[blml] new L27

[richard willey]

Even with the rework, the new Law still has me very confused.  I think
that the footnote is asking for trouble…

 (b ) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a
legal call that in the Director's opinion has the same meaning* as, or
a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being
fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid)
the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D
following.

[footnote: * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the
knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ]

Consider the following

John Doe has just made an insufficient 1H bid.

At this point in the auction, there is some set of hands that John Doe
could conceivably hold.  Let's call this set A

John Doe has just made a 1H bid.  The 1H bid defines a set of possible
hands.  Let's call this set B.  Furthermore, 1H denies some other set
of hands.  (A 1H overcall is inconsistent with 13 Spades).  Let' call
this set C.

A = The Union of B and C

Here's the catch:  The definition of the 1H bid simultaneously
provides information about both B and C.  Suppose that I wanted to
substitute a 2D call for the insufficient 1H call.  2D shows a subset
of set B.  Lets call this set D.

By my understanding, this wouldn't be legal because the set A – D is
not a subset of C.  (I have access to additional information about the
set of hands excluded by the 2D call)

The way that I read things, the only way that I can substitute some
new call is if this new call draws precisely the same boundary as the
original 1H call.  Each and every hand included in set B must be in
set D.  Each and every hand in set C must be in (A – D).

In all honesty, I'd be shocked if anyone can find and example that
would meet this stringent a test.

I suspect that either

1. My reading of the Law is incorrect, in which case I'd appreciate it
if someone picked apart my logic

2. The new Law 27 is drafted poorly


On 3/5/08, Robert Geller <geller at nifty.com> wrote:
> Could've been better, could've been worse.
>
> The good news (IMO).
>   1. Most of the time we'll be dealing with an IB replaced by the lowest
> sufficient RB in the same denomination, and this will pose no problem for
> directors. as it's what they're useful.
>   2. A replacement call of RDBL is now also included in 27B1b
>
> The bad news (IMO)
>    1. The pernicious concept of "meaning of the IB" has been retained,
> although in a somewhat less toxic form than the original L27C of the
> 2007 Laws.
>    2. The mechanics of 27B1b will probably cause trouble for directors and
> players, not to mention RA's.   27B1a is clear to all.   But after the director
> explains 27B1b to an IBer at the table, the player will want to know
> ("can I call X without penalty"?).   How does the player actually do this?
> Does he ask the director in front of his pard?  Or is his pard sent away
> from the table with the oppts allowed to listen in?  And how (except in the
> most frequent cases, like a negative dbl of 1S after an IB of 1H) will the
> director answer?   This will be fraught.....
>
> Oh well, it could've been much worse.
>
> -Bob
>
>
> Peter Eidt さんは書きました:
> >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued:
> >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
> >> *****************************
> >> " It never or rarely happens that a republic
> >> or monarchy is well constituted, or its old
> >> institutions entirely reformed, unless it is
> >> done by only one individual."
> >> � � � � � [Macchiavelli Niccolo' �1469-1527] �
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>
> >> +=+ A revision of Law 27 will be released to
> >> NBOs and Zones later today. I am unable to
> >> attach it here (it would be blocked) but perhaps
> >> some recipient has the facilities to copy it as text
> >> for the enjoyment of blml-ers. +=+
> >
> >
> >... and here it comes ... ta-taaaaa
> >
> >
> >                                                                        5th
> March 2008
> >Agreed version
> >
> >Law 27 ・INSUFFICIENT BID
> >
> >A. Acceptance of Insufficient Bid.
> >
> >1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal)
> >   at the option of offender痴 LHO. It is accepted if that player calls.
> >
> >2. If a player makes an insufficient bid out of rotation Law 31 applies.
> >
> >B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted.
> >
> >If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A)
> >it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call
> >(but see 3 following).   Then
> >
> >1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid
> >
> >      in the same denomination and in the Director痴 opinion both
> >      the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly
> >      not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification.
> >
> >      Law 16D does not apply but see D following.
> >   (b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a
> >legal
> >      call that in the Director痴 opinion has the same meaning* as,
> >      or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such
> >      meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings
> >      of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further
> >      rectification, but see D following.
> >
> >2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected
> >   by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender痴 partner must pass
> >   whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may
> >   apply, and see Law 23.
> >
> >3. except as provided in B1(b) above, if the offender attempts to
> >   substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid the
> >attempted
> >   call is cancelled. The offender must replace it as the foregoing
> >   allows and his partner must then pass whenever it is his turn to
> >call.
> >   The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23.
> >
> >4. if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with
> >     another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does
> >
> >     not accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows.
> >
> >C. Premature Replacement
> >
> >If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director
> >has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted
> >as A allows the substitution stands.  The Director applies the relevant
> >foregoing section to the substitution.
> >
> >D.Non-offending Side Damaged.
> >
> >If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the
> >
> >play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome
> >of the board could well have been different and in consequence the
> >non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an
> >adjusted score.  In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly
> >as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid
> >not occurred.
> >
> >
> >[footnote:  * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the
> >knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >blml mailing list
> >blml at amsterdamned.org
> >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller at nifty.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>


-- 
I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant
Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where
conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the
expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek

Those were simpler times