[Chris3875]

Darn!! Going back to the 2NT - 2C (stayman) - wants to change to 3C (stayman)

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/law...sCommentary.pdf says - "... the auction cannot be continued normally" but then goes on to say later - "The WBF-LC has decided to give the Regulating Authorities the right to apply the criteria in Law 27B1( with a liberal interpretation which could lead to accepting the 3C bid (if both calls 2C and 3C are considered to be just asking bids they fulfil the requirements given).

What's a girl to do ?

[pran]

Chris3875, on Jan 11 2010, 10:56 PM, said:

Darn!! Going back to the 2NT - 2C (stayman) - wants to change to 3C (stayman)

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/law...sCommentary.pdf says - "... the auction cannot be continued normally" but then goes on to say later - "The WBF-LC has decided to give the Regulating Authorities the right to apply the criteria in Law 27B1( with a liberal interpretation which could lead to accepting the 3C bid (if both calls 2C and 3C are considered to be just asking bids they fulfil the requirements given).

What's a girl to do ?

When it is difficult even for those of us who more or less took part in the revision of the very first release of Law 27B1{b} to keep fully updated on the progress with this law I absolutely feel with you.

One thing is certain: Over the next years we shall see much work being done on clarifying examples for which changes are admissible and which are not.

In the meantime I think what we have to do is to keep in mind the main purpose of the Director: Have the players play bridge as fairly as possible.

[gordontd]

pran, on Jan 11 2010, 03:56 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jan 11 2010, 03:54 PM, said:

gordontd, on Jan 11 2010, 09:38 AM, said:

pran, on Jan 11 2010, 01:08 PM, said:

Alternative 3 is excluded because no interpretation of the 4♦ bid will make the 5♦ bid have the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than the 4♦ bid.

Sure it can:

"What did 4D mean?"
"I meant to show 1 or 4 keycards, but got confused about the level of my response".

If that qualifies as a reason for allowing a 27B1{b} correction, we have a bigger mess than I thought we did with this law.

I don't understand how it can.

If that argument is relevant it must be a law 25A rectification?

No: at the time the player bid 4D, his intention was to bid 4D not 5D.

But in any case, not all mechanical errors satisfy the requirements of L25A - they might not have immediately had attention drawn to them- and those that don't might qualify for a L27B1b correction.

[Vampyr]

pran, on Jan 12 2010, 12:25 AM, said:

In the meantime I think what we have to do is to keep in mind the main purpose of the Director: Have the players play bridge as fairly as possible.

Fairness is not really possible while the new L27B is in force. A law that forced an insufficient bidder to make the final (non-pass) call for his side would be fair, and is perhaps the only method of dealing with IBs that meets that criterion. I happen to think that this would be a perfectly acceptable law, but that is neither here nor there.

Meanwhile, a law that is totally subjective in its application (and admits it) is neither fair nor perceived to be fair (which is perhaps even more important). Especially when the average volunteer club director has nowhere near the time, the bridge expertise or the comprehensive knowledge of the players' bidding system needed to apply this law in any fashion that is not completely random.

I never thought I would say this, but I would actually welcome a change back to the 1997 27B!

[mjj29]

Vampyr, on Jan 13 2010, 03:38 AM, said:

Fairness is not really possible while the new L27B is in force. A law that forced an insufficient bidder to make the final (non-pass) call for his side would be fair, and is perhaps the only method of dealing with IBs that meets that criterion.

How is it fair that if I make a mistake which transmits no unauthorised information to partner and which I can fix by just making it sufficient bars him from the rest of the auction? I agree that the old law definitely doesn't harm the NOS, but that's a long way from being fair. The new law allows the TD to use discretion to continue play where he thinks there is no unauthorised information from the IB. In some cases the new 27B is stricter on this than the ability to correct a natural IB to a sufficient natural bid in that suit.

You are not entitled to a good score just because the opps make a mistake. I will give you the point that it may be harder for the average club TD to apply well, but that's true of all judgement rulings and is a matter of training.

