How do you rule?

[jeffford76]

All I can say about that is, shame on Tom Kooijman and on the player who would pass 2NT.

 

There is no shame in following the laws as they are rather than as you wish they were.

 

If partner was required to treat 2NT as a "real" 2NT bid, then there would be no way to get to a reasonable spot on the hand - passing would bar partner, and bidding 2NT would get you too high. Now maybe you think that's just tough luck from making an insufficient bid, but that isn't what the laws intend to happen. You're allowed to have a chance at recovering.

 

That said, with competent directing I wish most of the laws on illegal calls were changed to "Do whatever you want and your partner has UI (that they must deal with appropriately)."

[blackshoe]

My error. I forgot that who a person is makes him right or wrong.

 

Your error lies in assuming that he's wrong because you disagree with him.

[aguahombre]

My error, I guess was assuming that the rules would protect us against the opponents using the only available "tool" (whether accidentally or not)to get to exactly 2NT on both the OP hand and the example cited by the exalted ruler.

 

I was also wrong in believing that, either the sense of right by the partner of the offender or the phrase "could have known" applied to the offender himself would operate.

Edited May 5, 2011 by aguahombre

[nigel_k]

In both cases (Jillybean's and Kooijmans'), the ability of the player to legally take advantage of unauthorised information is more theoretical than real. If the 2NT contract leads to a good result, there will be an adjustment under 27D because the the outcome of the board could well have been different without the infraction, i.e. if the offender had passed instead of bidding 2NT.

[aguahombre]

In both cases (Jillybean's and Kooijmans'), the ability of the player to legally take advantage of unauthorised information is more theoretical than real. If the 2NT contract leads to a good result, there will be an adjustment under 27D because the the outcome of the board could well have been different without the infraction, i.e. if the offender had passed instead of bidding 2NT.

Yep, that might get the NOS back to even. The OS would not get what they deserve, but what the heck. It was a free shot.

[nige1]

Law 27 D

If the infraction has demonstrably helped the offending side to get into the advantageous contract the TD should award an adjusted score. But in considering such cases, the TD needs to realise that information gained through the insufficient bid is authorized and may be used.

West has ♠AJ1052 ♥AJ ♦Q87 ♣Q64 and the auction develops like:

West North East South

1♠ 2♥ 1NT

• East had not noticed the overcall. After intervention from the TD, East bids 2NT. With 1NT

showing 6-9 HCP, West decides to pass 2NT, though with a partner bidding 2NT at once he

would have bid 3NT. Taking this decision he does not infringe the laws in any manner.

As aquahombre points out, this law rewards "careless" offenders.

 

[mjj29]

Yep, that might get the NOS back to even. The OS would not get what they deserve, but what the heck. It was a free shot.

Well, don't forget L72B1 "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept."

[mycroft]

So, say the auction would have, if the person had noticed and not made the insufficient bid, gone 1S-2H-X-p-2S-AP. Of course, if partner doubles now, he's barred partner, so effectively he has no bid for this hand. And, just by luck, it turns out that NT makes the same number of tricks as spades - 8, after they take all their hearts, they're squeezed, say.

 

What you want is for opener to be barred, *or* for North to have to sacrifically overbid. What the Laws say is that because the only way to allow the auction to continue with any semblance of sanity is to allow the use of the insufficient bid's information, we will do so. If it turns out that they got to a contract that is both reasonable and not available without the IB, we don't let them IB and find it; if it turns out that they got to a contract that flukes into a good score (but where nobody would *want* to be), then that's rub of the green.

 

You are allowed to not like it (I do, in general - it keeps with the "equity, not penalty" goal of the Laws); you are allowed to think that it's unreasonable, and puts too much judgment on "how lucky is too lucky" on the TD (I know I do); but it is the Law, and it is how it works.

[blackshoe]

Well, don't forget L72B1 "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept."

 

If we start accusing every player of cheating, pretty soon we won't have any players.

[dburn]

What worries me about all this is that in Ton's example, where the auction has been 1♠-2♥-1NT... oops, 2NT, West is apparently allowed to know that his partner has not seen the overcall, rather than that his partner has pulled the 1NT card by mistake when he intended to pull the 2NT card. Under what Law is West entitled to this information?

 

It is not enough to say simply "Law 16D does not apply, so the information that East intended to bid 1NT is authorised to West." This implies that it is legal for East-West to pursue at will either of the following paths:

 

East says "sorry, I didn't notice the overcall". Now West knows that East has a 1NT bid, not a 2NT bid.

 

East says "sorry, I pulled the wrong bidding card". Now West knows that East has a 2NT bid, not a 1NT bid.

 

What Ton may have been saying is that West must ignore any explanation by East as to why he made an insufficient bid in the first place, but if West guesses correctly, he is allowed to keep his result. Whereas I don't like this any more than aguahombre or jillybean do, I can (nay, must) accept it if it is the Law.

