalty card?

Yes, this is the more general point. Advising a player which calls would or would silence partner is surely just as much an aid to technique as is advising them what Law 77 says.

[jallerton]

PeterE, on Aug 23 2010, 08:04 AM, said:

The options available are (leaving out the minor things):

1a. South may accept the IB, so ...
1b. South may not accept the IB, then

2a. East might have a Law 27b1a substitution and may chose that, so ...
2b. East might have a Law 27b1b substitution and may chose that, so ...
2c. East does not have any Law 27b1 substitution or he does not want to chose that, so East has to pass or make a sufficient bid, and West is barred throughout.

These are the options that have to be explained before South decides whether to accept the IB or not. The TD does not explain in advance to South which are valid substitutions under 2b or whether there is a possible application of 2a. South may ask supplementary question about NS's system, but that's all.

So, let's get this straight. The WBF recommended procedure is for the TD to aid the technique of the offending side (by telling the insufficient bidder which calls, if any, fall within Law 27B1[b]), whilst the TD is forbidden from letting the member of the non-offending side know the same information.

[RMB1]

jallerton, on Aug 23 2010, 11:06 PM, said:

Yes, this is the more general point.  Advising a player which calls would or would silence partner is surely just as much an aid to technique as is advising them what Law 77 says.

I have rather lost the thread here, but can we get away from Law 27.

Do you object to players asking and being told the score for 3 down doubled compared with 4S= during the auction?

Do you object to declarer being told of the lead penalties associated with a defender having a major penalty card, before defender's partner gets on lead?

Do you object to declarer being told that a defender must play a major penalty card when it is legal, before the first legal opportunity for the card to be played (at the defender's turn to play)?

[bluejak]

mjj29, on Aug 23 2010, 06:27 PM, said:

PeterE, on Aug 23 2010, 11:09 AM, said:

The reference in Law 27 B1a regarding the non-applicability of Law 16 D is for the IB itself (and the information guessed from it). It does - of course - not mean further UI is also allowed to be used.

(L27 not being quite what we'd like it to be aside) - the point of the new ability to correct is that the partner of the IBer has no more information having seen the IB than he does from having seen the replacement, since the replacement must be entirely within the meaning of the IB. If the IBer has announced the meaning of the IB and that announcement meets the test in L27, then their partner can, perforce, have no additional information over and above the replacement. If the announcement does _not_ meet the test in L27, then L27 wouldn't apply.

Now, you may consider that the laws aren't worded for the above to be true (and given what we know about L27, that may be the case) - but it's clearly the intent of that section.

(Obviously, if the IBer made some other comment, there would be UI considerations.)

First of all, I do not care what the intent of a Law is: if another Law applies, saying the intent of the first Law is irrelevant. Or, to be specific, when Law 16 applies, ie in cases where a player gives UI to his partner except through an IB, then Law 16 applies whatever the intent of Law 27, 45, 193 or any other is.

As to the convolutions you are talking about, we are just back at the old "I had AI so the UI did not matter" wrong approach: the UI Laws apply when there is UI, whether there is AI or not [try reading them!]. The AI affects what may be an LA.

So if a player makes a remark at the table, whether he has made an IB or not, this is UI to partner and the UI Laws apply, whether there is some AI on point or not.

[dburn]

RMB1, on Aug 23 2010, 05:36 PM, said:

Do you object to players asking and being told the score for 3 down doubled compared with 4S= during the auction?

I wouldn't, but apparently the WBFLC would. Law 77 is one of the Laws you are (presumably) supposed to remember.

Parenthetical question: suppose my opponent asked me during the auction or play "what's three down doubled non-vulnerable?" and I said "minus 500". What is the penalty for aiding and abetting in a breach of Law 40C3a? And is my opponent in duty bound to ignore the answer I have just given?

RMB1, on Aug 23 2010, 05:36 PM, said:

Do you object to declarer being told of the lead penalties associated with a defender having a major penalty card, before defender's partner gets on lead?

I wouldn't, and apparently neither would the WBFLC. Law 50 is one of the Laws you are (presumably) not supposed to remember.

RMB1, on Aug 23 2010, 05:36 PM, said:

Do you object to declarer being told that a defender must play a major penalty card when it is legal, before the first legal opportunity for the card to be played (at the defender's turn to play)?

I refer the Honourable Member to the answer I gave immediately above. The truth appears to be that players are entitled to any number of aids to memory, calculation or technique when someone at their table (including themselves) has just broken a Law, but not when they haven't. The people who wrote the Beijing 2008 minute are... well, they would not meet the initial requirements for playing a game of marbles.

