[blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1

[Eric Landau]

On Mar 31, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote:

> 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.

So it would seem, to the casual observer.  But L27B1 has established  
a difference, artificial though one may think it, by requiring the TD  
to determine the admissability without penalty of a given replacement  
call (RC) based on the "meaning" of the IB.  That forces us to  
differentiate between an IBer who "meant" to open and one who "meant"  
to overcall.

> 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.

That is an entirely reasonable position.  However, it is quite clear  
that the authors of L27B didn't see it that way (which was true for  
the 1997 version as well).

> 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!

I don't see how we can determine whether a prospective RC has "a more  
precise meaning than the IB" without making a determination as to the  
meaning of the IB, or how you can determine the meaning of the IB  
without knowing what the IBer meant when he made it.

As an aside, even if L27B1 made no reference to the meaning of the  
IB, the admissability without penalty of a prospective RC would still  
depend on the partnership's methods, so, all considerations of UI  
aside, different pairs would still be getting very different rulings,  
despite the apparent "no difference between the facts at the tables".


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net