[awm]

The problem is the "info-gathering claim" where the decline of the claim lets declarer know that something's up and he modifies his line of play accordingly. I'd rather leave this rule alone.

The one I'd change is the one about insufficient bids. If they are corrected (made sufficient) then I don't think the original insufficient call should be authorized information to partner. Yet under current law, it is. It creates a situation where an insufficient bid can substantially help the offending side (although obviously making insufficient bids intentionally is unethical).

[Sven Pran]

awm, on Aug 31 2009, 08:48 AM, said:

The one I'd change is the one about insufficient bids. If they are corrected (made sufficient) then I don't think the original insufficient call should be authorized information to partner. Yet under current law, it is. It creates a situation where an insufficient bid can substantially help the offending side (although obviously making insufficient bids intentionally is unethical).

Except that this situation is amply taken care of by Law 27D

regards Sven

[david_c]

I'd change Law 27. In the previous incarnation of IBLF, bluejak posted an idea for this which I thought was excellent:

- If an insufficient bid is not accepted, it can be corrected to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, regardless of what those bids might mean.
- Any other correction silences partner in the usual way, again regardless of what it might mean.
- Information from the replaced insufficient bid is UI to partner.

[bluejak]

Sven Pran, on Aug 31 2009, 09:04 AM, said:

awm, on Aug 31 2009, 08:48 AM, said:

The one I'd change is the one about insufficient bids. If they are corrected (made sufficient) then I don't think the original insufficient call should be authorized information to partner. Yet under current law, it is. It creates a situation where an insufficient bid can substantially help the offending side (although obviously making insufficient bids intentionally is unethical).

Except that this situation is amply taken care of by Law 27D

I do not think it is. Players do not know what they are allowed to use, and the Law seems an unnecessary mess to me.

[Apollo81]

awm, on Aug 31 2009, 02:48 AM, said:

The problem is the "info-gathering claim" where the decline of the claim lets declarer know that something's up and he modifies his line of play accordingly. I'd rather leave this rule alone.

The one I'd change is the one about insufficient bids. If they are corrected (made sufficient) then I don't think the original insufficient call should be authorized information to partner. Yet under current law, it is. It creates a situation where an insufficient bid can substantially help the offending side (although obviously making insufficient bids intentionally is unethical).

I encountred this for this first time at the most recent nationals. My RHO bid 4N keycard and I bid 5♣. So did my LHO. Director was called, and LHO was allowed to change to double, which had the same meaning by their agreements (allegedly). Thus there was no chance of a misunderstanding, since the meaning of 5♣ was authorized information.

Another situation I heard about anecdotally: player A makes an alertable call, but his partner is not paying full attention to the table and there is a short (5 seconds) delay between when the call is placed on the table and when it is alerted. During this 5-second period, player A's LHO bids something. He is then allowed to retract his bid after hearing the alert explained, but the fact that he had tried to bid something is authorized information.

[blackshoe]

Apollo81, on Sep 4 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

Another situation I heard about anecdotally: player A makes an alertable call, but his partner is not paying full attention to the table and there is a short (5 seconds) delay between when the call is placed on the table and when it is alerted. During this 5-second period, player A's LHO bids something. He is then allowed to retract his bid after hearing the alert explained, but the fact that he had tried to bid something is authorized information.

I would make the same ruling - although player A's LHO didn't just try to bid something, he did bid something - completely legally, since it was his turn. Not only is the fact that he bid AI, so is any inference about his hand derived from that withdrawn bid (Law 16A1).

[PeterE]

... just to make sure ...

Are we in agreement, that LHO's retracted call and the inference thereof are AI to his partner (RHO) only and UI to player A and A's partner?

[bluejak]

This is just a standard ruling under Law 27B1A: it is up to the TD to judge whether the alert was made "promptly" or not. Law 16D makes it clear that the original call is UI to one side and AI to the other.

[Vampyr]

awm, on Aug 31 2009, 07:48 AM, said:

The one I'd change is the one about insufficient bids. If they are corrected (made sufficient) then I don't think the original insufficient call should be authorized information to partner.

Law 27 seems to be a sick joke by the Drafting Subcommittee, but I agree that some of the problems would be solved if the IB were UI. Making it AI seems a bizarre choice. I would be interested in knowing the reasoning behind it.

