[blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion.

[David Burn]

On 30/04/2008 13:58, "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:

> On Apr 30, 2008, at 3:26 AM, ton wrote:
> 
>> [paul lamford]
>> 
>> "The partner of the person making an RC under Law 27b must assume
>> that  the
>> RC has the systemic meaning for that partnership. Vioaltions are
>> treated in
>> the same way as a fielded systemic misbid."
>> 
>> ton:
>> To be honest, I do not understand this ongoing discussion. Why
>> don't you all
>> just follow the laws instead of trying to formulate new ones. I am
>> willing
>> to accept the idea that for the next one we open applications.
>> Don't be
>> impatient: given our recent experience this will start in two years
>> time.
>> 
>> But we demand some knowledge of the laws, don't worry not more than
>> mine.
>> 
>> Take L27. It seems that many of you were not aware of the exact
>> content of
>> the old/present one. At this moment after (N-S): 1H - 1H  south may
>> bid 2H
>> without further restriction. Nobody has complained during the last
>> 10 years
> 
> [actually the last 45 years *at least*; I am not familiar with the
> laws or precedents prior to 1963]
> 
>> but now most of you start complaining.
>> 
>> Take Paul above: What is the sense behind giving 2H the systematic
>> meaning?
>> It is a huge penalty which makes the whole treatment useless. We
>> want the
>> auction to be continued as normal as possible. And with new L27B1b
>> we wanted
>> to extend this approach.
>> 
>> So may I suggest to stop this discussion and to concentrate on the
>> appplication of this law as it was meant?

The fact that nobody has complained during the last 45 years is because no
one, in my experience, has ever applied the Law in the fashion suggested by
Ton. Law 27 currently says:

If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are incontrovertibly
not conventional and if the bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in
the same denomination, the auction proceeds as though the irregularity had
not occurred (Law 16C2 does not apply to this situation, but see (b)
following).

But under Ton's interpretation the auction does not proceed as though the
irregularity had not occurred. 1H-2H is not forcing, so any auction that
follows 1H-2H (forcing) will not be (or is most unlikely to be) an auction
that would have happened had there not been an irregularity.

The reference to 16C2 (or 16D in the new code) is mildly perplexing. 16C2
says:

For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action
and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised. A
player of the offending side may not choose from among logical
alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested
over another by the unauthorised information.

Now, what does it mean to say "this does not apply"? Does it mean "the
converse of this does apply"? (in which case all information arising from
withdrawn actions is authorised, including the reason for taking the
withdrawn action in the first place). Or does it mean "this does not apply,
so the rest of the Laws relating to UI must be used to determine whether
this particular kind of I is U or not"? In that case, a player may not base
his actions on his partner's insufficient bids, because they are not legal
calls.

In order to do what it wants to do (and in order to shorten and simplify the
Lawbook considerably), the WBFLC should say:

Any illegal call that is not accepted must, at the player's turn to call, be
replaced by a legal call. Any information arising from the illegal call is
unauthorised to the offending side, but authorised to the non-offending
side.

David Burn
London, England