[blml] new L27

Wed Mar 5 16:23:51 CET 2008

richard willey a écrit :
> 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

could you try again to make your point? i didn't understand anything: 
john doe made an insufficient 1H bid, then a 1H bid? in the same 
auction? as a correction? in a different situation?
how can the union of B and C be anything other than the set of all 
bridge hands? what sort of hand could be neither compatible with 1H nor 
denied by 1H?

jpr
> 
> 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. ]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
_______________________________________________
Jean-Pierre Rocafort
METEO-FRANCE
DSI/CM
42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis
31057 Toulouse CEDEX
Tph: 05 61 07 81 02      (33 5 61 07 81 02)
Fax: 05 61 07 81 09      (33 5 61 07 81 09)
e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr

Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr
_______________________________________________