I have not heard of much ill effect arising from this law change, perhaps because insufficient bids are pretty rare (another reason for not making a substantial change resulting in a very convoluted law).

I have an idea, particularly for clubs, especially clubs that have volunteer playing directors who may not be good players or skilled directors...

Suppose directors in such clubs received guidance from the club's chief TD or TC that, since it is so difficult to determine, the director's opinion will never be that the replacement bid has "the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid"? I am considering giving this guidance to a club in which I am involved.

[blackshoe]

The concept "club's chief TD or TC" is interesting. Around here, clubs are sole proprietorships, there is no TC, and the owner is usually the only TD. There are exceptions - I direct a game owned by someone else, but I'm doing it because she fell and broke her back two years ago, and was unable to direct for some time. She's never second-guessed any of my rulings, but otoh, so far as I know no one has asked her to.

As for telling a director, club level or not, that "your judgement isn't good enough to apply this law, so you cannot" that seems rather insulting to me.

[awm]

Here's an example that happened to a friend of mine.

The auction started 1♦-2♣-1♥.

Of course, the 1♥ call is insufficient. The director was called, and the player in fourth chair opted not to accept the 1♥ call. The bidder then amended his call to 2♥. Since both were natural, the auction continued without further penalty:

1♦-2♣-2♥-Pass
2NT-All pass

The 2NT bidder had 14 hcp and three hearts. The 2♥ bidder had 8 hcp and four hearts. The 2NT contract made exactly for +120.

Now, if the fact that the 2♥ bidder had originally intended to bid 1♥ was unauthorized, then the 2NT call would be disallowed (it is normal to raise to 4♥ on such a hand, and the 2NT call is made more appealing by the UI that partner might have fewer hearts and fewer points than a normal competitive 2♥ call would indicate). The offending side would probably be forced to play 4♥ failing for -50 or -100.

However, the attempt to bid 1♥ is authorized to opener, and the UI laws do not apply. We can try to apply 27D, but this only matters if the offending side received a worse result than would have been likely without the insufficient bid. Suppose that responder's normal call after 1♦-2♣ is pass, at which point 2♣ would fail by two tricks for +200. Then the ruling would be "table result stands" and +120 to the opening side.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Sep 23 2009, 05:02 AM, said:

As for telling a director, club level or not, that "your judgement isn't good enough to apply this law, so you cannot" that seems rather insulting to me.

The situation is different in a club that has an experienced, paid director. But I think that most clubs in England, apart from some of the large ones with premises and daily games, rely on volunteer playing directors. I hope I am not wrong, because if I am then David Stevenson will say that I am one of those annoying people who don't know anything about any place besides London!

Anyway, in such clubs, I don't think that most people who find themselves director on the night would want the headache of trying to understand the Offending Side's system and make a ruling based on that. An untrained director with little experience will probably not be able to read L27B and make out what it is supposed to mean (I can't easily read it, and I know exactly what it is supposed to mean). And a player of any level who is not familiar with the OS's system will have a lot of trouble trying to work out all of the possible negative inferences. A weak player will have no chance at all.

This is why, at the club level, I think it should be acceptable to give such guidance as, "don't allow it unless it is blindingly obvious".

[pran]

awm, on Sep 22 2009, 11:33 PM, said:

We can try to apply 27D, but this only matters if the offending side received a worse result than would have been likely without the insufficient bid.

HUH?

Is this just a typo, or a complete misunderstanding of Law 27D?

Law 27D matters when the non-offending side received a worse result than would have been likely without the insufficient bid.

regards Sven

[bluejak]

I get a lot of queries from club TDs, and most of them are based on the assumption that the position is too hard for them on their own. Perhaps it is a country thing, but English TDs usually are only too happy to have help, which is one reason I am so busy!

No, Stef, in this case I think you are completely right and probably have a much higher proportion of paid TDs in London than elsewhere. For example, in Merseyside I understand that two TDs are paid per month in the entire County: that is one TD once a month and another TD once a month. There are probably about 120 or so duplicates per month.

After writing the above I realised I had forgotten we do have one proprietorial club, which I had not included, so the proprietor runs it most of the time. My guess is that when he does not he still does not pay anyone, but I do not know.

