[jallerton]

 mycroft, on 2011-May-06, 13:46, said:

Well, East doesn't have to say anything except as instructed by the TD. If the TD determines it's Law 25A, then everyone will know that East meant to pull the 2NT card, and didn't, and has the full value. If the TD determines it's Law 27, then everyone will know that East meant to pull 1NT - why doesn't really matter, didn't see the overcall, thought it was 1H, whatever - and, within the bounds of L27D, West is entitled to do what he can to save the auction after 2NT.

Effectively the TD will make the reason AI by the ruling.

I'm also not sure this is the best answer, as I said above; but it is the Law as it stands, and it's stood for a while.

I can think of three plausible reasons for East pulling out the 1NT card.

[a] East tried to pull out another bidding card, e.g. 2NT, but pulled out 1NT instead.

[b] East did not see the 2♥ overcall and intended to bid 1NT in the auction 1♠-Pass-?

[c] East did see the 2♥ overcall but had in his head when he put his hand in the bidding box that 1NT was a legal call.

Yes, the fact that East had originally bid 1NT is deemed to be AI. Yes, if the TD rules that Law 25A does not apply then it will be AI to West that case [a] is not possible. However, cases [b] and [c] will still be possibilities. If East makes a comment suggesting that case [b] applies, this comment is UI and in order to "carefully avoid taking any advantage" of this comment, West will need to act on the assumption that [c] applies; for example, West will need to act on the assumption that East holds a stop in hearts.

[jallerton]

 RMB1, on 2011-May-05, 09:33, said:

The information from the withdrawn insufficient bid is authorised to all. This is what the words "Law 16D does not apply" at the end of Law 27B1(a) mean.

If the opponents are damaged as a result of information from the infraction then we apply Law 27D, not Law 16 (or Law 73).

Although I'm sure Robin is right about how the Law in this area is deemed to be interpreted, something worries me.

Law 16D said:

Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays
When a call or play has been withdrawn as these laws provide:
1. For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents’.
2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information.

Law 27B1[a] said:

if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director’s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply but see D following.

Law 16D2 tells us that, for the offending side, the information from the withdrawn action is unauthorised. Law 27B1[a] tells us that Law 16D does not apply. "Therefore", it is concluded that the converse is true, namely that for the offending side the information from the withdrawn action is authorised.

Let's apply that logic to the previous subsection.

Law 16D1 tells us that for the non-offending side the information from the withdrawn action is authorised. Law 27B1[a] tells us that Law 16D does not apply. "Therefore", following the same logic, it is presumably concluded that the converse is true: for the non-offending side the information from the withdrawn action is now unauthorised!

This conclusion is undesirable to say the least.

[blackshoe]

I've split off the last four posts here into a new topic in "changing laws". Let's keep such discussions where they belong, please.

Nigel, if you want to go beyond "how do we rule" and into "the laws are messed up", please start a new thread in "changing laws". I don't want to have to start disapproving or deleting your posts. Same goes for everybody else.

[PeterAlan]

 RMB1, on 2011-May-05, 09:33, said:

The information from the withdrawn insufficient bid is authorised to all. This is what the words "Law 16D does not apply" at the end of Law 27B1(a) mean.

If the opponents are damaged as a result of information from the infraction then we apply Law 27D, not Law 16 (or Law 73).

 jallerton, on 2011-May-07, 08:57, said:

Although I'm sure Robin is right about how the Law in this area is deemed to be interpreted, something worries me.

Law 16D2 tells us that, for the offending side, the information from the withdrawn action is unauthorised. Law 27B1[a] tells us that Law 16D does not apply. "Therefore", it is concluded that the converse is true, namely that for the offending side the information from the withdrawn action is authorised.

Let's apply that logic to the previous subsection.

Law 16D1 tells us that for the non-offending side the information from the withdrawn action is authorised. Law 27B1[a] tells us that Law 16D does not apply. "Therefore", following the same logic, it is presumably concluded that the converse is true: for the non-offending side the information from the withdrawn action is now unauthorised!

This conclusion is undesirable to say the least.

The logic of this is totally flawed, as you obviously appreciate. "Does not apply" means what it says, not that the converse of each part does apply.

Actually, it seems to me that the consequence of "Law 16D does not apply" is that we're left with Laws 16A to 16C to tell us what is authorised and what is not. If we concentrate on Law 16A (ignoring the special circumstances in which Laws 16B & C apply) we find that:

• the same information is authorised to both sides
  
• under Law 16A1(a) the information from the sufficient bid is authorised to them but not, it appears, the information from the withdrawn, insufficient bid. (Law 16A1(b) doesn't come into play, since 16D does not apply.)
  
