[PeterAlan]

jhenrikj, on 2011-May-20, 02:30, said:

If you are saying that the information is UI, then you are applying 16D (there is no other law that says that information from the IB is UI).

No, you are not applying Law 16D. The view is that Law 16A says so - more precisely, it spells out what is authorised, which doesn't include the IB, and then goes on to say you can't use any other information - see my post @ 06:47 2011-May-19 on the previous page.

[jhenrikj]

PeterAlan, on 2011-May-20, 03:31, said:

No, you are not applying Law 16D. The view is that Law 16A says so - more precisely, it spells out what is authorised, which doesn't include the IB, and then goes on to say you can't use any other information - see my post @ 06:47 2011-May-19 on the previous page.

16A1(b) specifically says that authorized information from a withdrawn action is AI. The IB is a withdrawn action. 16D says that normally the information from the withdrawn bid is UI for the OS, but since 16D does not apply we can't say that the information from the IB is UI for the the OS (because then we are applying 16D), then it has to be AI (there is no third state), and therefore it is AI according to 16A1(b).

[PeterAlan]

jhenrikj, on 2011-May-20, 04:02, said:

16A1(b) specifically says that authorized information from a withdrawn action is AI. The IB is a withdrawn action. 16D says that normally the information from the withdrawn bid is UI for the OS, but since 16D does not apply we can't say that the information from the IB is UI for the the OS (because then we are applying 16D), then it has to be AI (there is no third state), and therefore it is AI according to 16A1(b).

Not so. When Law 16D does not apply we have to look at what's left to decide whether information is authorised or not. It is fallacious to assume that just because something is not specifically unauthorised then it must be authorised: in fact, what Law 16A does is to spell out what is authorised* (and 16A1(b) has not kicked in because nothing - and certainly not Law 16D - has made the IB authorised), and then say (Law 16A3) that you may not use any other information in a call or play.

* Actually, the terminology in the Laws is a bit of a muddle: strictly speaking what Law 16A does is to specify what information you may use in a call or play, and Law 16A3 designates any other information, which you may not use, as "extraneous".

[jhenrikj]

Which law says that the information from the IB is UI. We have to know if it's AI or UI before we know if 16A1(b) applies or not. Pls quote that law where it says the the information from the IB is UI.

[PeterAlan]

jhenrikj, on 2011-May-20, 04:44, said:

Which law says that the information from the IB is UI. We have to know if it's AI or UI before we know if 16A1(b) applies or not. Pls quote that law where it says the the information from the IB is UI.

I've spelled it out in my previous post: Law 16A1&2 specifies what information you may use in a bid or play (call it "authorised" if you wish) and Law 16A3 says you may not use anything else. In the absence of Law 16D there is no other Law that makes the IB "authorised" so Law 16A1(b) does not kick in. There is no need to show any other Law that specifically provides that the information is UI.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-19, 22:45, said:

Let me try again. 16A1{c} says that a player may use information if it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized. Absent Law 16D, there is no law I can think of which specifies that information from a withdrawn insufficient bid is authorized. 16A1{c} also says that a player may use information if it arises from the legal procedures authorized in law and regulation. But the information from the withdrawn IB did not arise from legal procedures, it arose from the IB itself. So I do not see how 16A1{c} says that information from a withdrawn IB is authorized.

Law 16A1C doesn't say it is AI. But we know from many many situations that the wording of the Laws is not perfect. The only sensible conclusions are that Law 16D despite being in the Law book does not apply, or that it does apply despite the apparent conflict with Law 16A1C. I believe the latter makes sense.

[jhenrikj]

PeterAlan, on 2011-May-20, 05:38, said:

I've spelled it out in my previous post: Law 16A1&2 specifies what information you may use in a bid or play (call it "authorised" if you wish) and Law 16A3 says you may not use anything else. In the absence of Law 16D there is no other Law that makes the IB "authorised" so Law 16A1(b) does not kick in. There is no need to show any other Law that specifically provides that the information is UI.

