[blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1

[Eric Landau]

On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:22 PM, Steve Willner wrote:

>> 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.

IMO, there is no reason to do this away from the table.  It will  
often, but not always, be the case that the TD's ruling will provide  
sufficient information for the answer to be inferred.  To keep the  
playing field level. we would either have to take the unprecedented  
and dangerous approach of making a TD's ruling UI, or just make the  
answer "entitled" information and let everyone hear it in the first  
place.  In real life, as Robert suggests, that's what usually happens  
anyhow (everybody knows what went wrong before the TD gets there).   
Far easier to accept it as proper than the force the TD either to  
cope with a UI determination and possible consequent ruling or to  
give drastically different rulings depending on whether or not the  
answer has been improperly offered.

> 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.

I see a dilemma here.  If you base your ruling on "all the reasonable  
meanings of the IB", it is inherently subjective, and a different TD  
is likely to make a quite different ruling in the same  
circumstances.  If you base it on "all the possible meanings of the  
IB", regardless of what you might consider "reasonable", you'll still  
be holding your interrogation while the other tables are four boards  
further on.  And, except in relatively trivial cases, you may well  
wind up allowing the IBer to make pretty much any call he wants  
without penalty.

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



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