• this may not matter too much in the circumstances, since there may be only limited information from the withdrawn, insufficient bid that is not also in the sufficient bid; nevertheless there may well be some
  
• it is arguable (though I wouldn't want to spend too long debating it) that any such further information is covered by Law 16A1[c] as "information ... arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws ..."
  
• this may or may not be what the lawmakers intended; it certainly doesn't seem to be quite what RMB1 cites as the accepted interpretation.

[bluejak]

 jillybean, on 2011-May-04, 19:39, said:

The 1N bid was natural and not accepted.

I may not understand the laws correctly but this seems to be a risk free method to signal to partner that you have a minimum hand and that 2N is to play. 1N oops, I mean 2N.
Or, for partner to make an easy pass of the forced 2N.

Maybe I'm being too cynical.

First, there are various ways to cheat at bridge. The Laws are not really written to stop them: the general idea is that you catch someone eventually, and then expel them.

Second, of course there is an easy pass of the forced 2NT - well, forced is the wrong word, but we know what you mean - but that just means the Law may not be a good one, and anyway it is far too easy to look at only one problem rather than the overall approach. But if you want to discuss changing the Law, please use the correct forum.

Third, here we are trying to help people understand correct rulings. The ruling, as outlined by blackshoe in the second post, is clear enough.

 Bbradley62, on 2011-May-05, 09:44, said:

This is the part I find the most interesting. How do you know this?

Part of the job of a TD is to determine facts and make conclusions therefrom.

 aguahombre, on 2011-May-05, 11:01, said:

All I can say about that is, shame on Tom Kooijman and on the player who would pass 2NT.

Whatever you may think of Ton, blaming a player for following the Laws correctly is unacceptable.

 jhenrikj, on 2011-May-05, 11:26, said:

You actually think that the official guide on how to interpret the laws from the WBF LC is wrong? Why don't you just give up and admit you are wrong. This is the law and doing anything else as director is absolutely wrong.

It is not official [whoops, I think Frances already made this point]. It is an unofficial guide by the Chairman of the WBFLC.

 dburn, on 2011-May-05, 22:33, said:

What worries me about all this is that in Ton's example, where the auction has been 1♠-2♥-1NT... oops, 2NT, West is apparently allowed to know that his partner has not seen the overcall, rather than that his partner has pulled the 1NT card by mistake when he intended to pull the 2NT card. Under what Law is West entitled to this information?

He isn't. That is UI. The insufficient bid, the TD's ruling, and the corrected bid are all AI [Law 16 does not apply]. But extraneous remarks and mannerisms are UI and are treated as normal under the UI Laws.

[jillybean]

 bluejak, on 2011-May-12, 07:43, said:

First, there are various ways to cheat at bridge. The Laws are not really written to stop them: the general idea is that you catch someone eventually, and then expel them.

I have no idea if players use this method to cheat. I think it is far more likely that players have these auctions by accident and subsequently use the UI perhaps without realising they are breaking any rules, if in fact they are.

 bluejak, on 2011-May-12, 07:43, said:

Second, of course there is an easy pass of the forced 2NT - well, forced is the wrong word, but we know what you mean - but that just means the Law may not be a good one, and anyway it is far too easy to look at only one problem rather than the overall approach. But if you want to discuss changing the Law, please use the correct forum.

Sorry I used the wrong word, what is more correct? I never intended for this to be a discussion on changing the laws, I wanted to understand how the laws should be applied.

 bluejak, on 2011-May-12, 07:43, said:

Third, here we are trying to help people understand correct rulings. The ruling, as outlined by blackshoe in the second post, is clear enough.

I disagree. To the average (not an experienced TD) player, there is obvious use of UI here, the second post does not address this.

[mycroft]

Correct, to the average player, there is obvious use of UI. Of course, that is incorrect, but we don't expect the average player to know that.

The TD's job in this case - and because she knows this is a strange case, she should explicitly mention it - there is obvious use of *AI*. The TD then has to decide whether it was a L27D case, and she should make *that* clear at the original call as well.

It takes a little longer, and it causes odd questions, but at least they're aimed at the TD and not the "unethical" players.

[PeterAlan]

 bluejak, on 2011-May-12, 07:43, said:

The insufficient bid, the TD's ruling, and the corrected bid are all AI [Law 16 does not apply].

