[bluejak]

kevperk, on 2011-May-20, 13:08, said:

If I were going to amend the laws to support the stance of the insufficient bid being UI, I would strike the line about Law 16D not applying.

If I were to amend the laws to support what I feel is the intention, I would simply try to reword Law 16A1c to make it clearer what I already think it says.

The application of Law 27 and its direction of not applying Law 16D fulfills, to me, Law 16A1c.

Still no answer as to what "Law 16D does not apply" affects.

Great. The latest IE has messed up MultiQuote which I was beginning to like.

You have had answers, just that some people do not believe them.

[kevperk]

bluejak, on 2011-May-20, 15:37, said:

Great. The latest IE has messed up MultiQuote which I was beginning to like.

You have had answers, just that some people do not believe them.

I have heard your answer, thank you. Its the ones who disagree with you that don't answer.

[bluejak]

RMB1, on 2011-May-20, 11:29, said:

If I know that this is what Law 27 says because I have been told so, rather than what an analysis of the text reveals, then so be it. Perhaps those aspects of Law 27 and Law 16 can be improved: I doubt that the WBF LC will have that aspect of Law 27 as a priority for revision.

Again, please can we have an example where the ruling should be different.

1♥ 2♠ 2♥

Responder changes 2♥ to 3♥ and opener passes because his partner has only values for 2♥. Nine tricks are made.

If the 2♥ bid is UI we rule 4♥ -1. But if it is not UI and if we adopthe interpretationon we have been given we see if there is any way that 3♥ might be reached without the insufficient bid. Since thiplaysys 2NLebensohlhl they could have reached 3♥ so no adjustment under Law 27D.

Great: now the new IE has messed up my spellchekka.

If the 2♥ bid is UI we rule 4♥ -1. But if it is not UI and if we adopt the interpretation we have been given we see if there is any way that 3♥ might be reached without the insufficient bid. Since this pair plays 2NT as Lebensohl they could have reached 3♥ so no adjustment under Law 27D.



I quite liked MultiQuote.

[aguahombre]

Interesting new version of Lebensohl by responder after 1M opening. But, in order to stretch a point, anything is fair game.

[mycroft]

I wouldn't mind "IB is UI", but we already limit the choices on what calls can be made in exchange without drastic consequences; if we're going to a pure "IB is UI" rule, then we should remove those. I don't think that's going to be any better.

I do think that "partner is allowed to know that this hand may only have bid 'X' because any other call would bar him, so it might not be exactly what it would have meant without the infraction, as long as it doesn't go too far" is an appropriate penalty. I think that "make whatever call you wish, but the original call is UI to your partner and AI to the opponents" is also an appropriate penalty - but as I said, much more difficult to police. I do not think that "okay, you can make 'X' call or you can do something else and bar partner - *and* if you make 'X', partner has to take it as what X would have meant" is appropriate - it sounds too punitive for me. Unless we want to lead more people to say they mispulled when they didn't, or otherwise try to circumvent the rules - or unless we want to say "if you make a mistake, your opponents automatically get a good score". I don't (certain comments to the contrary on revokes notwithstanding).

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2011-May-20, 16:00, said:

Interesting new version of Lebensohl by responder after 1M opening. But, in order to stretch a point, anything is fair game.

Is it? I play it after 1m myself, and I think I got the idea from Frances.

[PeterAlan]

kevperk, on 2011-May-20, 13:48, said:

So your feeling is that "Law 16D does not apply" has no affect on any ruling. Right?

I'm going to regret this, but ...

Wrong. To spell it out yet again:

• It means that none of the specific provisions of Law 16D apply.
  
• It means that (apart from the particular circumstances covered in 16B & 16C) we fall back on just Law 16A to determine what information may or may not be used when making a call or play.
  
• It means that Law 16A1(b) does not kick in.
  
• It means, in short, that information from the IB is not authorised for either side, whereas it would be authorised for the NOS if Law 16D did apply, and it would be authorised for both sides if the mainstream interpretation is accepted.

All this has been said already - is that clear enough for you now? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way.)

[jeffford76]

mycroft, on 2011-May-20, 16:00, said:

I wouldn't mind "IB is UI", but we already limit the choices on what calls can be made in exchange without drastic consequences; if we're going to a pure "IB is UI" rule, then we should remove those. I don't think that's going to be any better.

