[blml] Consult the people.

[Herman De Wael]

gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote:
> 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.

I fail to see why this should be "in theory". I believe that the TD 
has the duty of explaining every piece of relevant law text to the table.

> 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.)

It is clear that the things the IBer says are UI to the partner. It is 
also clear that the things the partner can deduce from the bid 
actually made, from the substituted bid, and from the law text, is AI.

What is less clear is if the AI leads to the UI being no longer present.

Example1: 2NT pass 2Di. The player says nothing. The TD allows the 
correction to 3Di (transfer). Everyone knows 2Di was intended as over 
1NT (transfer).
Example2: 2NT pass 2Di. The player says nothing. The TD allows no 
correction. The player chooses to bid 4Sp. Everyone knows the IBer 
intended to open 2Di Multi with a weak 2 in spades.

Is this knowledge AI to the partner? I think it is. And I don't thing 
there is any difference if the IBer in addition says "I thought you 
opened 1NT" (Ex1) or "I thought I was dealer" (Ex2). Those expressions 
are UI, but the deduction makes them AI. I believe.

>          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.

I would add to this that he should ask the table if the offender has 
already said something. No need to take a player off the table in 
order to not reveal something that has been said already.

> 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.

OK

> 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.

I'm not certain about this. I think the LHO is entitled to know if 
there is present or not some RB that can be done without penalty. That 
is the way we've been doing it under the 1997 laws. After all, the LHO 
can guess at the original meaning, and can deduce from opponents' SC 
if there will be such a RB available.

> 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.

See above.

> 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.

I don't understand this bit.

> 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.)

This is what I was saying higher. Grattan agrees that the deductions 
are AI.
I maintain that it is so often the case that the original intent can 
be deduced, that I would be inclined to always reveal it to the table 
and let it be UI unless the partner can show how he can deduce it, in 
which case it is AI.
The cost in terms of additional UI is offset by the benefit of having 
opponents receive every bit of information, including those parts 
partner has deduced from detailed knowledge of system and lawbook. 
Sometimes opponents don't realize that the original intent could be 
deduced, so they don't ask enough questions to make the deduction. All 
the while, partner has made the deduction, has the correct 
information, which is AI to him.

> .......................................................................................
> 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 ~   +=+
> 


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