This post has been edited by bluejak: 2009-September-23, 06:35

[blackshoe]

Heh. Paid? Yah. Last week I made 12 bucks. There've been times I've made less.

I think it would be okay to suggest that a TD might rule as you say, but I don't think a club's management should require it. I'm not even sure that's legal.

[mycroft]

awm, on Sep 22 2009, 10:33 PM, said:

Here's an example that happened to a friend of mine.

The auction started 1♦-2♣-1♥.
[edited...]
However, the attempt to bid 1♥ is authorized to opener, and the UI laws do not apply. We can try to apply 27D, but this only matters if the offending side received a worse result than would have been likely without the insufficient bid. Suppose that responder's normal call after 1♦-2♣ is pass, at which point 2♣ would fail by two tricks for +200. Then the ruling would be "table result stands" and +120 to the opening side.

And if responder's normal call was double, and that would have led to 2NT for +120 or 2H for +110 (at IMPs), then nobody has a problem, and a board gets played that would otherwise would only be played (for the purposes of score) in my and my consultants' head as TD. Good job.

I agree that the way we've put it "it's authorized, but if you got an advantage from the insufficiency that was unreasonable to achieve without it, we'll take it away from you to ensure that people don't purposely take advantage of our attempt to play cards. No, we won't tell you in advance what is an 'advantage'" could be better. I can't tell you exactly how, though.

(1H)-1C, in this highly-unnatural world where system forces us to open our weakest suit (Standard American) would effectively be a sentence of "oh well, play the next board while I tell you what score to write on your card" were it not for L27C2.

I would, however, like the "common-sense" priority of L25A over L27A1 to be made explicit, just to save an hour a year explaining it.

[FrancesHinden]

I wonder if the following Law would work:

- You can correct an insufficient bid to anything you like, with no direct penalty.
- Information from the insufficient bid is UI to partner, AI to the opponents

It has the advantage of simplicity
It removes all problems from the immediate ruling
It has the potential for more UI rulings; however at least TDs have practice at making UI rulings(!) 27D is so rarely used it is difficult to get agreement when it is.

It won't necessarily stop some deliberate cheating, but then neither do the current rules.

[axman]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 29 2009, 04:10 AM, said:

I wonder if the following Law would work:

- You can correct an insufficient bid to anything you like, with no direct penalty.
- Information from the insufficient bid is UI to partner, AI to the opponents

It has the advantage of simplicity
It removes all problems from the immediate ruling
It has the potential for more UI rulings; however at least TDs have practice at making UI rulings(!) 27D is so rarely used it is difficult to get agreement when it is.

It won't necessarily stop some deliberate cheating, but then neither do the current rules.

When IBer substitutes a sufficient call, how does that return the number of communications he has made to his partner to the number that he was entitled to have made?

It hasn't. what it has done is to legitimize that the offenders are entitled to more bids than non offenders.

At that point, the best that can be done is to attempt to even out the total number of turns between the two sides. The most straight forward approach is to impose upon the partner a meaningless [and legal] call at the earliest sensible opportunity [his next turn]. In other words, offender takes two turns allotted to his partnership rather than splitting that duty. That he might be passed out behaves [for the most part] as an overbalancing of the scales. But that imbalance is poetic.

Are there consequences to such an approach? yes.

The non offenders are provided the maximum unfettered bidding room, bidding room that otherwise they could be unfairly be deprived if the offenders augmented their bidding with UI.

Offender may have UI that enables him to profitably bid a higher contract with additional confidence, thereby taking non offenders out of an auction they would have otherwise profitted.

Even still, offender's canceled call is quite likely to have conveyed unauthorized information so material that if partner is permitted to call freely the scales cannot be balanced.

In the final analysis, the suggestion that allows partner to bid does nothing to balance what offender has gained- it merely shifts the responsibility by creating even bigger problems [ethical and moral] not merely for the players but for adjudicators.

[blackshoe]

The only way I know of to eradicate cheating is to shoot cheaters when you catch them. There are two problems with this: they sometimes take time to catch, and other (non-bridge) authorities tend to frown on shooting people. Oh, yeah, and it's messy, too.