[pescetom]

I was present at dinner in Salsomaggiore 2023 when the powers that be interrogated themselves about the future of this Law and Italian proposals.
I think it was clear to all that in 2027 (if not earlier) it has to be reviewed.
There are multiple choices, including:
- the masochistic proposal: continue with the actual Laws, with minor revisions and precisations
- the conservative proposal: return to 2007 Laws or similar
- the DB proposal: any substitution is allowed but the illegal bid is UI, adjust and punish as appropriate
- the Italian proposal: any substitution is allowed, no UI but examine what would have happened without the infraction, adust if appropriate
- the simplistic proposal: penalize the infraction and assign the score that would have happened without the infraction, without playing.

FWIW my heart beats with the last option, unpopular though it may be. My thought as always is to make the game comprehensible and interesting to new players.

[jillybean]

Simple, understandable, completely impartial and easy to apply. They should look for other laws to simplify.

Unpopular because we are unaccustomed to having infractions penalized.

[sfi]

 pescetom, on 2024-February-27, 12:22, said:

The commentary gives a lot of rope on Strength differences and a small amount on length differences, with many examples drawing more or less fine lines.
It has a lot less to say about Subsets and the only related example as I recall is perfectly black and white (weak 6 spades comparable to multi).

At least now I see where your strictness arises, even if I don't agree that it should be applied that way. Thanks.

Quote

In the case of OP, the illegal call provides the substantial other information that the hand is not a 10-13 (or 12-14) HCP 5332 (maybe also excluding some or all 5422 and 6332 according to 1NT agreements).

You're reading this wrong. The illegal call is the "opening 1C". It does not convey any such information, since all those hands would open 1C. The legal call (the 2C overcall) is where you find out that the minimum balanced hands are excluded. That's fine according to the laws.

The edge cases to be considered are those 2C overcalls with a good suit and a hand not quite good enough to open, or the strong NT hands with 5-6 clubs and no spade stopper. Those are the hands where partner can rule them out due to the UI but not because of the AI, and the director has to assess whether their partner made use of this information.

[sfi]

 smerriman, on 2024-February-28, 14:12, said:

How would you do this as a director? It seems it would involve going through literally every single card played by the defender (assuming they end on defense), determining all logical alternatives, and deciding if the one played is demonstrated by the fact that the missing HCP/shape in partner's hand can't add to something in the 1NT range, and whether a different card may instead have led to a different result. It feels like this would take hours to determine..

The point of the subset rule is that it immediately removes all traces of UI, so you don't have to do this.

Hours is an overstatement, but yes this is what I would do as a director. For the few non-obvious situations I have dealt with I would estimate it's about 10 minutes/hand - mostly in the bidding but in defence as well if it gets there.

[jillybean]

 pescetom, on 2024-February-29, 16:49, said:

Do you really want to be challenged with examples which are not simple or easy to apply?
Even a cursory examination of the Commentary examples (and the similar ones they dodge) should discourage you.


Unpopular with whom?
Penalized for what and how?
Correcting to what "would" have happened without the infraction is not a penalization.
This is yet another Law more in the line of correct the consequences of an infraction than penalize the infraction, thus popular with unscrupulous players.
The reason the majority of TDs are uneasy is more to do with obvious difficulty of uniform interpretation IMO.

I'm actually agreeing with your post, the quote was omitted.

 pescetom, on 2024-February-28, 16:10, said:

- the simplistic proposal: penalize the infraction and assign the score that would have happened without the infraction, without playing.

[blackshoe]

There's a lot of "we don't do that here" amongst directors in the ACBL as regards procedural and disciplinary penalties, especially at club level. Even at Sectional or Regional level, IME. I can't speak to top levels. Maybe it's different in Italy.

Basically, to get most directors at the lower levels I mentioned to issue a penalty, you have to really piss them off.

[jillybean]

 blackshoe, on 2024-March-01, 04:19, said:

Basically, to get most directors at the lower levels I mentioned to issue a penalty, you have to really piss them off.

I haven't received one,yet.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2024-March-01, 04:19, said:

There's a lot of "we don't do that here" amongst directors in the ACBL as regards procedural and disciplinary penalties, especially at club level. Even at Sectional or Regional level, IME. I can't speak to top levels. Maybe it's different in Italy.