I do think that "partner is allowed to know that this hand may only have bid 'X' because any other call would bar him, so it might not be exactly what it would have meant without the infraction, as long as it doesn't go too far" is an appropriate penalty. I think that "make whatever call you wish, but the original call is UI to your partner and AI to the opponents" is also an appropriate penalty - but as I said, much more difficult to police. I do not think that "okay, you can make 'X' call or you can do something else and bar partner - *and* if you make 'X', partner has to take it as what X would have meant" is appropriate - it sounds too punitive for me. Unless we want to lead more people to say they mispulled when they didn't, or otherwise try to circumvent the rules - or unless we want to say "if you make a mistake, your opponents automatically get a good score". I don't (certain comments to the contrary on revokes notwithstanding).

I agree with this.

I think any of these would be reasonable laws:
1. If you make an insufficient bid and it is not accepted, you may correct to any legal call, but your insufficient bid is AI to the opponents and UI to your partner. (Advantage: More often you get a normal bridge result. Disadvantage: Many club directors/players would make a hash of the UI restrictions.)
2. If you make an insufficient bid and it is not accepted, you may correct to any legal call (probably but not double), and your partner is barred. (Advantage: Easy to apply. Disadvantage: Not really bridge to play "guess a contract".)
3. If you make an insufficient bid and it is not accepted, if you have a call available that is equally or more descriptive than the insufficient bid you can make it, and otherwise you can make any call (except double) and your partner is barred. (Advantage: No UI worries since there's no information in the insufficient bid that isn't in the corrected bid. Disadvantage: Frequently there won't be a legal sufficient bid so your back to "guess a contract" and also this is hard for directors to apply.)

Essentially I would prefer any solution that gets rid of "correct to something that your partner legally knows doesn't mean what it normally would".

[aguahombre]

aguahombre, on 2011-May-20, 16:00, said:

Interesting new version of Lebensohl by responder after 1M opening. But, in order to stretch a point, anything is fair game.

bluejak, on 2011-May-20, 16:07, said:

Is it? I play it after 1m myself, and I think I got the idea from Frances.

http://www.bridgehan...L/Lebensohl.htm

I suppose if a director were trying really hard, he could look at find Lebensohl somewhere on their card -- and squeeze it into the sections on opening suit bids by the offending side.

[kevperk]

PeterAlan, on 2011-May-20, 16:26, said:

I'm going to regret this, but ...

Wrong. To spell it out yet again:

• It means that none of the specific provisions of Law 16D apply.
  
• It means that (apart from the particular circumstances covered in 16B & 16C) we fall back on just Law 16A to determine what information may or may not be used when making a call or play.
  
• It means that Law 16A1(b) does not kick in.
  
• It means, in short, that information from the IB is not authorised for either side, whereas it would be authorised for the NOS if Law 16D did apply, and it would be authorised for both sides if the mainstream interpretation is accepted.

All this has been said already - is that clear enough for you now? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way.)

Finally, you say how you think it affects ruling. For the first time. This is the first time you have mentioned how it affects the NOS. Again, you think it has no affect on the OS. Right?

So, we just need to replace "Law 16D does not apply" to "Law 16D1 does not apply, (but 16D2 still does)"? Odd decision of the lawmakers, if that is what they intended.

And I realize that (but 16D2 still does) isn't needed, but it just seems that the whole point of Law 27 referring to 16D is to apply to 16D2. You really think that it isn't. Amazing. Have you tried to think about what the lawmakers were intending. To make the IB unauthorized to the NOS!?! Really?

[PeterAlan]

I don't think that it could ever be a helpful approach just to specify that the information from the IB is UI. It would cause all kinds of conflict with any corresponding information - most of it, presumably - that's also in the sufficient bid, because of what one might loosely call the "UI trumps AI" principle. This might well be why Law 16D, with its UI provisions, is disapplied in this particular case.

What one would want to be able to do is to capture the notion that any information that's in the IB but not also in the SB is unauthorised.

{I happen to think that that's more-or-less what the current Laws do, but I won't risk wearying folks with more textual analysis.)

[PeterAlan]

kevperk, on 2011-May-20, 17:26, said:

Finally, you say how you think it affects ruling. For the first time. This is the first time you have mentioned how it affects the NOS. Again, you think it has no affect on the OS. Right?

So, we just need to replace "Law 16D does not apply" to "Law 16D1 does not apply, (but 16D2 still does)"? Odd decision of the lawmakers, if that is what they intended.

And I realize that (but 16D2 still does) isn't needed, but it just seems that the whole point of Law 27 referring to 16D is to apply to 16D2. You really think that it isn't. Amazing. Have you tried to think about what the lawmakers were intending. To make the IB unauthorized to the NOS!?! Really?