David, may I ask two questions on this please?

• I'm not clear what you're saying the basis is for the insufficient bid being AI (see the last paragraph of my post above for the reason I was dubious). Can you enlighten me, please?
  
• When you say "Law 16 does not apply", are you referring to just Law 16D or the whole Law? And if Law 16's not in point at all, what's the reason for this, please?

[bluejak]

UI does not apply to an insufficient bid because Law 27 says so: Law 16D does not apply. Of course the remainder of Law 16 applies but that does not affect whether the insufficient bid is UI or not.

The reason that the insufficient bid is AI is that it passes information which must be either authorised or unauthorised. Since Law 16D does not apply, it is not unauthorised, so it is authorised.

[aguahombre]

And, since many TD's have shown or said that they won't use 27D, we will continue to lump it when they get to a spot they could only reach via the insufficient bid.

Applying 27D should be procedural in every such case. No need to accuse anyone of improperly using the IB. My personal opinion about the silliness of it being authorized information to the offending side is clearly irrelevent to the laws as they stand. Fine, as Mycroft points out --adjust when they use AI in these cases.

One of the purposes of competitive bidding is to make it difficult for the opps to reach their correct level and/or strain. To say that by "legally" using the IB to reach their goal, parity has been achieved is absurd. The adjustment must be to something else.

[blackshoe]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that anytime anyone makes an IB, they should get a bad result. I don't buy it.

I don't buy your assertion about "many TD's" either.

[aguahombre]

No, I am saying that if in the two prime cases presented, partner of the IB person does not treat the replaced higher bid as showing the appropriate additional values and does not accept when he/she would have without the "AI" from the IB...then there should be an adjustment under 27D ---without judgement as to whether the IB itself had any evil intent.

Mycroft above describes it well as "obvious use of AI"; he doesn't imply that anytime this information is available, an adjustment should occur. Only if it is used as in these cases to decline when one would normally accept.

As for the fact that TD's don't use 27D..just read the tenor of Koo, or the outright statement by Henrik in this forum for examples.

Also, there are many years of experience in fruitless director calls on similar situations.

[blackshoe]

Uh, huh.

This whole "use of AI" business is a red herring. The criteria of 27D are that there be "assistance gained through the infraction" and that "the outcome of the board could well have been different". Note also that 27D only applies where the IB was corrected under 27B1.

Generalizing from one or two peoples' comments (people who may or may not be TDs) to "many TDs" is a common logical fallacy.

If you have a problem with the quality of ACBL directors, lobby the ACBL to provide better training.

[mjj29]

 aguahombre, on 2011-May-13, 00:25, said:

No, I am saying that if in the two prime cases presented, partner of the IB person does not treat the replaced higher bid as showing the appropriate additional values and does not accept when he/she would have without the "AI" from the IB...then there should be an adjustment under 27D ---without judgement as to whether the IB itself had any evil intent.

No, Law 27D is not for this. If you have the auction:

2S-2H/3H-out and advancer has a raise of a 3H overcall of 2S, but not of a 2H overcall of 1S then law 27D only applies if 3H isn't a reasonable contract to have reached. Say, if instead the auction could reasonably go 2S-P, then P-X-P-3H-out - 3H is a reasonable result and we should allow the pair with the IB every chance to reach it.

Auctions where this is not the case (say, that 2H/3H was 1N/2N and after a double 2N would be lebensohl, so 2N isn't a possible final result) are where law 27D should be used to adjust the score.

(note: auctions above may not, in fact, be plausible, they are illustrative only).

[PeterAlan]

 bluejak, on 2011-May-12, 19:19, said:

UI does not apply to an insufficient bid because Law 27 says so: Law 16D does not apply.

But that's the point, David: Law 27 does not "say so [UI does not apply to an insufficient bid]". Law 27 merely says what you quote "Law 16D does not apply" and, as Jefffrey's post pointed out and I underlined, that's not the same thing.

 bluejak, on 2011-May-12, 19:19, said:

Of course the remainder of Law 16 applies but that does not affect whether the insufficient bid is UI or not.

The reason that the insufficient bid is AI is that it passes information which must be either authorised or unauthorised. Since Law 16D does not apply, it is not unauthorised, so it is authorised.

