[blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure.

[Guthrie]

[Herman De Wael)
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.

[Grattan Endicott]
+=+ Where the basis of the IBer's bid has alternative possibilities the 
partner is not entitled to guess which of them is the true explanation. 
His knowledge of the game will tell him what the alternative 
possibilities are  and this is Law 16A1(d) information. If he is told
that he is free to participate in the auction following the offender's 
choice of RC, and it is not the minimum legal bid in the same 
denomination as the IB he will know that the meaning of the RC is 
contained within the meaning of the IB and the auction continues under
27B1(b).  If the denomination of the RC is the same as that of the IB at 
the lowest sufficient level he knows that the auction is continuing 
under Law 27B1(a). This is all AI for the partner. What is not AI is the
information he derives from knowledge *which* of the alternative 
possibilities was the basis of offender's IB. Only if there can be no 
alternative possibility, given the bridge situation, is this knowledge 
AI. The basic example is 1H - P - 1H: this may be one of three 
possibilities, response, overcall, opening, depending whether offender
thought no-one had bid or thought that a prior bid was in a minor suit. 
But if the IB is 1C this can only have been an intended opening; it is 
knowledge the partner brought to the table that 1C can only be an 
opening bid.

[Nige1]
Is the aim of Bridge law to keep directors busy. no matter how much it 
spoils player's enjoyment of the game? It is an indictment of the apathy 
of players that they do not rise up in protest against current legal trends.

Law 27 is typical. Some of its flaws ...

[A] It is ridiculous to expect most directors, who can't grasp simpler 
ideas, to understand sophisticated rules about which bits of information 
are authorised by law 27. Players are unlikely even to try. Even if some 
masochistic player manages to understand the *UI* rules, he is unlikely 
to perform the gymnastics of imagination required to conform to them.

[B] Law 27 provides sets of *options* that each side may exercise.  IMO 
this is unnecessary and stupid. What kinds of convention you may agree, 
contingent on which option you choose, will be another source of endless 
controversy about interpretation.

[C] Under law 27, the offending side sometimes achieves a *lucky 
outcome* after a replacement bid. When may the director cancel this 
table result and substitute a worse score or - Heaven forbid - a 
weighted mix of imaginary scores? This is another bone of contention, 
unlikely to be resolved.

All this provides entertainment and employment for directors. It also 
empowers them to impose almost any result that they feel like. Secretary 
bird players may also benefit. But what about the vast majority of players?

Law 27 could be simplified. For example ...

If a player makes an insufficient (or out-of-turn or illegal) call then 
the call is cancelled and the information is unauthorised to his 
partner, who is silenced for the rest of the auction. The offender, at 
each of his legitimate turns to call, may make any legal call. The 
director ratifies the actual result achieved unless he judges that the 
offender could have silenced his partner deliberately.

Notice that an attempt to "condone" the illegal call is likely to be 
another infraction. Exceptionally, for example, against a handicapped 
offender, the non-offenders may ask the director to waive their rights.

A few advantages ...
  - No options for anybody.
  - Simple UI restrictions.
  - the actual result will usually be upheld.
  - Some directors and players may be able to understand this rule.