Matt

[pran]

mjj29, on Jan 13 2010, 01:22 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Jan 13 2010, 03:38 AM, said:

Fairness is not really possible while the new L27B is in force. A law that forced an insufficient bidder to make the final (non-pass) call for his side would be fair, and is perhaps the only method of dealing with IBs that meets that criterion.

How is it fair that if I make a mistake which transmits no unauthorised information to partner and which I can fix by just making it sufficient bars him from the rest of the auction? I agree that the old law definitely doesn't harm the NOS, but that's a long way from being fair. The new law allows the TD to use discretion to continue play where he thinks there is no unauthorised information from the IB. In some cases the new 27B is stricter on this than the ability to correct a natural IB to a sufficient natural bid in that suit.

You are not entitled to a good score just because the opps make a mistake. I will give you the point that it may be harder for the average club TD to apply well, but that's true of all judgement rulings and is a matter of training.

Matt

I believe it is worth noting from the 2007 laws:

Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the increased responsibilities given to them. (Preface)

and:

Directors have been given considerably more discretionary powers. There are fewer automatic penalties: they are replaced by the concept of rectification of a situation that unfortunately has arisen. (Introduction)

[campboy]

Well, I for one welcome our new 27B1b overlords.

One problem with the old law was the difficulty in distinguishing whether an insufficient bid was actually inadvertent. This was bad because the two possible rectifictions would lead to very different situations, and so a lot of points would swing on the TDs interpretation of a player's state of mind when he made the call. Now, though, there are a lot more situations in which the correction to the same denomination one level up will not silence partner.

[gordontd]

pran, on Jan 13 2010, 01:32 PM, said:

I believe it is worth noting from the 2007 laws:

Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the increased responsibilities given to them. (Preface)

It's particularly worth noting this since the ACBL has chosen to remove it from their version of the Laws. I wonder why they have so little confidence in their directors.

[bluejak]

mjj29, on Jan 13 2010, 01:22 PM, said:

How is it fair that if I make a mistake which transmits no unauthorised information to partner and which I can fix by just making it sufficient bars him from the rest of the auction?

Perfectly fair: if you do not want to be penalised in any game, sport or mindsport, follow the rules.

[Codo]

bluejak, on Jan 13 2010, 10:19 PM, said:

Perfectly fair: if you do not want to be penalised in any game, sport or mindsport, follow the rules.

So the laws are still about penalising? I thought we try to restore equity...

[bluejak]

For many many years, the Laws have been primarily about equity, secondarily about penalising. This quaint idea that some people have that they have a right to be treated as though they have done nothing wrong even though they have is pretty incredible, and in my view is bad for the game.

[Vampyr]

mjj29, on Jan 13 2010, 01:22 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Jan 13 2010, 03:38 AM, said:

Fairness is not really possible while the new L27B is in force. A law that forced an insufficient bidder to make the final (non-pass) call for his side would be fair, and is perhaps the only method of dealing with IBs that meets that criterion.

How is it fair that if I make a mistake which transmits no unauthorised information to partner and which I can fix by just making it sufficient bars him from the rest of the auction?

It's fair because it is predictable and is the same for every player, every director. What do you think the definition of "fair" is?

Quote

I will give you the point that it may be harder for the average club TD to apply well, but that's true of all judgement rulings and is a matter of training.

Yes, and the quotes Gordon cited prove to us that the lawmakers thought this was a good thing. But it is not.

The majority of bridge direction is done by volunteer playing directors. They do not have your "training" and never will. What happens when the laws seem difficult to understand and to apply is that people will be reluctant to volunteer, and the burden will fall upon fewer and fewer people.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on Jan 13 2010, 05:06 PM, said:

The majority of bridge direction is done by volunteer playing directors.  They do not have your "training" and never will. What happens when the laws seem difficult to understand and to apply is that people will be reluctant to volunteer, and the burden will fall upon fewer and fewer people.

Or, alternatively, they will just simplify them and apply their own version of the Laws. I think it is a dreadful Law.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Jan 13 2010, 06:27 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Jan 13 2010, 05:06 PM, said:

The majority of bridge direction is done by volunteer playing directors.  They do not have your "training" and never will. What happens when the laws seem difficult to understand and to apply is that people will be reluctant to volunteer, and the burden will fall upon fewer and fewer people.

