How do you rule?

[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]

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]

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.

 

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:

 

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]

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.

 

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]

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.

[pran]

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.

One example that caused the inclusion of law 27D is the auction: 1♠ - 1♥ (IB) replaced by 2♥.

 

The insufficient bid and the replacement bid are both incontrovertibly not artificial and the replacement bid is the lowest legal bid in the same denomination as the insufficient bid.

 

But while the insufficient bid showed opening values the replacement bid just showed values for an overcall. This difference could be important for partner's assessment of game possibilities.

 

Law 27D gives the Director the power to judge if because of the insufficient bid a partnership has reached a contract they might not have reached absent this irregularity, and if as a result of this opponents have been damaged.

 

Note that in the example given just the mere fact that the replacement bid shows less values than the insufficient (opening) bid does not automatically excludes the possibility of reaching game. Absent the irregularity the offender could for instance have doubled and shown opening values with hearts that way, after which reaching game is still likely.

[PeterAlan]

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.

David, the difference between us is simply this. I am starting with no preconception about what Law 27 says or means, so I read it to see what's there. I see nothing that says, as you assert, "a withdrawn action where the action was an insufficient bid is not unauthorised." I do see the words "Law 16 D does not apply" so I cross it out when reading Law 16 to see what is authorised or not - I do not instead interpret it as meaning "the converse of selected parts of Law 16 D does apply". I am, however, still left with Law 16A, which says what it says. Since I have no preconceptions that Law 27 has some other effects, I don't find myself reaching any form of contradiction or absurd conclusion; I merely note that where I end up is not the same as the generally-handed-down view that information from the insufficient bid is authorised.

 

You, on the other hand, start from the happy position of knowing what Law 27 means and says (though you don't actually show any part of it that says what you assert it does), and I am being absurd because where I end up contradicts that. Because you know what Law 27 means, you don't actually have to bother to follow why I might disagree and whether there's any merit in the arguments I'm putting forward, with which you don't deign to engage - you can instead dismiss them by ad hominem remarks and assertions, with an occasional nod to "bad wording". Personally, I think rather more acknowledgment of the deficiencies in the wording would be appropriate if you want to take a stance on the true meaning of Law 27, but what really gets my goat is that you conclude by accusing me of "ignoring the Law as written"!

 

I'm not trying to be personal in saying this - I'd take the same line with anyone that took such an approach - but I do think there is a genuine problem here. I'll probably sound a bit sharp in trying to make my point, so please don't take it personally, but to the relative newcomer like me to bridge, its laws and their interpretation there's a real difficulty. It feel very much like there's the chosen few, who are blessed with knowledge of what the Laws mean, whatever they may happen to say, and there are the rest of us, who, since we don't have access to that corpus of knowledge, instead naively start by reading the Laws as they are written and trying to interpret them. Every so often - and this is such a case, as is the definition of "Logical Alternative" - we discover that what the Laws actually appear to say is not the same as what they are generally taken as being intended to say. On other occasions, and whether or not it seems sensible (see the Defective Trick thread, for example), we are confronted with an exceedingly literal interpretation of what's written, and there's quite frankly no way for the tyro to tell which attitude (s)he's going to run into on any particular occasion.

 

Your response would seem to be "Spend lots of time here, and you'll gain experience from those wise in these matters". I think it would be better if we acknowledged frankly the problems with the Laws each time a difficulty appears, instead of adopting an attitude of denial, which, in the absence of any engagement with what I actually say, is, I'm afraid, what I see in your response. The "Changes" forum is a nod to this, but the starting point is a cultural one. The air transport industry became a lot safer when the culture changed from covering up incidents so as to avoid blame to acknowledging them all and learning from them. Could we not try to move in a similar direction?

 

PeterAlan

[bluejak]

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.

Not so. Suppose you have a hand which would be a 50/50 decision whether to pass or bid Blackwood if partner overcalled 4♥ over 3♠. In fact, owing to a bad trump break, ten tricks are the limit of the hand.

 

The auction goes 3♠ by LHO, 3♥ by partner, not condoned, and partner bids 4♥ under 27B1A. You now decide to pass because he only overcalled 3♥.

 

If this was a UI case we would disallow the pass, since pass and 4NT are both LAs and the UI suggests pass. So we would adjust to 5♥ -1.

