How do you rule?

[kevperk]

The headings in the law book have no legal standing.

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

[shintaro]

:rolleyes:

 

 

And I thought this heading was 'Simple Rulings'

 

If the book says 16D is not to be used We use 27

 

We just apply the book surely NO ARGUMENT

 

;)

[jallerton]

And I thought this heading was 'Simple Rulings'

 

If the book says 16D is not to be used We use 27

 

We just apply the book surely NO ARGUMENT

 

That's the problem. When we apply the book, we don't get the answer most people expect. Maybe we also do not get the answer intended by the lawmakers, but that doesn't really matter: we are obliged to follow what the Laws as written tell us to do.

[shintaro]

That's the problem. When we apply the book, we don't get the answer most people expect. Maybe we also do not get the answer intended by the lawmakers, but that doesn't really matter: we are obliged to follow what the Laws as written tell us to do.

 

 

 

But that is my point exactly jeffery we just use the Law book If it is conceived to be an ass then so be it BUT we as TD's cannot bend it we just apply it

 

;)

[jillybean]

Playing at the club today we had the third instance of (1♠) 2♦ (1N) oops 2N , benifiting the opps.

 

What does it take to fix this loophole in the laws?

[bluejak]

What loophole?

[jillybean]

What loophole?

The partner of the player who made the IB is allowed to use the information that his partner

had a 1N response, not a 2N response.

[blackshoe]

Hm. Were this pair playing Forcing NT?

[jillybean]

Hm. Were this pair playing Forcing NT?

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

 

A 1n response to 1x (overcall) is very different to a 2n response.

[mycroft]

Did they get to a contract they couldn't have got to without the IB? If so, was it ruled against? If not, what was the problem?

 

Seriously, though, what is a better rule? Remember, that in exchange for being allowed to know it's a 1NT call (over something), the only non-forced pass call they can make is 2NT.

 

But now that I look at it, I have Ed's question. Were they playing Forcing NT? Because if they were, it is "not incontrovertably not artificial" (what else could it be? 1S-X-1NT, I guess, but likely 1S-p-1NT,) and now opener should be required to pass throughout no matter what call is taken.

[jillybean]

Did they get to a contract they couldn't have got to without the IB? If so, was it ruled against? If not, what was the problem?

 

Seriously, though, what is a better rule? Remember, that in exchange for being allowed to know it's a 1NT call (over something), the only non-forced pass call they can make is 2NT.

 

But now that I look at it, I have Ed's question. Were they playing Forcing NT? Because if they were, it is "not incontrovertably not artificial" (what else could it be? 1S-X-1NT, I guess, but likely 1S-p-1NT,) and now opener should be required to pass throughout no matter what call is taken.

 

I think the problem falls outside the realm of some club directors, the bid is simply made sufficient and that is the end of the problem, the rub of the green. I understand that partner should be barred from the auction if they are playing forcing 1N however I think that benefits the OS as it is the only way to stop in 2N.

 

I will catch up with this later. I'm off to the club with a new, heightened awreness of insufficient 1N bids.

[gordontd]

But now that I look at it, I have Ed's question. Were they playing Forcing NT? Because if they were, it is "not incontrovertably not artificial" (what else could it be? 1S-X-1NT, I guess, but likely 1S-p-1NT,) and now opener should be required to pass throughout no matter what call is taken.

Not necessarily. What would 1S-(2D)-2NT show? 11-12 balanced with a diamond stop? And how would you show 11-12 balanced with a diamond stop in an uncontested auction? By way of a forcing NT. So I think it would be likely to be allowed under L27B1b, especially under the recent more liberal interpretation.

[aguahombre]

Not necessarily. What would 1S-(2D)-2NT show? 11-12 balanced with a diamond stop? And how would you show 11-12 balanced with a diamond stop in an uncontested auction? By way of a forcing NT. So I think it would be likely to be allowed under L27B1b, especially under the recent more liberal interpretation.

Where it would get complicated would be that, although the IB corrected is AI to opener --as previously discussed ad nauseum -- can he pass 2NT with a decent 14 count?

 

On one hand, he knows 1N followed by 2NT is an invite. On the other hand, he knows that might not have been his partner's intent. If he guesses right with extra AI, is that just the cut of the green?

[Vampyr]

Seriously, though, what is a better rule?

 

The best rule, of course, is that after an IB that is not accepted, offender's partner is silenced. But that is too comprehensible and intuitively fair to be in the Lawbook...

 

but making the IB UI to the OS is a start.

[blackshoe]

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

 

A 1n response to 1x (overcall) is very different to a 2n response.

 

If, in the uncontested auction 1♠-(P)-1NT, responder's bid was "Forcing NT", then a Law 27B1{a} correction is not permitted, because 1NT is not "incontrovertibly not conventional". Probably a 27B1{b} correction is not permitted either. I was just trying to figure out the basis for the TD's ruling.

 

Edit: just saw Gordon's post about 2NT being allowed under 27B1{b}. Maybe. I'd have to think about it.

Edited July 13, 2011 by blackshoe

[mycroft]

yes, I hadn't got that far, either. Oops. On the other hand, I don't think that you can bid 2NT "invitational with a diamond stop" with a hand that would have bid 1NT that wasn't "invitational with a diamond stop" *and* get to use the 1NT as AI. I argue that, because

 

L27B1a explicitly says "Law 16 does not apply", but

L27B1b says the "auction proceeds without further rectification", with no mention of Law 16

before in both cases sending you to L27D.

 

But I can see an argument going the other way.

 

In any case, if "the only way to get to 2NT with these hands is to make an insufficient bid", then no matter what L27B1 path gets you there, it's to be disallowed, though. If the resulting contract, however, "could [not] well have been different", then things get to work. (obviously, if we end up taking L27B2, and "the only way...", then we go via Law 23, not L27D, as L27B2 says to do).

 

Having said that, club TDs are club TDs, and I wince whenever I get a "less Lawful" ruling from them - especially if it's to my benefit. I also - at different times, of course, *not* at the table - attempt education, especially about these weirdies (well, one level down; the normal ones, not the corner cases that get this forum into so much trouble). But in the end it isn't the BB, and the better TDs are at the BB to give the more Lawful rulings.

 

As far as "how to correct this", I don't mind "IB = partner barred" - it's a bit draconian, but I wouldn't mind a few laws being more draconian, myself; but I don't like "IB = partner barred unless you do one thing, but partner has to treat that as what it would have meant as well", as I've said before. I think that that law is equivalent to "if you're really lucky, partner isn't barred. But if you're not, you're more screwed than when it happens to your opponents next time." I think L27D is a reasonable compromise, in fact, if the TD reads it and applies it. If the argument for marking a Law as bad is "if the TDs don't follow all the Law then it's bad", then that's an education problem, not a Law problem. If the argument is "the education to get TDs to do it right is too hard", that's reasonable.