 

But if what Ton was actually saying is that West is allowed to know why East made an insufficient bid in the first place, I cannot accept that. Such use of extraneous information is a violation of Law 16B, not Law 16D, and there is no provision in Law 27 to the effect that Law 16B does not apply.

[aguahombre]

Not only is David Burn right on, but ---since in both cases we do know why the insufficient bid occurred (didn't see the call by RHO), there is no "lucky guess" to be made and 2NT cannot be allowed to stand if his pard has full values to accept an invite.

 

If, perchance, pard of the offender does the right thing (say, 3NT), and it makes, so be it. That would be the luck of the green, or whatever.

[blackshoe]

I do not think there is any implication in the law that a player may make extraneous remarks with impunity. Indeed, Laws 16 and 73 strongly suggest otherwise.

[mycroft]

Well, East doesn't have to say anything except as instructed by the TD. If the TD determines it's Law 25A, then everyone will know that East meant to pull the 2NT card, and didn't, and has the full value. If the TD determines it's Law 27, then everyone will know that East meant to pull 1NT - why doesn't really matter, didn't see the overcall, thought it was 1H, whatever - and, within the bounds of L27D, West is entitled to do what he can to save the auction after 2NT.

 

Effectively the TD will make the reason AI by the ruling.

 

I'm also not sure this is the best answer, as I said above; but it is the Law as it stands, and it's stood for a while.

[jhenrikj]

16A1© says that information arising from legal procedures authorized by the law or regulations is AI.

 

Correcting an UC or IB is such legal procedures.

[Finch]

You actually think that the official guide on how to interpret the laws from the WBF LC is wrong? Why don't you just give up and admit you are wrong. This is the law and doing anything else as director is absolutely wrong.

 

The guide by Ton on the Laws is NOT official, it is his own personal view. There are certainly some parts of it that members of the EBU L&E disagree with and would rule in accordance with their own views.

[jallerton]

Well, East doesn't have to say anything except as instructed by the TD. If the TD determines it's Law 25A, then everyone will know that East meant to pull the 2NT card, and didn't, and has the full value. If the TD determines it's Law 27, then everyone will know that East meant to pull 1NT - why doesn't really matter, didn't see the overcall, thought it was 1H, whatever - and, within the bounds of L27D, West is entitled to do what he can to save the auction after 2NT.

 

Effectively the TD will make the reason AI by the ruling.

 

I'm also not sure this is the best answer, as I said above; but it is the Law as it stands, and it's stood for a while.

 

I can think of three plausible reasons for East pulling out the 1NT card.

 

[a] East tried to pull out another bidding card, e.g. 2NT, but pulled out 1NT instead.

 

East did not see the 2♥ overcall and intended to bid 1NT in the auction 1♠-Pass-?

 

[c] East did see the 2♥ overcall but had in his head when he put his hand in the bidding box that 1NT was a legal call.

 

Yes, the fact that East had originally bid 1NT is deemed to be AI. Yes, if the TD rules that Law 25A does not apply then it will be AI to West that case [a] is not possible. However, cases and [c] will still be possibilities. If East makes a comment suggesting that case applies, this comment is UI and in order to "carefully avoid taking any advantage" of this comment, West will need to act on the assumption that [c] applies; for example, West will need to act on the assumption that East holds a stop in hearts.

[jallerton]

The information from the withdrawn insufficient bid is authorised to all. This is what the words "Law 16D does not apply" at the end of Law 27B1(a) mean.

 

If the opponents are damaged as a result of information from the infraction then we apply Law 27D, not Law 16 (or Law 73).

 

Although I'm sure Robin is right about how the Law in this area is deemed to be interpreted, something worries me.

 

Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays

When a call or play has been withdrawn as these laws provide:

1. For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents’.

2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information.

 

']if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director’s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply but see D following.

 

Law 16D2 tells us that, for the offending side, the information from the withdrawn action is unauthorised. Law 27B1[a] tells us that Law 16D does not apply. "Therefore", it is concluded that the converse is true, namely that for the offending side the information from the withdrawn action is authorised.

 

Let's apply that logic to the previous subsection.

 

Law 16D1 tells us that for the non-offending side the information from the withdrawn action is authorised. Law 27B1[a] tells us that Law 16D does not apply. "Therefore", following the same logic, it is presumably concluded that the converse is true: for the non-offending side the information from the withdrawn action is now unauthorised!

 

This conclusion is undesirable to say the least.

[blackshoe]

I've split off the last four posts here into a new topic in "changing laws". Let's keep such discussions where they belong, please.

 

Nigel, if you want to go beyond "how do we rule" and into "the laws are messed up", please start a new thread in "changing laws". I don't want to have to start disapproving or deleting your posts. Same goes for everybody else.