 

But it isn't. The 3♥ bid is AI. Now, does 27D apply? No. The interpretation that the WBFLC seem to have given us [and the old French/Dutch/European interpretation under earlier Laws] is that since 4♥ could have been reached without the insufficient bid then 27D does not apply.

[lamford]

Not so. Suppose you have a hand which would be a 50/50 decision whether to pass or bid Blackwood if partner overcalled 4♥ over 3♠. In fact, owing to a bad trump break, ten tricks are the limit of the hand.

 

The auction goes 3♠ by LHO, 3♥ by partner, not condoned, and partner bids 4♥ under 27B1A. You now decide to pass because he only overcalled 3♥.

 

If this was a UI case we would disallow the pass, since pass and 4NT are both LAs and the UI suggests pass. So we would adjust to 5♥ -1.

 

But it isn't. The 3♥ bid is AI. Now, does 27D apply? No. The interpretation that the WBFLC seem to have given us [and the old French/Dutch/European interpretation under earlier Laws] is that since 4♥ could have been reached without the insufficient bid then 27D does not apply.

Surely Law 23 applies, in that the person overcalling 3H and then 4H, thereby showing a weaker hand, could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could damage the non-offending side. Or has the WBFLC ruled that Law 23 does not apply either?

[blackshoe]

Not so. Suppose you have a hand which would be a 50/50 decision whether to pass or bid Blackwood if partner overcalled 4♥ over 3♠. In fact, owing to a bad trump break, ten tricks are the limit of the hand.

 

The auction goes 3♠ by LHO, 3♥ by partner, not condoned, and partner bids 4♥ under 27B1A. You now decide to pass because he only overcalled 3♥.

 

If this was a UI case we would disallow the pass, since pass and 4NT are both LAs and the UI suggests pass. So we would adjust to 5♥ -1.

 

But it isn't. The 3♥ bid is AI. Now, does 27D apply? No. The interpretation that the WBFLC seem to have given us [and the old French/Dutch/European interpretation under earlier Laws] is that since 4♥ could have been reached without the insufficient bid then 27D does not apply.

 

Where is this WBFLC interpretation written? As for "the old French/Dutch/European interpretation under earlier Laws", I don't much care about that, for several reasons, not least of which is that it is 180 degrees from what Law 27D actually says. There's a 50% chance that you would have bid on over 4♥ has partner not bid 3♥ to begin with, so without assistance gained through that infraction the outcome could well have been different. Therefore 27D does apply. If this is yet another Humpty Dumpty law, well, all I can say is that it's absurd that we have any such laws.

[kevperk]

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.

[PeterAlan]

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.

It's "but see D following" and refers to Law 27D. I think that speaks for itself.

[kevperk]

It's "but see D following" and refers to Law 27D. I think that speaks for itself.

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.

[PeterAlan]

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.

I don't think Law 27D comes into this particular part of the debate: yes, it's there as a fallback to restore equity, but it says nothing about what's authorised information and what isn't.

 

The central point's a very simple one: Law 27B1(a) says do not apply Law 16D, and when you do that all you're left with regarding what's authorised is Laws 16A, 16B and 16C. 16B&C essentially deal with other special cases, so we're left with 16A which says (omitting extraneous stuff):

 

A. Players’ Use of Information

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

it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or

[c] 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 laws and in regulations (but see B1 following);

 

...

 

3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous)

 

...

I then simply said that there is clearly nothing in Law 16A1 that makes the withdrawn bid AI (with the possible exception of an extremely stretched interpretation of "arising from the legal procedures" which is surely there for different forms of information and / or entirely different purposes), since

1. it is not a legal call
   
2. it is not an illegal call that has been accepted, and
   
3. it can not come under (b) authorised information from a withdrawn action, since that is only created by the disapplied D
   

The problem is that there is a general acceptance that this was not what was intended, but instead of admitting that the Laws do not say what's wanted we're treated to endless assertions that "Law 27 says that UI does not apply to an insufficient bid" when it patently does not. It says "Law 16D does not apply", and the only way bluejak et al can justify that assertion is by interpreting, as they appear to, "Law 16D does not apply" not as "Law 16D does not apply" but instead as "Law 16D1 continues to apply, and the converse of the first sentence of Law 16D2 applies too". This is Humpty Dumpty interpretation (the Laws mean just what I choose them to mean - neither more nor less) and, as Jeffrey first pointed out, potentially involves all sorts of logical fallacies and / or unintended consequences too.

