kevperk

If one were to reply "keycard asking", that would not be MI. If you play Ogust responses, and reply "asks for clarification", how is that MI? If you play feature responses, and reply "asks for clarification", how is that MI? If you are not sure what responses, and reply "asks for clarification", doesn't that avoid problems? If your partner is not sure what responses, and you reply "Ogust", hasn't that helped your side? If your partner is not sure what responses, and you reply "feature", hasn't that helped your side? Avoiding giving UI to partner is a good thing, as long as it doesn't interfere with full disclosure or not giving opps MI. I fail to see how it can be helpful to the opponents what the responses are to these bids, but even if it could, it seems better for them to only ask follow ups when needed. As an opponent in this situation, I would much rather it be this way.

Bidding a feature in this instance is similar to bidding stoppers, or controls. In the ACBL, these are not alertable.

In the ACBL, a 2NT response to a weak two bid is not alertable unless it is natural. Also, responses showing a feature and repeat of ones suit without a feature are not alertable. Artificial responses, such as Ogust, are alertable.

By following just the quitted tricks, one could assume a different hand led than the one that actually led, as in the case of a lead out of turn, accepted. The card played by the hand that won the previous trick doesn't overrule everything else on what the lead was, at least by my reading of the laws. The most relevant thing is, dummy did revoke.

No, this proof shows that in your example a club was indeed played to the trick. When declarer called for a heart, one could argue that hearts were led. Dummy simply revoked to the heart lead.

To those who claim that once it is too late to go back to the last trick, the lead to the trick is a club, not a heart - what if everyone played a heart? Would the club stand as the lead, with every other hand revoking?

That is why I asked if they mistitled it, not say that they did.

The title of Law 16 is titled Authorized and Unauthorized Information, not Authorized, Unauthorized, and Extraneous Information. Seems to me EI must either be UI or AI. Or did the lawmakers mistitle this law? The laws do give times when EI is AI, and times when EI is UI. If it was separate, wouldn't the laws more clearly define it as such?

I average close to about 1 every club game I run. At tournaments, usually only about 2 or 3 for the whole tournament.

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.

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.

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?

Some people here use "strong" to refer to meeting the requirements in the OB. Some use it to refer to the high card strength of the hand. Since the meaning being referenced may not be clear to the recipients, full disclosure dictates that more be done to insure the correct meaning is understood.

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

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?

If the only unalerted meaning of the double is penalty, then EW are damaged. But this is not the case. A takeout double in this situation is not alertable. Result stands.

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.

Law 16D makes insufficient bids unauthorized. Law 27D says 16D doesn't apply. To me, that satisfies law 16A1c. I understand that others don't see it that way. Other can rule as though the laws don't say that law 16D doesn't apply, but I read it there and think it has to have some weight in ruling. I will even now admit that I am not sure I even like that the info is authorized, but it is the law (to me, at least) Kevin

I don't think either sides are going to convince the other. I would like someone to tell me why the laws even mention that Law 16D doesn't apply in this situation. If the insufficient bid is still unauthorized, then we should all take a marker and remove this line in the laws, as it has no real application. It seems that the other side wants the info to be unauthorized, so are interpreting the law so this is the case.

I don't have a problem with it.?!? What makes you think I do? You didn't answer my question, if it was stricken, how one rule different, if we rule the way you suggest? I consider what I posted to cover this situation too.

The lawmakers making it a point of Law 16D not applying.

Once again, then why is the phrase "Law 16D does not apply"? If we strike it from the law book, how does that change the way you think these laws should be applied? It seems to me that it doesn't, so it can't mean what you think it to mean. Law 16A1© "it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these Law and in regulations" seems to cover it.

Law 27D doesn't say that the info from the insufficient bid is unauthorized. If your argument has always been that Law 27D needs to be applied, I think there is more consensus than first appeared.

All those who argue against the IB being AI, how does the line "Law 16D does not apply, but see D below" apply? If it is in the laws, it must apply somehow.

When I am directing, the two biggest complaints about the application of the laws concerning revokes are: trick(s) transferred from the offending side include ones that can not be lost by normal means(A of trumps, for example); and tricks transferred to the non offending side only restore equity. I have little sympathy for the first, but a lot of sympathy for the second. I don't understand the mindset of worrying about the offending side. I for one didn't like the last change, and hope no change takes place in the next laws revision, at least not TOWARDS achieving equity. Someone revokes, and gets a penalty. What is wrong with that?