Kevperk, you clearly can't be bothered to read what I've already written, or to make any attempt to understand it. Goodbye.

[kevperk]

PeterAlan, on 2011-May-20, 17:59, said:

Kevperk, you clearly can't be bothered to read what I've already written, or to make any attempt to understand it. Goodbye.

I read what you say. I understand what you say. You are the one that did not, until recently, answer my questions. I now, finally understand that your position is that "Law 16D does not apply" is meant to make the info from the bid less restrictive than the UI laws (to avoid the UI trumps AI issue) but not to make it AI. You DID NOT make this clear until recently. I still disagree with you, but thank you for FINALLY stating your position.

What you wrote before was, basically, Law 27D removes an application that make the IB unauthorized, but other laws still make it unauthorized. You kept say this over and over again. Do you not agree that this position make the provision in Law 27D carry no weight? You may think that this was never your stance, and it is as you have just recently posted, but I have reread this thread over and that is what I read in what you said.

[dburn]

Why bother to use lebensohl? Instead, just play that after 1♥-2♠, 2♥ shows a competitive raise to 3♥, while 3♥ shows a normal limit raise. That way, 2NT can be used to show invitational values in a balanced hand without primary support for partner and with at least one stopper in the opponent's suit. I am aware that Frances Hinden and her partners will be entirely unfamiliar with this concept and will need to study it carefully, but I assure her that it has at least some technical and practical merit.

Meanwhile, I am unable to convince myself that the Laws intend to create a position in which a player's side is able to benefit from the player's own infraction. Despite the fact that Ton Kooijman believes it acceptable for a player to know, after 1♥-2♠-[1NT corrected to 2NT] that the 1NT/2NT bidder has a hand worth only 1NT, I do not so believe, nor can I place any construction on the words in the Laws that justifies such a belief. I should say here for the benefit of bluejak that my earlier "oops" was not intended as an ellipsis for some illegal utterance by the 1NT/2NT bidder, which would indeed be UI; instead, it was intended to convey only some hiatus during which 1NT was corrected to 2NT with (apparently) the knowledge that East intended to bid only 1NT being authorised information to West. I should also apologise to bluejak and others for any confusion that my earlier wording may have caused.

Those who know me will be aware that I believe people who cannot be bothered to follow suit should be shot, in order that the game may soon (if Darwin was right) be played only by people who can be bothered to follow suit. By the same token, people who cannot be bothered to look at what the auction has actually been before making their own contribution to it should be barred from bidding not only at their current turn but for at least the rest of the session, and possibly for the rest of their natural lives. My only reservation is that this might in some cases actually improve their results, but this cannot be helped.

There is a deplorable trend, initiated by the late Edgar Kaplan and (therefore) commanding support at the highest levels, to the effect that people who do something ridiculous should not necessarily get the bad results that their actions deserve. This trend led to the ridiculous Law 25B in the 1997 Code; that Law has properly been rescinded in the 2007 Code, but the equally ridiculous Law 27B has been introduced in its stead. This trend has led also to the current ridiculous interpretation of Law 12C1b in England and (for aught I know) elsewhere to the effect that if following an infraction by the enemy, a non-offending side bids or plays more or less at random but without committing an infraction itself, it is immune from the ridiculous results it might otherwise obtain. Again, this cannot be helped.

As to the current problem: if Law 16D does not apply, then it does not apply and should be excluded from consideration by a Director. This does not mean that Law 16B does not apply: if a player makes an insufficient bid that he later corrects to a sufficient bid, the IB is "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play". Doubtless in compiling the list of examples that appears in Law 16B the Lawmakers intended expressly to exclude information dealt with under Law 16D, but that is not what the words say. Doubtless when they wrote Law 27B the Lawmakers intended expressly that the implied provisions of Law 16D should carry over to Law 16B, but that is not what the words say either.

Instead, Law 16A2 says explicitly that information from a withdrawn action is "authorised (see D)"; but since D is explicitly stated in Law 27B not to apply, this provision of Law 16A2 cannot hold, and information from a withdrawn action must be treated as extraneous per Law 16B since there is no other way in which it can be treated. This is not what the Lawmakers intended, but since what they intended is ridiculous (since it allows an offending side to benefit from its infraction), one should have no compunction in applying the letter of the Law. Nor, if necessary, the firing squad.

