[blml] Consult the people.

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*************************
"True luck consists not in holding
the best cards at the table,
 Luckiest he who knows just when
to rise and go home."  [John Hay ]
"*************************
Law 27 - Scenario:
 +=+  Every player is entitled to the information
he brings to the table with him. [Law 16A1(d)].
In theory at least this includes the text of the law.
When the Director arrives at the table the only
options are with LHO of the offender. The
Director will explain these and will clarify the
meaning of the law if the LHO is uncertain of it.
          Only after the LHO rejects the IB does
the offender have any options. The other 3 players
at the table are entitled to know what the RC means
and the Director's ruling in relation to it. They are
not entitled to know what led to the IB and if
the offender discloses what he thought he was doing
Law 16B applies to that information. If anyone is
in doubt about the meaning of the law the Director
will clarify. The Director may take the offender
away from the table to obtain information the other
players should not have. (If the offender has already
said openly what caused the infraction - "I thought I
was making an overcall" - the Director will explain
the application of Law 16B to this information.)
         As a matter of bridge knowledge (again
16C1(d) refers) the players have the information
that the IB will have arisen from one of a number
of possible circumstances. The offender's partner,
with an appropriate hand, may explore within
these possibilities (in some circumstances it is
possible the offender's partner may know from
the information  lawfully available to him that they
have - or do not have - the combined values for
game etc.).
.......................................................................
Director's procedure accordingly:

1. He should ask the offender to say nothing, explaining that
anything he says or indicates may create UI for his partner.
2. He should tell the LHO that he may accept or reject the IB,
going on to tell him that if he rejects the IB the offender will
have options:
    If the offender makes the lowest legal bid in the same
denomination the auction will continue. If the offender makes
a call that conveys no information outside of the information
from the IB the auction will continue. If he selects any other
call it will silence his partner for the remainder of the auction.
3. He should answer any question the LHO raises but should
maintain the stance that he does not know what the offender
thought he was doing when he made the IB and should not
discuss options the offender may have if the IB is rejected.
The LHO may examine his opponent's system card or make
enquiries about opponent's system before choosing his option.
4. If the IB is rejected the Director needs to ascertain what
the offender was thinking when he made the IB. The other
three players are not entitled to know this, in my opinion, so
he should be asked away from the table. If the offender has
already volunteered this information at the table the Director
cites Law 16B.
5. The Director should amplify the explanation of Law 27B
without disclosing the basis of the offence. The IB is not part
of the legal auction.
6. The AI is twofold
    (i) the meaning of the replacement call (LHO may ask, or
RHO may at his turn);
    (ii) the knowledge, lawful under Law 16A1(d), that the
offender may have been responding to a call from partner,
overcalling a bid by opponent, or opening the bidding. The
offender's partner may use this information and in the
subsequent auction may explore, to the extent that his hand
justifies it, the possibilities of the hand. He is not entitled to
'guess' and act upon his guess. (In some situations one
- ? more than one - of the said possible causes of the IB
may be eliminated by circumstances.)
.......................................................................................
7. To complete this scenario I need to find an example case
in which it transpires that the additional (lawful) information
actually proves beneficial to the offending side to the extent
that they are able to obtain a result which (probably/possibly)
could not have been obtained without such assistance (as
distinct from blind luck).    In other words I am seeking an
example adjustment under Law 27D, and to what more fertile
population than inhabits this place could I address an invitation
to produce one?
                            ~ Grattan ~   +=+