Or, alternatively, they will just simplify them and apply their own version of the Laws. I think it is a dreadful Law.

I am soon going to hold a seminar for those directors of the local club who have not been on an EBU, or any other, directing course. They will find L27B1b utterly bewildering*. My recommendation will be, when in doubt, don't use it. What alternative do I have when applying the Law will be completely beyond them?


*Who doesn't? I am very familiar with the law, but I still can't read it and comprehend.

[gordontd]

Chris3875, on Jan 11 2010, 10:56 PM, said:

Darn!! Going back to the 2NT - 2C (stayman) - wants to change to 3C (stayman)

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/law...sCommentary.pdf says - "... the auction cannot be continued normally" but then goes on to say later - "The WBF-LC has decided to give the Regulating Authorities the right to apply the criteria in Law 27B1( with a liberal interpretation which could lead to accepting the 3C bid (if both calls 2C and 3C are considered to be just asking bids they fulfil the requirements given).

What's a girl to do ?

In the EBU, the Laws & Ethics committee considered that WBC minute, and decided to accept a more liberal interpretation of L27B1b, but considered that a 3Ç replacement for a 2C IB in this auction (when the IBer thought that the opening bid was 1NT) should not be allowed.

[iviehoff]

Vampyr, on Jan 13 2010, 09:38 AM, said:

Fairness is not really possible while the new L27B is in force. A law that forced an insufficient bidder to make the final (non-pass) call for his side would be fair, and is perhaps the only method of dealing with IBs that meets that criterion. I happen to think that this would be a perfectly acceptable law, but that is neither here nor there.

Meanwhile, a law that is totally subjective in its application (and admits it) is neither fair nor perceived to be fair (which is perhaps even more important). Especially when the average volunteer club director has nowhere near the time, the bridge expertise or the comprehensive knowledge of the players' bidding system needed to apply this law in any fashion that is not completely random.

I never thought I would say this, but I would actually welcome a change back to the 1997 27B!

L27B1b tries to say "if a player can correct an insufficient bid to something else without advantage to his side, let him". It is 27B1a that potentially gives the insufficient bidder potential advantage, requiring 27D to adjust against any such advantage.

Given the practical difficulties of 27B1b, I'm inclined to agree with you.

[iviehoff]

mjj29, on Jan 13 2010, 01:22 PM, said:

How is it fair that if I make a mistake which transmits no unauthorised information to partner and which I can fix by just making it sufficient bars him from the rest of the auction? I agree that the old law definitely doesn't harm the NOS, but that's a long way from being fair. The new law allows the TD to use discretion to continue play where he thinks there is no unauthorised information from the IB. In some cases the new 27B is stricter on this than the ability to correct a natural IB to a sufficient natural bid in that suit.

You are not entitled to a good score just because the opps make a mistake. I will give you the point that it may be harder for the average club TD to apply well, but that's true of all judgement rulings and is a matter of training.

Matt

The problem is that whilst there are calls that can be innocuously corrected, it is very difficult to write an easily implementable criterion that includes just those that can be innocuously corrected. Think of revokes: some of those are innocuous too, but because many aren't, they are all rectified in the same way.

Compare legal mistakes to bridge mistakes. If you make a bridge mistake, you will usually (not always) give your opponents a good score. If you make a legal mistake, the same can happen.

[campboy]

I don't think it is so hard to distinguish between IBs which are innocuous and those which aren't, actually.

YMMV, but in my experience if the IB is only one level too low, and follows a pass by RHO, 95+% of the time the player knew what the auction was, intended to bid that denomination at the cheapest level, and got confused about what level that was. I have, for example, seen (and perpetrated) plenty of insufficient Stayman/transfers after a 2NT opening, but never one where the player actually thought his partner opened 1NT.

On the other hand, if the IB is more than one level too low, or there was a bid by RHO, misapprehensions about the auction become much more likely and it is no longer innocuous.