[McBruce]

bluejak, on Aug 23 2010, 04:37 AM, said:

McBruce, on Aug 21 2010, 12:33 PM, said:

Away from the table I ask whether the call was the one he intended when he reached for the bid-box.

If not, we go back and apply 25A, where LHO does not have the option to accept the first call.

Law 25A applies if a call is changed, or if there is an attempt to change, without pause for thought. If he makes the call, you get called to the table and take him away, then find out whether it was unintended, how on earth can Law 25A be in time to offer to him?

I stand corrected (except that I am currently seated).

[jallerton]

RMB1, on Aug 23 2010, 11:36 PM, said:

jallerton, on Aug 23 2010, 11:06 PM, said:

Yes, this is the more general point.  Advising a player which calls would or would silence partner is surely just as much an aid to technique as is advising them what Law 77 says.

I have rather lost the thread here, but can we get away from Law 27.

Do you object to players asking and being told the score for 3 down doubled compared with 4S= during the auction?

Do you object to declarer being told of the lead penalties associated with a defender having a major penalty card, before defender's partner gets on lead?

Do you object to declarer being told that a defender must play a major penalty card when it is legal, before the first legal opportunity for the card to be played (at the defender's turn to play)?

I believe that there are two possibilities:

1. If one believes in the "Cult's" strict interpretation of Law40C3(a), then one should object to all three of your scenarios.

2. If one does not believe in the "Cult's" strict interpretation of Law40C3(a) and that the TD's job is to tell the players what the Laws actually say, then one should not object to any of your three of your scenarios.

What I object to is people insisting that Law X must be used in one situation and then pretending that the same Law X can be interpreted differently in another.

[RMB1]

As a practical matter, I think players are expected to know/remember the laws as they relate to normal play (e.g. bids must be sufficient, follow suit, doubled vulnerable undertricks are 200, then 300 a piece). But players are entitled to be told the laws as they relate to action following an actual irregularity.

I think I am acting in the mistaken belief that Law 10C1 continues "the Director shall explain all the options available and their consequences for the rest of the play of the hand." Without that wording, my belief appears to be an act of blind faith in my training.

[Returning to the subject of the thread, and to continue a rant I delivered at Brighton.] Whatever the laws in general say or should say, Law 27 as it stands should be treated as a special case or should explicitly state what information should be available to which players during the process of operating the law. The law as it finally appeared in the "2007" Law Book is not operable in line with principles elsewhere in the laws, and no amount of subsequent "interpretation" by WBFLC has changed that.

It is wrong that the basis for a ruling (the meaning of the insufficient bid) is determined by the word of an offender, given away from the other players. It is wrong that the TD's judgement on which calls by offender will not silence partner is made available to the offender (but not other players) before the offender selects his call (above and beyond having Law 27B1b read to the offender). If the provisions of Law 27 are not substantially changed, then we need clear statements on how the law should operate and the exceptional way that information is made available to both sides during the operation of the law.

[bluejak]

Absolutely correct.

[pran]

RMB1, on Aug 24 2010, 10:19 AM, said:

As a practical matter, I think players are expected to know/remember the laws as they relate to normal play (e.g. bids must be sufficient, follow suit, doubled vulnerable undertricks are 200, then 300 a piece).  But players are entitled to be told the laws as they relate to action following an actual irregularity.

I think I am acting in the mistaken belief that Law 10C1 continues "the Director shall explain all the options available and their consequences for the rest of the play of the hand."  Without that wording, my belief appears to be an act of blind faith in my training.

In my honest opinion this is an obvious consequence of the clause the Director shall explain all the options available in Law 10C1. He dosen't explain "all" unless he includes the consequences.

RMB1, on Aug 24 2010, 10:19 AM, said:

[Returning to the subject of the thread, and to continue a rant I delivered at Brighton.]  Whatever the laws in general say or should say, Law 27 as it stands should be treated as a special case or should explicitly state what information should be available to which players during the process of operating the law.  The law as it finally appeared in the "2007" Law Book is not operable in line with principles elsewhere in the laws, and no amount of subsequent "interpretation" by WBFLC has changed that.

Here I must strongly disagree. Maybe because I myself have been involved in the work on Law 27, but I have no difficulty applying Law 27B1 (which I believe is the part of Law 27 that causes the most problems for Directors?) in its present state.