[PeterAlan]

dburn, on 2011-May-21, 01:57, said:

As to the current problem: if Law 16D does not apply, then it does not apply and should be excluded from consideration by a Director. This does not mean that Law 16B does not apply: if a player makes an insufficient bid that he later corrects to a sufficient bid, the IB is "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play". Doubtless in compiling the list of examples that appears in Law 16B the Lawmakers intended expressly to exclude information dealt with under Law 16D, but that is not what the words say. Doubtless when they wrote Law 27B the Lawmakers intended expressly that the implied provisions of Law 16D should carry over to Law 16B, but that is not what the words say either.

Instead, Law 16A2 says explicitly that information from a withdrawn action is "authorised (see D)"; but since D is explicitly stated in Law 27B not to apply, this provision of Law 16A2 cannot hold, and information from a withdrawn action must be treated as extraneous per Law 16B since there is no other way in which it can be treated. This is not what the Lawmakers intended, but since what they intended is ridiculous (since it allows an offending side to benefit from its infraction), one should have no compunction in applying the letter of the Law. Nor, if necessary, the firing squad.

I agree entirely with what you say regarding Laws 16D, 27B and 16A1(b) (which is what I think you meant to refer to when citing 16A2), but I had avoided suggesting that information from the IB became UI under Law 27, as opposed to just not being authorised. In the latter case, any information it contains that is also in the sufficient bid would be authorised from the legal SB under Law 16A(1), and only the information that's in the IB but not in the SB would remain extraneous under 16A(3) and hence fall within the UI provisions of Law 16B. Actually, I think that that's what applies. As soon as you designate the IB as UI, however, all the information arising from it comes within Law 16B, whether or not it's in the SB too, and that's not helpful if you intend to allow replacement of the IB by the SB.

For example, let's take the simple auction with an insufficient overcall: 1♠ / 1♥, corrected to 2♥. If the IB is UI then anything demonstrably suggested by it - such as most raises in ♥ - are prohibited, and the effect is largely to silence partner. This doesn't seem to be what's intended, namely to allow the auction and play to continue with as few restraints as possible.

[aguahombre]

PeterAlan, on 2011-May-21, 03:23, said:

For example, let's take the simple auction with an insufficient overcall: 1♠ / 1♥, corrected to 2♥. If the IB is UI then anything demonstrably suggested by it - such as most raises in ♥ - are prohibited, and the effect is largely to silence .

Please explain how raises in hearts would be demonstrably suggested by the IB and thus prohibited. Advancer "only sees" the 2H overcall, not the IB, and raises to 3 or 4...with or without more competition...as he would have after a normal 2H overcall.

Failing to raise normally for fear the 2H overcall is only strong enough for a minimum 1-level overcall might be an issue; but the effect would not be to silence partner, but rather to scrutinize silence by partner.

[PeterAlan]

aguahombre, on 2011-May-21, 09:38, said:

Please explain how raises in hearts would be demonstrably suggested by the IB and thus prohibited. Advancer "only sees" the 2H overcall, not the IB, and raises to 3 or 4...with or without more competition...as he would have after a normal 2H overcall.

Because if you make the IB UI then the information that partner has a biddable ♥ suit is UI. You may get the same information from the 2♥ sufficient bid, but we're back in the old "UI trumps AI" territory. I suppose that you could try to make a case that the ♥ suit shown by the 2♥ overcall is not the same as the ♥ suit shown by a 1♥ opener, but I wouldn't care to run this one very hard.

[aguahombre]

I am unfamiliar with styles where a 2H overcall doesn't show a biddable heart suit. But that's just me. 1H/1H, corrected to 2H would be different, of course. But that was not the point you were making.

[PeterAlan]

aguahombre, on 2011-May-21, 10:30, said:

I am unfamiliar with styles where a 2H overcall doesn't show a biddable heart suit.

Of course it shows a biddable ♥ suit. But if you have the same information from a UI source then you can't use it - 16B kicks in. That's the "UI trumps AI" point.

[kevperk]

Here is my attempt at an analogy. Here are a set of laws
1a. You may not speed.
b. You may speed if special circumstances exist.
c. Cops are exempt, but you must maintain a speed equal to or lower than the speed limit.
2a. In an emergency, law 1c may not apply, but see b.
b. If it is not deem an extreme enough emergency, you will be deemed to be breaking the law.

During an emergency, can you speed? (Answer given in actual case is analogous to: since it is an emergency, Law 1c does not apply so we look at Laws 1a&b, and an emergency is not a special circumstance)

If not, why do you think the lawmaker put law 2 in otherwise. (First answer was to apply 2b, second was that noone, not even cops may speed in an emergency, and final answer was to make speeding neither allowed nor not allowed)

This may not be close, to me it is.