[blml] Law 27 revisitedd

[Reg Busch]

ton wrote:

>ton:
>
>Yes a player after having made an insufficient call may misdescribe his
>hand. 
>
>I thought that we described in detail the 1H - 1H situation, where partner
>may bid 2H now. 
>This is not a matter of having a systemic agreement, this is a player who
>tries to find a solution for an irregularity not to be penalized. 
>
>Just a suggestion in this rather complicated situation dealing with L 27.
>Could you try to make a clear distinction between lawful application and
>wishful thinking. We should make clear to the bridge world how to deal with
>insufficient bids. 
>
>And once again this is not a 2007 invention, we deal with it in the same way
>for many decades already, though I start to understand that some regions
>were not aware of it. 
>  
>
Reg:
 Ton, you are discussing Law 27B1(a), which we are all familiar with, 
and where the offender is specifically permitted to misbid his hand. And 
where everyone at the table knows this. I am talking about a new Law 
27B1(b), which does not specifically allow or disallow misbids by the 
offender. But, to apply your very good advice about lawful application 
and wishful thinking, may I go on?

Stephanie and Robert both believe strongly that the RC should not be 
allowed unless it conforms with the pair's system agreements. IMHO the 
new Law would have been better had it included this proviso (or perhaps 
this was seen as too high a hurdle). But I must accept that a strict 
reading of the Law would not disallow the 3NT bid, even though it was 
not systemic. Or is it posible that, in these days when courts all over 
the world are finding 'implied' rights and obligations. our various RAs 
may be able to find an implied obligation that the RB must be consistent 
with the sustem?

Eric is confident that he has the answer:

One gains from an infraction when one does better than one would have  
absent the infraction, whether the damage comes directly and  
immediately from the infracting act or is the consequence of some  
aspect of the situation further down the line.  Had there been no IB,  
the auction would presumably have started 1C-P-1S.  The TD determines  
the likely outcomes had that occurred, finding gain/damage if the  
outcome might have been less favorable to the IBer's side than their  
actual result.  In this example, that seems clear.

IMHO, this is a textbook case of a L27D adjustment for damage.

Reg:I wish I could be so confident. Again applying Ton's principles:
Under 27D the *only* grounds for adjustment are where the outcome of the board could well have been different 'without assistance gained through the infraction'. Assessing the outcome of the board without the IB is not part of this assessment. Under Law 27D, this comes only after deciding to adjust, and is used  to decide the quantum of the adjustment.

As I see it, any damage has resulted not from any help from the IB per se, but from the subsequent deliberate misbid. There is no relief under Law for damage from a misbid, deliberate or not. Are we in the consequent / subsequent area here?

I must admit that,had I to make a decision on this situation, I would allow the misbid of 3NT but very reluctantly (all the more so because it makes me complicit in a deliberate misbid), because I have to accept that the Laws allow it (whether this was the intention of the Lawmakers is another matter). If the opponents are damaged, I would adjust under 27D. Not because I'm convinced that the Laws as written give me such power, but clearly there has been damage that needs to be redressed. I seem to be going back to the old days when Kaplan's advice to directors was to rule what you think is fair, and then find a law to justify it!

Eric and others: Applying 27D as you see it, take a situation much like the current one but a littlle different. The bidding goes 1C - 1C corrected after consulting the TD to 3NT. Again South bids 6NT. As it happens this time the IB has prevented NS from finding their spade fit. 6NT makes but at the other table (and most of the field) 6S fails on a 5/0 spade break. EW claim damage. 17 imps hang on your decision. Do you adjust?

Reg Busch


>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
>  
>