about 27

[bali 2]

Hi all

 

Nice to meet you again in our new forum !

I have a problem with something read about law 27 :

 

1) W opens 1H, N bids 2S, and E 1NT

It is said that provided 1 or 2 NT are natural, E can correct to 2NT and bidding proceeds, the IB being AI for all. But supposing W with some 14 HCP fails to bid 3NT and obtains a good result, the TD will adjust. So, in this situation, W has taken into account the fact that his partner wanted to bid only 1NT, he has used that information, and he is "punished ". Personnally, I completly agree.

 

2) W opens 1H, N pass, E bids 1H .

Provided 1H or 2H are not artificial, E can correct to 2H and bidding proceeds, the IB being AI for all. Knowing that his partner has an opening bid, W uses the information and bids 4H with a 12 HCP hand, makes it ,- as all other competitors -, and gets the same result as the others. This time he is not " punished" .

 

Could you please explain me why in one case he is and in the other he is not " punished " ?

I know that I miss something, and please could you tell me what is the " path " to follow in such situations.

 

Many thanks in advance ;)

Al. Ohana

[Ant590]

Law 27B1b states (I paraphrase) that the auction continues without further rectification if the changed bid is the same or more precise than the insufficient bid.

 

In both your examples, the changed bid has additional meanings not found in the original (insufficient) bid, so this part of rule 27 does not apply.

 

In your first auction, the "standard" meaning of 2NT is stronger than that of 1NT, so its meaning is not "the same or more precise." The IB is UI to partner.

 

In your second auction 1H - pass - 2H, this usually shows 5-9 with heart support. This meaning is not contained in a 1H opening, so 27B1b does not apply. The IB is UI to partner, but because the 2H bid is the same denomination the auction can continue. If opener has been shown to use the UI then an adjustment is made. In the adjustment the director should try and give the most probable possible outcome had there been no UI, which sounds like the same contract in this case. Hard to tell without the hands though.

[iviehoff]

Law 27B1b states (I paraphrase) that the auction continues without further rectification if the changed bid is the same or more precise than the insufficient bid.

 

In both your examples, the changed bid has additional meanings not found in the original (insufficient) bid, so this part of rule 27 does not apply.

Correct, but not relevant to Al's question. The changes of bid Al mentions are legal under 27B1a.

[Cyberyeti]

A question, in the second case, if the 1H bidder thought he was replying to 1D rather than opening the bidding and tells the director this now 2H (playing 4 card majors so you are unlikely to only have 3) would seem to fall within the compass of the 1H bid so the correction might be completely above board.

 

Does director have to assume he was thinking of opening, or should he ask what the insufficient bidder thought was going on ? and if so, at or away from the table ?

 

In practice in this example if the insufficient bidder did have an opening hand and support, he'd bid 4♥ and he'd silence his partner.

[axman]

Hi all

 

Nice to meet you again in our new forum !

I have a problem with something read about law 27 :

 

1) W opens 1H, N bids 2S, and E 1NT

It is said that provided 1 or 2 NT are natural, E can correct to 2NT and bidding proceeds, the IB being AI for all. But supposing W with some 14 HCP fails to bid 3NT and obtains a good result, the TD will adjust. So, in this situation, W has taken into account the fact that his partner wanted to bid only 1NT, he has used that information, and he is "punished ". Personnally, I completly agree.

 

2) W opens 1H, N pass, E bids 1H .

Provided 1H or 2H are not artificial, E can correct to 2H and bidding proceeds, the IB being AI for all. Knowing that his partner has an opening bid, W uses the information and bids 4H with a 12 HCP hand, makes it ,- as all other competitors -, and gets the same result as the others. This time he is not " punished" .

 

Could you please explain me why in one case he is and in the other he is not " punished " ?

I know that I miss something, and please could you tell me what is the " path " to follow in such situations.

 

Many thanks in advance :huh:

Al. Ohana

The mind expects something to be there so it believes quite often that it is- when it isn't.

 

For instance 27B1a states : Law 16D does not apply but see D following. "

 

Which leaves the remainder of L16 in force as applicable.

 

For a canceled 1N via 27B1a, such IB is not part of a legal auction. 16D [the only vehicle that makes 1N Ai to the other side] does not apply. The canceled 1N thus is extraneous and is UI to all, except as provided by 73D1 thereby avoiding the prohibition of 16A3. And I think it is reasonable to ascribe an opponent's canceled IB as a variation in manner.

 

iow, the ' Law 16D does not apply....' does not make the canceled call AI when other law ascribes it as UI.

 

I don't know why my head hurts and I don't care to know.

[PeterE]

First, Al, nobody here is "punished", only rectified :(

 

And then the answer is in

If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the nonoffending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred.

In example 2) 4♥ is "normal" and would be reached without any problem - both hands having an opening bid with hearts. So, the non-offending side is not damaged "through" the IB.

 

In example 1) the offending side stopped in 2NT and reached a good result there. Without the (help of the) IB they never could have stopped in 2NT - 2NT probably being either invitational or Lavinthal. So, the non-offending side was damaged in consequence of the (help of the) IB and this damage should be rectified by the TD.

[bali 2]

Thank you Peter, I think I have now understood and can resume by :

- If the help of IB has not damaged the NOS, and the result is the same that would have been obtained, no adjustment

- If the help of IB has permitted to OS to obtain a good result, which would have not be obtained without, adjustment.

Is this approximativly OK ? :(

Many thanks

Al. Ohana

[PeterE]

Which leaves the remainder of L16 in force as applicable.

 

For a canceled 1N via 27B1a, such IB is not part of a legal auction.  16D [the only vehicle that makes 1N Ai to the other side] does not apply.  The canceled 1N thus is extraneous and is UI to all, except as provided by 73D1 thereby avoiding the prohibition of 16A3.  And I think it is reasonable to ascribe an opponent's canceled IB as a variation in manner.