So what you are saying is: The information from the IB is not UI (because if you say it's UI you are using 16D) But it's not AI since there is no law saying it's AI. So in this case we have information that is somewhere between AI and UI. Please explain to me how this third state of information works.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2011-May-20, 06:24, said:

Law 16A1C doesn't say it is AI. But we know from many many situations that the wording of the Laws is not perfect. The only sensible conclusions are that Law 16D despite being in the Law book does not apply, or that it does apply despite the apparent conflict with Law 16A1C. I believe the latter makes sense.

We are talking about a situation where the laws specify that Law 16D does not apply.

[blackshoe]

jhenrikj: We are not using Law 16D at all. If you think we are, you have fundamentally misunderstood our argument.

[bluejak]

Sorry, misworded it in a hurry.

Law 16A1C doesn't say it is AI. But we know from many many situations that the wording of the Laws is not perfect. The only sensible conclusions are that the reference to Law 16D not applying, despite being in the Law book, does not mean anything, or that it does mean something despite the apparent conflict with Law 16A1C. I believe the latter makes sense.

[PeterAlan]

jhenrikj, on 2011-May-20, 06:36, said:

So what you are saying is: The information from the IB is not UI (because if you say it's UI you are using 16D) But it's not AI since there is no law saying it's AI. So in this case we have information that is somewhere between AI and UI. Please explain to me how this third state of information works.

I'm not sure I really want to go into the terminological problems of Law 16 et al, but you're starting from the misapprehensions that AI and UI are (1) mutually exclusive, (2) complementary (in the sense that between them they cover the whole information space), and also (3) that the Law concerning the information you may use in making a call or play is determined solely by whether the information has either of these labels.

None of these is true, it seems. That is why I was careful in my previous post merely to say that there is certain information, defined in Law 16A1&2, that you may use in making a call (I inaccurately said "bid") or play - let's call it "usable" information - and the rest, which Law 16A3 defines as "extraneous", and which you may not use. Now we have two terms that are both mutually exclusive and complementary, and if you focus on those you'll see what the Law actually says.

If you really want me to elaborate on this:

• Various Laws provide that certain information is "authorised" (for a particular side or sides). Pieces of information covered by such Laws are labelled "AI". Generally, you may use such AI but occasionally you are subject to restrictions when doing so (see a later comment).
  
• Various Laws provide that certain information is "unauthorised" (for a particular side or sides). Pieces of information covered by such Laws are labelled "UI".
  
• The combination of these particular words unfortunately suggest that they cover the whole information space and in a mutually exclusive way: in fact they don't - they are just labels. The use to which they are put illustrates this: AI in practice means something like "information you are entitled to know" (NB not the same as "make unrestricted use of") and UI is "information whose demonstrable implications you must studiously avoid": put like this, and you can see why the items given these labels need be neither mutually exclusive nor complementary.
  
• Further, as I recall it has frequently been accepted in these forums (I'm not going looking for examples) that some information can be available to a player both as "authorised" information and as "unauthorised" information, and that in these circumstances the UI restrictions continue to apply. Such instances are examples of information that is both AI and UI.
  
• Similarly, there can be information that is not defined by any Law as either AI or UI. I am quite prepared to accept that, absent Law 16D, there may be no Law that specifies that the information from the IB is UI for either side (arguably, if it's not authorised then it comes within Law 16B for the offender's partner), but that does not matter. For the reasons above, that does not make it AI to anybody. In the absence of a Law that specifies that it is AI - and again in the absence of Law 16D there is no such Law - it would then have neither label attached to it.
  
• The key point is that if it is not specifically Authorised somewhere then (given it's not a legal call etc as before) it will not be in the list of "usable" things specified in Law16A1&2 as information that may be used in making a call or play, and under Law 16A3 it is therefore "extraneous" and may not be used. The fact that it may not be specifically labelled UI somewhere is irrelevant.

[PeterAlan]

bluejak, on 2011-May-20, 06:48, said:

Law 16A1C doesn't say it is AI. But we know from many many situations that the wording of the Laws is not perfect. The only sensible conclusions are that the reference to Law 16D not applying, despite being in the Law book, does not mean anything, or that it does mean something despite the apparent conflict with Law 16A1C. I believe the latter makes sense.