RMB1, on Aug 24 2010, 10:19 AM, said:

It is wrong that the basis for a ruling (the meaning of the insufficient bid) is determined by the word of an offender, given away from the other players.  It is wrong that the TD's judgement on which calls by offender will not silence partner is made available to the offender (but not other players) before the offender selects his call (above and beyond having Law 27B1b read to the offender).

All of this is perfectly correct: The Director shall definitely not take the words from one person on the offending side alone for a fact; he must of course judge the complete situation and establish for himself an opinion whether or not the conditions in Law 27B1a or Law 27B1b are satisfied, and then rule correspondingly.
Don't forget that both parts of Law 27B1 contain the words: in the Director’s opinion. And honestly I question the reason for taking any player away from the table in this process. After all the Director must base his Law 27 ruling on information that is AI to all the players at the table.
(If some player should during this process provide any information that is UI to his partner then that will be a separate irregularity to be dealt with after ruling on the insufficient bid.)

RMB1, on Aug 24 2010, 10:19 AM, said:

  If the provisions of Law 27 are not substantially changed, then we need clear statements on how the law should operate and the exceptional way that information is made available to both sides during the operation of the law.

[RMB1]

pran, on Aug 24 2010, 01:24 PM, said:

All of this is perfectly correct: The Director shall definitely not take the words from one person on the offending side alone for a fact; he must of course judge the complete situation and establish for himself an opinion whether or not the conditions in Law 27B1a or Law 27B1b are satisfied, and then rule correspondingly.

Don't forget that both parts of Law 27B1 contain the words: in the Director’s opinion. And honestly I question the reason for taking any player away from the table in this process. After all the Director must base his Law 27 ruling on information that is AI to all the players at the table.

Obviously this is where we disagree. I am trying to operate Law 27 using the Recommended Tournament Director procedure which appears on the internet.

Item 4. reads

Quote

If the IB is rejected, the TD will need to establish what the offender was trying to do when he made it.  He will almost inevitably need to do this away from the table in order that the other three players remain unaware of the reason.  The TD then advises the player of his options (still away from the table) i.e. which calls, if any, will allow the auction to proceed without further rectification.  If the correction is to be allowed uner 27B1(b), this may well involve quite a detailed (and possibly skilled) discussion and analysis of the player’s system.  The offender then selects his call at the table, and the TD advises the table as a whole whether or not partner is silenced throughout.

This suggests to me that

• the TD will usually need to talk to offender away from the table;
  
• the meaning of IB is determined by what the offender was trying to do;
  
• the TD will advise the offender which calls will allow the auction to proceed without silencing partner.

This is the procedure I am trying to be faithful to, despite my feeling that it is inconsistent with how the rest of the laws operate.

I am sure pran has been operating Law 27 happily with no problems "having been involved on the work on Law 27" but others (myself included) have also been working on how to operate the current Law 27 at all levels of the game, since before the current laws were adopted, and are not so happy.

[RMB1]

Apologies to pran: the "Recommended Tournament Director procedure" is regarded as out of date and is no longer recommended. Any procedure that works and is compatible with the laws is worth using.

I think I will streamline my previous approach.

• Try to establish whether this is a Law 25A case, whether Law 27B1a applies and whether Law 27B1b might apply at the table.
  
• Tell LHO whether Law 27B1a applies and whether there may be other calls that do not silence offender's partner under Law 27B1b (but not what those other calls may be).
  
• If the bid is not accepted, then I offer to tell offender (away from the table) whether various calls will not silence partner.
  
  Having discussed this and seen what mistakes TDs can make, it is not reasonable for a player to have to decide how a particular TD might rule, when making a call that is unexpected ruled to silence partner could be disasterous.

[pran]

RMB1, on Aug 26 2010, 07:29 PM, said:

Apologies to pran: the "Recommended Tournament Director procedure" is regarded as out of date and is no longer recommended.  Any procedure that works and is compatible with the laws is worth using.

I think I will streamline my previous approach. 

• Try to establish whether this is a Law 25A case, whether Law 27B1a applies and whether Law 27B1b might apply at the table.
  
  
• Tell LHO whether Law 27B1a applies and whether there may be other calls that do not silence offender's partner under Law 27B1b (but not what those other calls may be). 
  
  
• If the bid is not accepted, then I offer to tell offender (away from the table) whether various calls will not silence partner. 
  
  Having discussed this and seen what mistakes TDs can make, it is not reasonable for a player to have to decide how a particular TD might rule, when making a call that is unexpected ruled to silence partner could be disasterous.

