[blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1

[Steve Willner]

> From: Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net>
> 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, 

Yes, everyone agrees on this.  It was true also in the 1997 Laws (IB and 
RC conventional or not?), but the complexity will be greater now both 
because the considerations require many more details and because there 
are many more potential RCs to consider.

> From: "Robert Frick" <rfrick at rfrick.info>
> My point is, when the director comes to the table and tries to assess the  
> meaning of the insufficient bid, or even whether or not it is  
> conventional, the director does not have as much information as the  
> players. The director cannot look at just the auction

Indeed.  I think everyone agrees on this.

> I think then the director will have to ask the player (away from the  
> table) what he thought his insufficient bid meant, or look at his hand (if  
> you are willing to do that)

The question has to be asked in Eric's approach, but I'm not sure it has 
to be done away from the table.

In the approach I favor, the IBer (and for thet matter, other players 
but especially IBer's partner) have to be asked for _all_ the reasonable 
meanings of the IB.  No reason that can't be done at the table.  The TD 
should be careful to caution IBer _not_ to reveal specifically what he 
was thinking but rather to list all the possibilities.

As I wrote in my previous message, both approaches have practical 
difficulties but different ones.

> From: Alain Gottcheiner <agot at ulb.ac.be>
> Once again, may I remember you that, in nearly every other game/sport,  
> the state of mind of the player, at the moment he does something that 
> contravenes the rules for that sport/game, is considered relevant.

I think you will find very few examples of that in what we would 
consider "score adjustment" or "rectification" matters, though there are 
certainly some.  State of mind is quite often relevant in "conduct" 
matters, but that's not what we're discussing here.