A perfectly sensible conclusion might be that the reference to Law 16D not applying means exactly what it says, with the consequences that we've explored above. Of course, that conflicts with the generally accepted interpretation, but why does that mean that the Law is at fault and not the generally accepted interpretation?

[RMB1]

Is this getting us anywhere?
Are there rulings we should be giving differently as a result of the textual analysis?

Some laws are badly worded. Law 16 is dealing with some difficult concepts (transition between data/information/knowledge) so it not surprising that the wording may leave something to be desired. I am happy that Law 27 says that partner of the insufficient bidder may base his bidding on the facts that the insufficient bidder made two calls at his turn to call: the insufficient bid and the replacement.

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.

[aguahombre]

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

I am happy that Law 27 says that partner of the insufficient bidder may base his bidding on the facts that the insufficient bidder made two calls at his turn to call: the insufficient bid and the replacement.

Yes, that is what it boils down to. There are those who are happy about it and those who aren't. At the table, I would be unhappy or uncomfortable about it, no matter what seat I was in. As a director, I would be unhappy if I had to make a ruling that partner of the insufficient bidder may base his bidding on the IB.

[PeterAlan]

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

Is this getting us anywhere?

Not really, I agree, but perhaps it shows up the pointlessness of taking an overly pedantic as opposed to common-sense approach in other cases. (See Defective Trick thread et al.) As I've said before, it's impossible to tell in advance which approach is going to turn up when a problem arises. And perhaps it might help provide somewhere some tiny impetus for better, clearer Laws next time round. Finally, the starting point was, as Jeffrey pointed out, some very faulty logic, and that should surely always be questioned.

I for one don't want to say anything further on this theme, and I've only gone as far as I have in response to proddings. I must have too much time on my hands at the moment.

[PeterAlan]

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

I am happy that Law 27 says that partner of the insufficient bidder may base his bidding on the facts that the insufficient bidder made two calls at his turn to call: the insufficient bid and the replacement.

This is the key issue. In principle, I think my stance would be that:

• any information from either / both bids should be available to the NOS, and
  
• the only information that should be available to the OS is whatever the replacement bid would have conveyed had it been made directly

I recognise, however, that the legislative complexities and the practical issues involved in making judgment rulings on whether there was any additional information arising from the IB might pose more problems than merely letting the occasional difficult case get by, so I would be comfortable with a positive decision by the lawmakers that both bids should be AI to both sides, provided it was clear that that was what was they intended to achieve. The difficulty at the moment is that there's no reason to suppose that the lawmakers had any particular outcome in mind, especially as the one that we're asked to accept they had doesn't seem to be what they wrote!

[kevperk]

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.

[PeterAlan]

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

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

There has been a lot of answer, and there won't be anything more.

[RMB1]

PeterAlan, on 2011-May-20, 12:45, said:

I recognise, however, that the legislative complexities and the practical issues involved in making judgment rulings on whether there was any additional information arising from the IB might pose more problems than merely letting the occasional difficult case get by, so I would be comfortable with a positive decision by the lawmakers that both bids should be AI to both sides, provided it was clear that that was what was they intended to achieve. The difficulty at the moment is that there's no reason to suppose that the lawmakers had any particular outcome in mind, especially as the one that we're asked to accept they had doesn't seem to be what they wrote!

I have no problem in Law 27 being changed to say something else, many have suggested that making the insufficient bid unauthorised would be a part of a cleaner/clearer approach to Law 27 (for instance Things we know that we know); but it would be a change.

[kevperk]

PeterAlan, on 2011-May-20, 13:30, said:

There has been a lot of answer, and there won't be anything more.

No, there has been a lot of answer about how Law 16A still applies.

Your stance is that it is not UI because Law 27 says not to apply Law 16D, but it is still UI because of the rest of Law 16. So your feeling is that "Law 16D does not apply" has no affect on any ruling. Right?