Thanks,

Now (after in case excluding a Law 25A ruling and having had a refusal from LHO to accept the IB), what I usually do is to read to the offender (and in fact the table) the words in Laws 27B1a and 27B1b making sure that the offender understands these two laws and the possible consequences from his choice of a replacement call.

So far I see no reason to take any player away from the table, and it is definitely not any of the Director's business to counsel the offender on his replacement call.

Then, after the offender has chosen his replacement call I rule whether I consider this call to comply with the condition in L27B1a or L27B1b, or if his partner is forced to pass during the rest of the auction. If I find it necessary for this ruling I clarify with the offender (now away from the table) why in case he thinks his call should not bar partner.

[jallerton]

pran, on Aug 26 2010, 09:08 PM, said:

Now (after in case excluding a Law 25A ruling and having had a refusal from LHO to accept the IB), what I usually do is to read to the offender (and in fact the table) the words in Laws 27B1a and 27B1b making sure that the offender understands these two laws and the possible consequences from his choice of a replacement call.

Sven, you are a genius!

Most tournament directors have difficulty knowing what Law 27B1[b] really means and yet you are able to make a player who had just had a problem complying with the more basic Law 18B/C gain a perfect understanding of Law 27B1[b].

[mjj29]

pran, on Aug 26 2010, 03:08 PM, said:

So far I see no reason to take any player away from the table, and it is definitely not any of the Director's business to counsel the offender on his replacement call.

The offender certainly should be aware which calls will silence partner before making a call - obviously the director shouldn't give any advice as to which is best, but it's not reasonable to have players guess whether you think a call qualifies. If I can avoid silencing partener I will almost certainly make that call, whatever it is - but if I'm going to silence partner I want to take my best stab at a contract, not my best stab at a call which might not silence partner

[pran]

mjj29, on Aug 26 2010, 11:19 PM, said:

pran, on Aug 26 2010, 03:08 PM, said:

So far I see no reason to take any player away from the table, and it is definitely not any of the Director's business to counsel the offender on his replacement call.

The offender certainly should be aware which calls will silence partner before making a call - obviously the director shouldn't give any advice as to which is best, but it's not reasonable to have players guess whether you think a call qualifies. If I can avoid silencing partener I will almost certainly make that call, whatever it is - but if I'm going to silence partner I want to take my best stab at a contract, not my best stab at a call which might not silence partner

My experience is that once the offender understands (my explanation of) Laws 27B1a and 27B1b he doesn't need to be told which calls will eventually satisfy the condition in either of them.

And if I should be unable to make him understand (I have never been!) then the only way of not having him silencing his partner is for me as Director to select his replacement call, something I shall never do.

[mjj29]

[quote name='pran' date='Aug 26 2010, 05:49 PM'] The offender certainly should be aware which calls will silence partner before making a call - obviously the director shouldn't give any advice as to which is best, but it's not reasonable to have players guess whether you think a call qualifies. If I can avoid silencing partener I will almost certainly make that call, whatever it is - but if I'm going to silence partner I want to take my best stab at a contract, not my best stab at a call which might not silence partner [/QUOTE]
My experience is that once the offender understands (my explanation of) Laws 27B1a and 27B1b he doesn't need to be told which calls will eventually satisfy the condition in either of them.

And if I should be unable to make him understand (I have never been!) then the only way of not having him silencing his partner is for me as Director to select his replacement call, something I shall never do. [/quote]
I'm not saying you should select his call, I'm saying he should be able to say "would X silence partner" and have you answer before he commits to bidding X.

And I'm either very impressed by your players, or by the simplicity of your problems, if they always get that right. Do they never try and correct 2N-2C (stayman) to 3C (not allowed)? Replace (1S)-1H with an X (is that allowed? When playing 5 card majors? When X could be 1345?)

I wouldn't expect to agree with any other given director 100% of the time without some consultation, so I'm not about to risk silencing partner without checking!

[bluejak]

It is extremely complicated which calls are permitted under law 27B1B and which not, especially since the WBFLC has relaxed its requirements. I do not believe that we can leave the players to decide this and believe we have to tell the player making the choice which call is a Law 27B1B one, which a 27B1A choice, and which neither. True, this means we are making judgement decisions without consultation and consideration but the whole of the new Law 27B is against the general principles of the rest of the Law book.

I still think it more interesting what we should tell the table. When a player has a major penalty card and the TD is called he and his partner are told the effects of their actions, so they can try to avoid a penalty that causes trouble, eg playing that suit to avoid the card being a forced discard. In the same way, what would you expect to be told before you decide whether to accept an IB?