[blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1

[Stefanie Rohan]

Stefanie Rohan:
>
>> Indeed. And this, of course, assumes that we can assign a "meaning"
>> to the
>> IB in the first place. In fact, this will often have to be done
>> after the
>> fact. To wit:
>>
>> Suppose the auction goes 1S-P-1H at both Table A and Table B. IBer
>> A thought
>> he was responding to 1 of a minor, and IBer B thought he was
>> opening the
>> bidding.

Erik Landau:
>
> And that, of course, assumes that we can assign a "meaning" to the
> IB.  Well, we just did; wasn't so hard, was it?  In real life, you
> ask, they tell.
>
SR:

>> Let us say that in both systems, a hand that would respond 2H  to
>> partner's
>> 1S is fully contained in the hands that would respond 1H to
>> partner's one of
>> a minor, and that neither partnership has a bid that shows an
>> opening hand
>> with hearts opposite a 1S opening. So A gets his penalty-free
>> correction,
>> and naturally so does B;

EL:

> Why "naturally"?  Why at all?  Unnatural or not, L27B1(b) (we are
> ignoring L27B1(a) for this discussion) allows A to make a penalty-
> free correction, but does not allow B the same option.

SR:

Well, no. Neither player has opened 1H; really they have both responded 1H. 
As long as there has been no UI offered, there is no difference between the 
facts at the tables.
>
SR:
>> but neither B nor the director might be aware that
>> they can "change" the 1H insufficient opening to a 1H insufficient
>> response.

EL:

> Only if they are blatant cheaters prepared to lie outright to the
> director.

SR:

I don't think that the player should lie to the director. I think that the 
director should give the player the benefit of his bid possibly having been 
a responding bid.
>
>> So B might get a different ruling than A. How is this to be prevented?
>
EL:

> Why do we want to prevent it?  The facts and circumstances of the two
> cases are quite different, so there's no reason the rulings shouldn't
> differ.  We pay our directors to sort out the facts and circumstances.
>>

SR:

The facts and circumstances are precisely the same. The same IB was made at 
both tables in identical actions. It would be utterly absurd to make two 
different rulings.

The only difference is that the two players have imagined different 
auctions. But neither of  these existed in reality. An auction that exists 
only in a player's mind cannot possibly have a bearing on a ruling, or 
indeed, on anything. So long as no revealing UI is made available at the 
table by the IBer or the director, there is no basis for different rulings. 
God, at least I hope not!

Stefanie Rohan
London, England