[blml] comments on 27 procedure

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Herman De Wael a écrit :
> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote:
>   
>> Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
>> [following address discontinued:
>> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
>> *************************
>> "A full cup must be carried steadily."
>>                       [English proverb ]
>> "*************************
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:11 AM
>> Subject: Re: [blml] comments on 27 procedure
>>
>>
>>     
>>> John (MadDog) Probst wrote:
>>>       
>>>> It's a very good question Vitold (Hi, Long time no speak). If it is a 
>>>> given
>>>> that one cannot reasonably (or legally) have an agreement about ones own
>>>> sides' infractions, then the meaning of the IB is "no agreement". We know
>>>> full well that all we are entitled to is the partnership agreement, not 
>>>> the
>>>> player's thought process. Therefore you are absolutely NOT allowed to get 
>>>> an
>>>> explanation other than "no agreements as they would be illegal" . However 
>>>> I
>>>> would expect a player to provide past history of similar accidents. "Last
>>>> time he made an IB it was because he didn't see the auction to date" 
>>>> since
>>>> this is part of partnership experience, and the TD should so instruct.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>         
>>> That is not a helpful answer, John.
>>>
>>> The question is not "what does 1He pass 1He show?" because we all know
>>> that this cannot have any answer.
>>>
>>> The real table question is twofold:
>>> one: "what does pass 1He show?; what does 1He pass 2He show?" which
>>> has to be answered; and
>>> two: "what was your mistake? did you not see the 1He or did you think
>>> you were bidding high enough?" which is the real important issue here.
>>>
>>> My answer is that the Director needs to know the answer to that
>>> question. It determines his decision. Furthermore, that decision needs
>>> to be told to opponent before he needs to decide on accepting the IB
>>> (not perfectly clear, but my firm opinion in this case). Finally, the
>>> director's decision, in combination with a detailed knowledge of the
>>> laws (to which an opponent should be entitled), and in combination
>>> with the full system description (to which the opponent is certainly
>>> entitled) means that opponent can most (IMO 99%) of the time deduce
>>> what the intent was.
>>> My conclusion is that it is best for the whole table to allow the
>>> Director to reveal the original intent to the table.
>>>
>>>       
>> +=+ Until offender has a choice of options the Director has no
>> decision to make concerning the application of Law 27B and
>> does not enquire what the offender thought he was doing. The
>> IB is only withdrawn after LHO decides not to accept it.
>>         For the purpose of selecting his option LHO is entitled to
>> know what his options are, and what the law says about the
>> consequences of his choice. At this time the Director has no
>> information to give him about the effect in this particular case
>> of applying 27B.
>>                                 ~ Grattan ~  +=+
>>
>>     
>
> Within this whole discussion, this is the part I find most strange and 
> disagree with the strongest.
> We have always ruled IB in such a way that the LHO only needed to 
> decide on whether to accept AFTER the TD told that IB could or could 
> not escape "unpunished" by bidding some aprticular bid.
> I don't see why this should change in the new laws, where only the 
> number of acceptable changes has altered, nothing else.
>   

AG : agree with Herman. The wording L72A4 makes it necessary that the 
NOS know what each of their possible reactions will generate.

There was a somewhat similar situation not long ago : after EW bid all 
the way to 6D, not at all hindered by North's 2H overcall, South decided 
to sacrifice in 6H. West led a diamond OOT. In order to know what to 
request, North wanted to know whether East's jump-cue showed a void (if 
it did, disallowing a Diamond would mean East would have to open one of 
the other suits). The TD allowed him the information. To do this, he had 
to ask West the meaning of the 4H bid.

And about the present case : I disagree with those who claim that 
determining the intent of the player can't be done, because it will 
necessitate mind-reading, at least in some cases : it will, but other 
Laws ask us to do likewise, so that's no strong argument. Of course, it 
isn't an exact science, but I think reserving the right of both sides 
(as laid down by L72) is important.


Best regards

    Alain