The remainder of Law 16 (specifically Law 16A) very much affects, it seems to me, whether the insufficient bid is UI or not. In particular:

Law 16A said:

1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:
(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or
(b) it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D);

It is not a legal call of the current board, it is not an illegal call that has been accepted, and it is not (under (b)) authorised information from a withdrawn action since Law 16D "does not apply" and so can not have authorised it. It would seem, therefore, that it is not explicitly authorised under Law 16A, and since the whole thrust of Law 16A seems to be to spell out what is authorised information the implication must be that other information is not authorised.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but this seems to me to be another example of where what we're told is the generally accepted interpretation of the Laws is not supported by what the Laws actually say.

In the context of the OP, this is of course a relatively small detail that's tangential to the main ruling, and I'm not questioning what either blackshoe (originally) or you (when endorsing blackshoe) are saying on that.

[bluejak]

 aguahombre, on 2011-May-12, 21:41, said:

And, since many TD's have shown or said that they won't use 27D, we will continue to lump it when they get to a spot they could only reach via the insufficient bid.

I do not have experience of TDs deliberately cheating and I have no experience of TDs saying they are going to cheat. I do not believe it.

To clarify, a TD how deliberately and with malice aforethought refuses to follow the Laws is cheating. This does not apply, of course, if he is working in a jurisdiction where a different interpretation has been made. But pure refusal is not acceptable and in my experience unknown.

Later examples by this poster do not support this statement at all, merely suggest confusion over the application of this Law, which is a completely different matter.

 PeterAlan, on 2011-May-13, 02:57, said:

But that's the point, David: Law 27 does not "say so [UI does not apply to an insufficient bid]". Law 27 merely says what you quote "Law 16D does not apply" and, as Jefffrey's post pointed out and I underlined, that's not the same thing.


The remainder of Law 16 (specifically Law 16A) very much affects, it seems to me, whether the insufficient bid is UI or not. In particular:


It is not a legal call of the current board, it is not an illegal call that has been accepted, and it is not (under (b)) authorised information from a withdrawn action since Law 16D "does not apply" and so can not have authorised it. It would seem, therefore, that it is not explicitly authorised under Law 16A, and since the whole thrust of Law 16A seems to be to spell out what is authorised information the implication must be that other information is not authorised.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but this seems to me to be another example of where what we're told is the generally accepted interpretation of the Laws is not supported by what the Laws actually say.

In the context of the OP, this is of course a relatively small detail that's tangential to the main ruling, and I'm not questioning what either blackshoe (originally) or you (when endorsing blackshoe) are saying on that.

I do not understand any of this. We are told that the Law on withdrawn actions does not apply: trying to get round it by saying that a withdrawn action is UI under a different Law is absurd.

[PeterAlan]

 bluejak, on 2011-May-17, 08:32, said:

I do not understand any of this. We are told that the Law on withdrawn actions does not apply: trying to get round it by saying that a withdrawn action is UI under a different Law is absurd.

I'd done my best to make it as clear as I could - I'm sorry if it was not good enough.

We agree that the Law on withdrawn actions does not apply. I'm not "trying to get round" anything: I'm merely trying to see what we're left with when the Law on wihdrawn actions does not apply, and I'm suggesting that it might not be what you appear to think it is. In particular, we are left with Law 16A. In the absence of Law 16D - which we have agreed does not apply - it seems to me to cast serious doubt on whether the withdrawn bid is AI to either side.

I'm not saying that I like it any more than you do, but at least read (a) Law 16A and then (b) what I wrote. I don't think that either of them are very difficult.

PeterAlan

[bluejak]

I am not saying per se that it is difficult, I am saying the conclusion is absurd. Literally, absurd. We have a Law that says something. You then try to say that while it means something, we shall do the exact opposite because of another Law. No, that is not sensible.

Of course some Laws could [and may be should] be better worded. But it is unhelpful to go on and on on that subject. We know it. Maybe Law 16A should have an exception noted in brackets "[but not the contents of ...]" or something. But the fact it does not is no reason to ignore the Law as written.

According to Law 27, badly worded maybe, a withdrawn action where the action was an insufficient bid is not unauthorised. So Law 16A does not over-rule this: that is an absurd conclusion.

[blackshoe]

The only time 16D does not apply is when an insufficient bid is replaced by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, and both bids are incontrovertibly not artificial. I don't see why we should care whether there is UI here - Law 27D will suffice to adjust the score if the OS gained from the infraction.

[alphatango]

Well, as a player, I do care somewhat. If there is UI, then I am under an obligation to carefully avoid taking advantage. That is manifestly different to a situation where I have no UI; now I can simply take the best action available to me and let the director sort out whether any advantage was in fact gained, even if I expect the score to be adjusted under 27D.