[blml] Law 27

[Herman De Wael]

Jack Rhind wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/5/08 2:38 PM, "raija" <mustikka at charter.net> wrote:
> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Burn" <dalburn at btopenworld.com>
>> To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:47 AM
>> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27
>>
>>
>>>> [DALB]
>>>> I am not sure I understand this. An insufficient bid of (say) 1S means
>>>> "there are some auctions in which I would have bid 1S with my hand".
>>>> Whether or not the partner of the bidder knows what those auctions are,
>>> the fact
>>>> that they exist at all ensures that the 1S bid is not devoid of meaning -
>>>> it conveys at least some information.
>>>> The new new Law 27 can be interpreted on this basis. If, say, South opens
>>>> 1NT and North bids 1H, then he is allowed to bid 2D as a transfer in
>>>> response to 1NT (because 2D has the same meaning as, or a more precise
>>>> meaning than, "I have a hand in which I would have bid 1H in some
>>>> auctions"). It would be better, it seems to me, not to ask him why he bid
>>>> 1H (that is, not to have him volunteer the information that he was
>>> responding
>>>> to 1C, or opening the bidding, because that will constrain his partner in
>>>> terms of UI).
>>> [SR]
>>>
>>> But doesn't a 1H bid indicate, at the very least, a hand with the values
>>> to
>>> respond 1H at the one level? It may also exclude hands that would have
>>> opened some larger number of hearts. So I think that this example is one
>>> that would not be allowed.
>>>
>>> [DALB]
>>>
>>> New Law 27: "if... 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".
>>>
>>> North bids 1H, which means "I would have bid 1H on this hand in some
>>> auctions, if 1H were a sufficient bid."
>>>
>>> Now, does 2D have the same meaning as this? Does it have a more precise
>>> meaning than this? The answer to both questions in my opinion is "yes",
>>> and
>>> the meaning of 2D is "contained within the possible meanings of 1H", so in
>>> my opinion 2D should be permitted as the proposed Law is currently worded.
>>>
>>> If North says "I thought it was my deal", or "I thought South opened 1C",
>>> then this gives UI (Unincorporated Information) to South, who must not act
>>> on it. This is why I think it may be better not to ask North why he made
>>> the
>>> IB; just ask him what the RC means, and whether it is consistent with some
>>> hand that would have made the IB if sufficient in some auctions.
>>>
>>> David Burn
>>> London, England
>> I agree it would be better for TD not to ask why the IB was made.  However,
>> the reason is typically volunteered by the IB'er before the TD comes,  *Oh,
>> I didn't see he opened* or something in those lines, right after the bid was
>> pointed out as insufficient; followed by a well-intentioned immediate other
>> bid whether same denomination or not, or Pass, or Dbl.  As an opponent or
>> the IBer's partner, it is difficult to stop this "train"...  I don't envy
>> the job of a club or low level tournament director :)
>>
>> Raija 
>>
> 
> I think it would be best for the TD to take the player who made the IB away
> from the table to determine why the bid was made and what subsequent bids
> will mean. That way you avoid UI.
> 

No you don't. Not completely.

If you allow a particular correction, this means that the insufficient 
bid had the same meaning.
If you don't allow the correction (unpunished), then the new bid will 
be natural and also indicate what the first bid meant.

Either way, after the ruling the table will know what the original bid 
was meant to be.

So I don't particularly see any advantage in doing too much to 
withhold the original intent from the table.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html