[cherdanno]

jdonn, on Jul 20 2009, 07:26 PM, said:

I don't see how I misunderstood the dictionary, it seems quite clear to me and even now I can't really see how it could be understood the other way.

The phrase you quoted was the explanation for the noun "subsitute".
I change my vote though to "both exist" and "jdonn is right in this specific use in law 27B4".
However, in the context that REALLY matters, i.e. football (the one with a ball not the one with a banana), there is clearly a "substitute" = new player, and a "substituted player" = the one who had to come off the field.

[bluejak]

jdonn, on Jul 21 2009, 01:26 AM, said:

I don't see how I misunderstood the dictionary, it seems quite clear to me and even now I can't really see how it could be understood the other way.

I read the reference given and it does not seem to tell me anything about "substituted" [sic] used as an adjective.

jdonn, on Jul 21 2009, 01:26 AM, said:

Also regarding the law itself, it wouldn't make sense for substituted to refer to the first bid since if the first bid had been accepted there would be no second bid, and we wouldn't be here reading law 27B4.

Not everyone likes to pre-empt the TD. If my RHO makes in insufficient bid, and changes it to another insufficient bid, I do not accept anything: I call the TD and let him tell me what I can accept.

jdonn, on Jul 21 2009, 01:26 AM, said:

Nonetheless, as you surely feel the same about the opposite viewpoint, this just goes to show how difficult it really is to write clear laws.

Oh, sure, it is another unclear Law.

helene_t, on Jul 21 2009, 01:20 AM, said:

Although this is not a definitive answer of course, I think it does suggest that "the player substituted a new bid for the original one" would be in line with a more common usage than "the player substituted the original bid with a new one".

But that is using "substituted" as a verb: the Law uses it as an adjective, does it not?

[david_c]

cherdanno, on Jul 21 2009, 01:37 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 20 2009, 07:26 PM, said:

I don't see how I misunderstood the dictionary, it seems quite clear to me and even now I can't really see how it could be understood the other way.

The phrase you quoted was the explanation for the noun "subsitute".
I change my vote though to "both exist" and "jdonn is right in this specific use in law 27B4".
However, in the context that REALLY matters, i.e. football (the one with a ball not the one with a banana), there is clearly a "substitute" = new player, and a "substituted player" = the one who had to come off the field.

Agree with this: Josh's version looks right to me in this context, but I think in general it could be either.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Jul 20 2009, 08:41 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 21 2009, 01:26 AM, said:

Also regarding the law itself, it wouldn't make sense for substituted to refer to the first bid since if the first bid had been accepted there would be no second bid, and we wouldn't be here reading law 27B4.

Not everyone likes to pre-empt the TD. If my RHO makes in insufficient bid, and changes it to another insufficient bid, I do not accept anything: I call the TD and let him tell me what I can accept.

I don't get it, why didn't you call after the first one?

[Sven Pran]

Law 27B4: if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does not accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows

In the Norwegian translation we have assumed this to mean:

if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does not accept the last insufficient bid as A allows

We felt confident that this was the real intention of law27B4.

Law 27B4 never applies unless LHO has already refused to accept the first insufficient bid, therefore (implicitly) referring to the first insufficient bid in Law 27B4 makes no sense.

regards Sven

[suprgrover]

Sven Pran, on Jul 21 2009, 03:17 AM, said:

Law 27B4: if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does not accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows

In the Norwegian translation we have assumed this to mean:

if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does not accept the last insufficient bid as A allows

We felt confident that this was the real intention of law27B4.

I don't see how this makes any sense. The reference to "as A allows" means that LHO has always had the opportunity to accept the first insufficient bid. And "as in 3" means that the second insufficient bid is treated like a correction to a double or redouble.

I have always assumed that the point of 27B4 is to adjudicate the following: N: 1♠ E: 4♣ S: 2♠

W: Did you say 2♠?
S: Yes. But I'm changing it to 3♠.
W: Director! I wanted to accept 2♠.

27B4 gives, I think, West the chance to accept the 2♠ bid but not the 3♠ bid.

[gordontd]

The word "substituted" is used as an adjective referring to calls or bids on several other occasions in the law book (eg L17D2, L27B1a) and on each occasion it is perfectly clear that the substituted call is not the original call.

[Sven Pran]

suprgrover, on Jul 21 2009, 02:10 PM, said:

I have always assumed that the point of 27B4 is to adjudicate the following: N: 1♠ E: 4♣ S: 2♠

W: Did you say 2♠?
S: Yes.  But I'm changing it to 3♠.
W: Director!  I wanted to accept 2♠.

27B4 gives, I think, West the chance to accept the 2♠ bid but not the 3♠ bid.

This is (in sequence) a case for Law 27 that immediately becomes a case for Law 27C when S says he wants to change his IB to 3♠.

