[blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1

[Stefanie Rohan]

>> 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.

EL:

>
> 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.

Then, if we consider lying about one's mental state to be cheating, the 
player should probably just answer "no comment". Then the director can make 
a guess, and since the intent of the new Law seems to be to offer more 
penalty-free corrections, then...
>>
>> 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).

Well, at least (as usual) their intent is not indicated in the Law, and any 
interpretations they subsequently issue will not reach most directors, at 
least in the EBU. Senior tournament directors will hear of them, though, and 
I don't know what they will make of the whole mess.
>
>> 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.

The reason intention does not matter is because no insufficient bid has a 
"meaning"; this is illegal. For sophisticated thinkers, the "meaning" may be 
a means by which to reconstruct an imaginary auction based on the past 
mental state of the IBer. For simple souls like me, the "meaning" is 
important only to avoid the IB giving UI to the IBer's partner.
>
> 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".
>
True, but I stipulated at the beginning that the pairs' methods were 
essentially the same.

Stefanie Rohan
London, England