Basically, to get most directors at the lower levels I mentioned to issue a penalty, you have to really piss them off.

That's true here too, but on the other hand nobody can stop a Director from applying the rules.
I give club players more rope on many things, but am still quite ready to impose a Penalty when the Laws so suggest or Regulations require.
My experience FWIW is that club players will squeal when they receive a penalty but accurately avoid any recurrence.
At regional level it's different, the players understand the issues better so a penalty is either quietly accepted or contested on a legal basis.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2024-February-29, 22:21, said:

I'm actually agreeing with your post, the quote was omitted.

Doh, I see that now
Text messages can be difficult, my apologies.

[pescetom]

In reply to:

 pescetom, on 2024-February-28, 22:20, said:

In the case of OP, the illegal call provides the substantial other information that the hand is not a 10-13 (or 12-14) HCP 5332 (maybe also excluding some or all 5422 and 6332 according to 1NT agreements).

you wrote:

 sfi, on 2024-February-28, 22:20, said:

You're reading this wrong.
The illegal call is the "opening 1C". It does not convey any such information, since all those hands would open 1C. The legal call (the 2C overcall) is where you find out that the minimum balanced hands are excluded.

You are reading that wrong
Of course the illegal call is the "opening 1C", and of course it would not convey such information if it were legally bid.
It conveys the substantial other information that the hand is not a 10-13 (or 12-14) HCP 5332 (maybe also excluding some or all 5422 and 6332 according to 1NT agreements) when considered together with the legal (but not necessarily comparable) replacement call of 2C.

 sfi, on 2024-February-28, 22:20, said:

That's fine according to the laws.

The call of 2C is legal, if that is what you are referring to.
It is not IMO comparable under the subset rule.

 Laws Commentary, on 2024-February-28, 22:20, said:

Law 23A2 deals with situations where the calls do not have the “same or similar meaning”, but
where the error is clearly of no importance because the legal call provides more precise
information than the illegal call gave.

We are clearly not in this situation.

 sfi, on 2024-February-28, 22:20, said:

The edge cases to be considered are those 2C overcalls with a good suit and a hand not quite good enough to open, or the strong NT hands with 5-6 clubs and no spade stopper. Those are the hands where partner can rule them out due to the UI but not because of the AI, and the director has to assess whether their partner made use of this information.

The author of OP specified that NT opening range was "10-13 or 12-14", not strong NT. So whether or not we retain that a sufficiently limited number of "edge case" violations of the subset rule is acceptable, that is not the scenario we are in: the "edge cases" represent a sizeable percentage of possible 2C overcalls.

[sanst]

This discussion makes clear that the concept of a comparable call is hardly useful. I still think that it should be dropped. Let the trespasser make a legal call when its her or his turn and award an AS if the opponents were damaged. Of course you warn the partner that all information raising from the IB or BOOT is UI.

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2024-March-04, 12:17, said:

This discussion makes clear that the concept of a comparable call is hardly useful. I still think that it should be dropped. Let the trespasser make a legal call when its her or his turn and award an AS if the opponents were damaged. Of course you warn the partner that all information raising from the IB or BOOT is UI.

That is the DB proposal, as I understand it. I consider it logical and coherent with the other Laws, but not the least of all evils: we still have decisions which are difficult for TDs to make and players to understand, plus no price for the infraction.

The Italian proposal being similar, but information raised is never UI. More practical, but a betrayal of Law 16 that players will not fail to note (whether confused or not) and still there is no price for the infraction.

If I am forced to choose between the two I prefer the former, but I would prefer something more radical or failing that a return to the old Laws.

[jillybean]

 sanst, on 2024-March-04, 12:17, said:

This discussion makes clear that the concept of a comparable call is hardly useful. I still think that it should be dropped. Let the trespasser make a legal call when its her or his turn and award an AS if the opponents were damaged. Of course you warn the partner that all information raising from the IB or BOOT is UI.

Is what?!! I think it takes a very disciplined player, aware of the Laws concerning UI to follow Law 16.
Good luck with that