[blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1

[Stefanie Rohan]

>> EL:
>>
>  But it cannot succeed
> in doing so unless the "meaning" of the IB, as defined by the IBer's
> "intent" (actually his specific misperception of the auction at the
> moment of the IB) is known and taken into account.

I feel that since partner doesn't know the specific misinterpretation of the 
auction it cannot matter. The IBers "intent" would be UI specifically 
prohibited by the new Law 27.

> L27B1(b) requires
> that the meaning of a proposed replacement call "be[] fully contained
> within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid".  Stefanie's
> view would require us to interpret "the possible meanings of the
> insufficient bid" as all of the possible meanings given all of the
> possible intents.

Yes.

> It's really hard to construct a non-trivial
> example in which that interpretation would lead to any bids ever
> meeting that criterion. Consider just the ambiguity between a 1H
> opener or response in Stefanie's example.  As the former would show 13
> + HCP and the latter 6-10 HCP (or thereabouts), the RC, to meet the
> test of L27B1(b), would have to have a range that was "fully
> contained" within both 13+ and 6-10 simultaneously -- no L27B1(b)
> correction allowed there!

Oh, I see. This is just a difference in systems. Here in the UK a 1H 
response shows from 6 HCP to pretty much unlimited. An opening bid shows 12+ 
to about 22, and sometimes promised 5H. So these meanings are not disjoint, 
as they are in the methods you cite, so a 2H bid (10+ HCP, 5+ H) would, in 
theory, be permissible.

> With the IBer's intent known, it is at
> least possible that we will offer one or more additional penalty-free
> corrections beyond those available via the 1997 law or L27B1(a).
> Lack of knowledge of the IBer's intent can only preclude, never add,
> potential L27B1(b) corrections.

Not really, because (Law 40B3, probably due for a rewrite, not 
withstanding), the partnership is not supposed to have new methods for this 
situation. So what is important is not the intent, but whether the hand you 
wish to show is a possible 2H response, with the IB not adding more 
meaning.. In the methods commonly in place in the a 2H response coule not be 
6-10, but would be 10+. But opening hands and 1H responding hands could all 
be hands worth 2H over 1S.

> And even were the possibilities Stefanie allows for (opening or
> responding) not disjoint,

Again, this is not true in the UK.

>if we don't resolve them to a single
> possibility, how can we take just those that occur to someone other
> than the bidder (presumably the TD) as "likely" or "logical" as a
> starting point?  If we don't know whether they were opening (thought
> they were bidding to P-P-) or responding (to 1C-P- or 1D-P-), how do
> we know they weren't overcalling (P-1C-, say)?  Or even free-bidding
> (1C-1D-)?  (Or even -- God help us! -- overcalling an opponent's IB
> per L27A1?!

This approach is counterproductive. If guidelines for determining intent are 
developed, then surely the IBer's partner will know the original intent, and 
the auction will be too severely tainted with UI in order to possibly 
continue. What the IBer's partner should know is the meaning of the 
replacement bid, and it should be correct in his system and he should treat 
it as such.

>And that's not even considering that they may not have
> been attempting to bid at all.)  That makes disjoint possibilities a
> virtual certainty.

Not in the case under discussion, given UK methods. I guess if this were 
true for every other case it would be a virtual certainty...

> IBs in more complex auctions could have hundreds
> of possible meanings, and if you don't base your ruling on the one
> intended by the IBer, you must account for every last one of them!

Again, you cannot base the ruling on the intention, because then the IBer's 
partner will know the intention. *This* would result in no possible 
penalty-free replacements.

> Try doing that after, say, P-2S-P-2H (a mere one-round auction to the
> two-level, hardly all that complicated).  I'll even let you use your
> own bidding methods for the exercise, but keep in mind that at the
> table you will have to do this analysis using the IBer's methods.
> I'm confident that actually working that exercise will convince
> anyone that this isn't the approach they want to be taking at the table.

Well, this simply highlights the more fundamental problem of answering the 
question "what does an insufficient bid mean?" I do not think that there is 
an answer to this question.
>
> And now that I think of it, you're overwhelmingly likely, somewhere
> in all those possibilities, to find at least one that wouldn't be
> "incontrovertably not artificial", so you'll almost certainly wind up
> with no allowable L27B1(a) correction either!

This is one of the problems with the new Law. It is specifically a problem 
with my interpretation, but I do not think that any other interpretation can 
be taken seriously.

Stefanie Rohan
London, England