 

iow, the  ' Law 16D does not apply....'  does not make the canceled call AI when other law ascribes it as UI.

 

I don't know why my head hurts and I don't care to know.

But I do know :( it's because the above is wrong.

 

Law 16D is the (only) relevant law that deals with information "arising from a withdrawn action", a special law that takes priority of the "general" rest of Law 16.

So, when Law 27 says that Law 16D does not apply this means that the provisions of Law 16D that make information UI for the offending side do not apply. It does not mean that the TD shall look for some other part of the laws to make that information UI.

Remember, as the IB does not have any systematic meaning and as long as the offender did not say what he meant with his IB (otherwise that information will be UI for his partner !!) the IB in itself has no (real) meaning. But all players are entitled to guess the intended meaning. And this guess is AI to all.

[peachy]

Remember, as the IB does not have any systematic meaning and as long as the offender did not say what he meant with his IB (otherwise that information will be UI for his partner !!) the IB in itself has no (real) meaning. But all players are entitled to guess the intended meaning. And this guess is AI to all.

Don't understand this. Something that I am guessing in my head (without telling anyone what my guess is) is AI. Something that somebody else guesses in his head (without telling anyone what his guess is) is AI.

 

It makes no sense at all. What did you mean? Did you mean that it is known to everyone at the table that the other three players are going to guess what the IB bidder's reason for the IB was?

 

Anyway, intentions do not matter and the IB bidder should not volunteer why he made the insufficient bid. What matters are facts.

a ) an IB happened

b ) the IB will be either accepted or not accepted by the next in turn

c ) if not accepted, TD will explain what the law says about replacement bids, and there is no connection to "Why" the IB happened

[McBruce]

TDs are instructed to take the insufficient bidder away from the table (no need to bring your cards) and find out the reason for the insufficient bid. I usually ask this in a roundabout way, like 'when you reached for the bid-box, what was your intent and what did you think this bid showed?" This covers unintended bids as well as usually being enough to find out what part of the auction the IBer missed. The TD should also find out whether the bidder's intent was given away at the table or not.

 

In the case of 1♥ - pass - 1♥ it's not 100% that the player thought he was opening the bidding. He might have thought partner opened 1♦. He might even tell you that he had a club void and, thinking ahead, assumed partner would open 1♣, and when he did open he took that as given! There's no end to the explanations you get. :)

[bluejak]

But if he tells you it was unintended then it is out of time, surely, because he has made no attempt to correct, so Law 25A cannot apply?

[blackshoe]

Why is it that "only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought" means exactly what it says, but "from among logical alternatives" does not? :blink: :unsure:

[McBruce]

But if he tells you it was unintended then it is out of time, surely, because he has made no attempt to correct, so Law 25A cannot apply?

Usually true. But sometimes the IBer corrects it, or tries to, when the irregularity is pointed out. In that case I still take him away from the table and ask the question. You'd be surprised how many people answer "when I reached for the box I meant to open 1♥, but when it was pointed out to me that RHO had opened 1♠, obviously I meant to open 2♥. Pause for thought? No, I didn't think about it, it was obvious." :unsure:

[bluejak]

But it still requires a change, or attempt to change, surely?

[blackshoe]

If a player calls you to the table, and says "I made a call I did not intend to make; I would like to change it" are you going to tell him he can't because he hasn't already changed or attempted to change it?

[bluejak]

No: but no player ever has.

 

If a player calls me to the table and says "My opponent bid 1♥ and it is insufficient" and the perpetrator is sitting there looking embarrassed/cross/bored/ready to blame his wife then Law 25A does not apply.

[axman]

If a player calls you to the table, and says "I made a call I did not intend to make; I would like to change it" are you going to tell him he can't because he hasn't already changed or attempted to change it?

Well, not exactly.

 

I will explain that he is not permitted to change his call by law [L72B1], especially after being so advised by the TD.

 

I will further explain that his remarks are UI and that the provisions of L16 come to bear.

 

If there are further questions I will be pleased to be more detailed at an appropriate time after the hand.

 

Should the player persist, say with 'aren't I allowed to change an unintended call without penalty?' the response is that as you know that then you would also know that there is the condition of doing so with no pause for thought. As you have paused to find out if it is ok and what you do depends on your finding out, you have demonstrated that you have paused for thought. And, have inappropriately delayed the progress of the game which will incur a 1 mp reduction in your score.

 

or, say,

 

should he persist by changing his call then the provisions of L25B and L16 and L72B1 and L91 come to bear.

[blackshoe]

I've been telling new players that if they have a problem or aren't sure about a legal question to call the director, who is there to help, not to hammer every little mistake.

 

I guess I'd better stop doing that. :P

[bluejak]

Only if you agree with axman, which I do not. I consider the example you gave was well within th confines of Law 25A.

 

[Checked with ieSpell] :P

 

:)

 

So why did ieSpell allow 'th'?

[Echognome]

So why did ieSpell allow 'th'?

Maybe so it won't consider expressions like "4th trick" to be misspelled?

[blackshoe]

Only if you agree with axman, which I do not.

Nor do I.

 

  I consider the example you gave was well within th confines of Law 25A.

 

I thought you might. :P

[McBruce]

But it still requires a change, or attempt to change, surely?

Absolutely. But before you take the IBer away from the table you will almost always find out (from the other players) if he made an attempt to correct it. If so, the question (what was your intent when you reached for the bid-box) either gives the TD an idea of what the player was trying to show and why he made the IB, or, if the player claims it was unintended, the same question usually confirms that there has been no change of mind.