Under Law 27C The Director must proceed as follows:

(To West): Do you accept the IB of 2♠?
If West answers "yes" then end of story, so we assume that he answers "no"
(To South): Your premature correction to 3♠ stands, but as this bid is (also) an insufficient bid I shall go back first to 27B4 which directs me to 27A and ask:
(To West): Do you accept the IB of 3♠?
Again: If West answers "yes" then end of story, so we assume that he answers "no"
(To South): This brings me to Law 27B3 and you must substitute a legal bid or PASS, and your partner must PASS during the remainder of this auction. Also Laws 26 and 23 can become applicable.

regards Sven

[bluejak]

jdonn, on Jul 21 2009, 08:41 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 20 2009, 08:41 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 21 2009, 01:26 AM, said:

Also regarding the law itself, it wouldn't make sense for substituted to refer to the first bid since if the first bid had been accepted there would be no second bid, and we wouldn't be here reading law 27B4.

Not everyone likes to pre-empt the TD. If my RHO makes in insufficient bid, and changes it to another insufficient bid, I do not accept anything: I call the TD and let him tell me what I can accept.

I don't get it, why didn't you call after the first one?

There wasn't time? Sometimes players realise a bid is insufficient and do something completely stupid before anyone else can do anything.

[bluejak]

gordontd, on Jul 21 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

The word "substituted" is used as an adjective referring to calls or bids on several other occasions in the law book (eg L17D2, L27B1a) and on each occasion it is perfectly clear that the substituted call is not the original call.

That is a convincing argument: none of the others are. But it shows how badly written the Law is. If the only way to interpret a Law is to look at completely different laws to find out how the WBFLC interprets a word ...

[barmar]

bluejak, on Jul 21 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

gordontd, on Jul 21 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

The word "substituted" is used as an adjective referring to calls or bids on several other occasions in the law book (eg L17D2, L27B1a) and on each occasion it is perfectly clear that the substituted call is not the original call.

That is a convincing argument: none of the others are. But it shows how badly written the Law is. If the only way to interpret a Law is to look at completely different laws to find out how the WBFLC interprets a word ...

Actually, that's a common process in many forms of jurisprudence. Human languages are inherently ambiguous, and quite often the way to determine intent in lawbooks is to look for analogous uses and assume consistency.

Another way is for the lawmakers to publish the discussions that led to adoption of a law, or a supplementary rationale.

[Lobowolf]

barmar, on Jul 21 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 21 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

gordontd, on Jul 21 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

The word "substituted" is used as an adjective referring to calls or bids on several other occasions in the law book (eg L17D2, L27B1a) and on each occasion it is perfectly clear that the substituted call is not the original call.

That is a convincing argument: none of the others are. But it shows how badly written the Law is. If the only way to interpret a Law is to look at completely different laws to find out how the WBFLC interprets a word ...

Actually, that's a common process in many forms of jurisprudence. Human languages are inherently ambiguous, and quite often the way to determine intent in lawbooks is to look for analogous uses and assume consistency.

Another way is for the lawmakers to publish the discussions that led to adoption of a law, or a supplementary rationale.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.


Sorry, you were giving me Legislation and Statutory Interpretation flashbacks.

[blackshoe]

Just for laughs, I submitted that to a web translator. It came back with "expressio one is to shut out the second". wtf?

[Grazy69]

The conversation should go like this assuming the TD is at the table when the 1D bid is still on the table. If not the offender would be asked to put the 1D bid back on the table.

TD to offenders LHO “ Do you accept the 1D bid”, and before LHO answers the TD read out laws B1(a) and B1(b)to the table explaining all options.

TD to LHO “Do you accept the 1D bid” Answer “No”( already known )
Offender then bids 2D

TD says to LHO “Do you accept the bid of 2D” and before LHO answers TD now reads Law 27B4 to the table explaining all options

TD says to LHO “Do you accept the 2D bid ( As Law27A allows )

If LHO says “yes” bidding continues as normal
If LHO says “no” offender can bid what he likes (but not X or XX Law 27 B4) and offender’s partner must pass throughout.
Lead penalties may apply (Law 26) if the offending side becomes defenders.
And Law 23 is checked.

TD to table on leaving “If not happy you may appeal” Law 92

[bluejak]

I hope and trust that the above was meant as a joke and that people will not take it seriously. You do not read Laws out in full when they will confuse people: you never give any players any choices until they have heard all the choices and what their effects are. I am afraid quite a few TDs forget Law 9D2.

[blackshoe]

Don't you mean 9B2, David?

[bluejak]

I certainly do.

I was merely testing to see whether anyone was reading this.

[JoAnneM]

Clubs are not required to have appeals committees, so 92D doesn't always apply.

[blackshoe]

I think you've misread us, Joanne. David and I are discussing law nine, not law ninety two. In particular, Law 9B2:

Quote

no player shall take any action until the director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

As to appeals committees, the laws do not require such at all. Law 80B2{k} requires the Tournament Organizer (a club, for example) to "make suitable arrangements for the conduct of appeals under Law 93". Law 92A gives any contestant or his captain the right to appeal any ruling by the director at his table, subject only to possible sanction if the appeal is deemed to be without merit. If there is no committee, the Director shall hear the appeal (Law 93A).

[JoAnneM]

So the same director who made the ruling would hear the appeal? What would be the point of that?