 

Now it may well be that I've made a mistake, and missed something. But no-one's attempted to engage with what I've said or to point out any flaw in the argument above: instead, there are only unreasoned assertions to the contrary. That just sounds like "black is white because I say so", which is frankly very irritating.

 

That's all there is to it.

[kevperk]

I don't think Law 27D comes into this particular part of the debate: yes, it's there as a fallback to restore equity, but it says nothing about what's authorised information and what isn't.

 

The central point's a very simple one: Law 27B1(a) says do not apply Law 16D, and when you do that all you're left with regarding what's authorised is Laws 16A, 16B and 16C. 16B&C essentially deal with other special cases, so we're left with 16A which says (omitting extraneous stuff):

 

 

I then simply said that there is clearly nothing in Law 16A1 that makes the withdrawn bid AI (with the possible exception of an extremely stretched interpretation of "arising from the legal procedures" which is surely there for different forms of information and / or entirely different purposes), since

1. it is not a legal call
   
2. it is not an illegal call that has been accepted, and
   
3. it can not come under (b) authorised information from a withdrawn action, since that is only created by the disapplied D
   

The problem is that there is a general acceptance that this was not what was intended, but instead of admitting that the Laws do not say what's wanted we're treated to endless assertions that "Law 27 says that UI does not apply to an insufficient bid" when it patently does not. It says "Law 16D does not apply", and the only way bluejak et al can justify that assertion is by interpreting, as they appear to, "Law 16D does not apply" not as "Law 16D does not apply" but instead as "Law 16D1 continues to apply, and the converse of the first sentence of Law 16D2 applies too". This is Humpty Dumpty interpretation (the Laws mean just what I choose them to mean - neither more nor less) and, as Jeffrey first pointed out, potentially involves all sorts of logical fallacies and / or unintended consequences too.

 

Now it may well be that I've made a mistake, and missed something. But no-one's attempted to engage with what I've said or to point out any flaw in the argument above: instead, there are only unreasoned assertions to the contrary. That just sounds like "black is white because I say so", which is frankly very irritating.

 

That's all there is to it.

 

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.

[blackshoe]

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.

 

In what way does it cover it?

[kevperk]

In what way does it cover it?

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

[blackshoe]

Let me rephrase: what does 16A1c say about whether information gleaned from an IB is authorized?

[PeterAlan]

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 16D is part of the general Law (16) on what is AI / UI and what is not. It deals with what normally applies when there has been a withdrawn bid or play for whatever reason.

 

Law 27B1(a) then limits (slightly) Law 16D's application by saying that in the specific case of an insufficient bid that is replaced by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination [etc] then the provisions of Law 16D do not apply. This is an exception to the general case. I don't understand the problem that you have with this.

 

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.

I consider that this is a catch-all provision intended to cover all kinds of other miscellaneous information that might be made available in all kinds of circumstances too numerous and varied to try to list (I'm sure you can think of all the types of actions and events that might take place at the table, when a TD is called, in the course of the TD sorting out a problem, and a whole host of other eventualities). I don't suppose that it was intended to cover bids (which are explicitly dealt with elsewhere), and anyway in the context of this Law I would question whether information about the insufficient bid should be regarded as "arising" from a legal procedure.

[kevperk]

Law 16D is part of the general Law (16) on what is AI / UI and what is not. It deals with what normally applies when there has been a withdrawn bid or play for whatever reason.

 

Law 27B1(a) then limits (slightly) Law 16D's application by saying that in the specific case of an insufficient bid that is replaced by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination [etc] then the provisions of Law 16D do not apply. This is an exception to the general case. I don't understand the problem that you have with this.

 

 

I consider that this is a catch-all provision intended to cover all kinds of other miscellaneous information that might be made available in all kinds of circumstances too numerous and varied to try to list (I'm sure you can think of all the types of actions and events that might take place at the table, when a TD is called, in the course of the TD sorting out a problem, and a whole host of other eventualities). I don't suppose that it was intended to cover bids (which are explicitly dealt with elsewhere), and anyway in the context of this Law I would question whether information about the insufficient bid should be regarded as "arising" from a legal procedure.

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.