[PeterAlan]

The information from the withdrawn insufficient bid is authorised to all. This is what the words "Law 16D does not apply" at the end of Law 27B1(a) mean.

 

If the opponents are damaged as a result of information from the infraction then we apply Law 27D, not Law 16 (or Law 73).

 

Although I'm sure Robin is right about how the Law in this area is deemed to be interpreted, something worries me.

 

Law 16D2 tells us that, for the offending side, the information from the withdrawn action is unauthorised. Law 27B1[a] tells us that Law 16D does not apply. "Therefore", it is concluded that the converse is true, namely that for the offending side the information from the withdrawn action is authorised.

 

Let's apply that logic to the previous subsection.

 

Law 16D1 tells us that for the non-offending side the information from the withdrawn action is authorised. Law 27B1[a] tells us that Law 16D does not apply. "Therefore", following the same logic, it is presumably concluded that the converse is true: for the non-offending side the information from the withdrawn action is now unauthorised!

 

This conclusion is undesirable to say the least.

The logic of this is totally flawed, as you obviously appreciate. "Does not apply" means what it says, not that the converse of each part does apply.

 

Actually, it seems to me that the consequence of "Law 16D does not apply" is that we're left with Laws 16A to 16C to tell us what is authorised and what is not. If we concentrate on Law 16A (ignoring the special circumstances in which Laws 16B & C apply) we find that:

 

• the same information is authorised to both sides
  
• under Law 16A1(a) the information from the sufficient bid is authorised to them but not, it appears, the information from the withdrawn, insufficient bid. (Law 16A1(b) doesn't come into play, since 16D does not apply.)
  
• this may not matter too much in the circumstances, since there may be only limited information from the withdrawn, insufficient bid that is not also in the sufficient bid; nevertheless there may well be some
  
• it is arguable (though I wouldn't want to spend too long debating it) that any such further information is covered by Law 16A1[c] as "information ... arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws ..."
  
• this may or may not be what the lawmakers intended; it certainly doesn't seem to be quite what RMB1 cites as the accepted interpretation.
  

[bluejak]

The 1N bid was natural and not accepted.

 

I may not understand the laws correctly but this seems to be a risk free method to signal to partner that you have a minimum hand and that 2N is to play. 1N oops, I mean 2N.

Or, for partner to make an easy pass of the forced 2N.

 

Maybe I'm being too cynical.

First, there are various ways to cheat at bridge. The Laws are not really written to stop them: the general idea is that you catch someone eventually, and then expel them.

 

Second, of course there is an easy pass of the forced 2NT - well, forced is the wrong word, but we know what you mean - but that just means the Law may not be a good one, and anyway it is far too easy to look at only one problem rather than the overall approach. But if you want to discuss changing the Law, please use the correct forum.

 

Third, here we are trying to help people understand correct rulings. The ruling, as outlined by blackshoe in the second post, is clear enough.

 

This is the part I find the most interesting. How do you know this?

Part of the job of a TD is to determine facts and make conclusions therefrom.

 

All I can say about that is, shame on Tom Kooijman and on the player who would pass 2NT.

Whatever you may think of Ton, blaming a player for following the Laws correctly is unacceptable.

 

You actually think that the official guide on how to interpret the laws from the WBF LC is wrong? Why don't you just give up and admit you are wrong. This is the law and doing anything else as director is absolutely wrong.

It is not official [whoops, I think Frances already made this point]. It is an unofficial guide by the Chairman of the WBFLC.

 

What worries me about all this is that in Ton's example, where the auction has been 1♠-2♥-1NT... oops, 2NT, West is apparently allowed to know that his partner has not seen the overcall, rather than that his partner has pulled the 1NT card by mistake when he intended to pull the 2NT card. Under what Law is West entitled to this information?

He isn't. That is UI. The insufficient bid, the TD's ruling, and the corrected bid are all AI [Law 16 does not apply]. But extraneous remarks and mannerisms are UI and are treated as normal under the UI Laws.

[jillybean]

First, there are various ways to cheat at bridge. The Laws are not really written to stop them: the general idea is that you catch someone eventually, and then expel them.

I have no idea if players use this method to cheat. I think it is far more likely that players have these auctions by accident and subsequently use the UI perhaps without realising they are breaking any rules, if in fact they are.

 

 

 

Second, of course there is an easy pass of the forced 2NT - well, forced is the wrong word, but we know what you mean - but that just means the Law may not be a good one, and anyway it is far too easy to look at only one problem rather than the overall approach. But if you want to discuss changing the Law, please use the correct forum.

Sorry I used the wrong word, what is more correct? I never intended for this to be a discussion on changing the laws, I wanted to understand how the laws should be applied.

 

 

 

Third, here we are trying to help people understand correct rulings. The ruling, as outlined by blackshoe in the second post, is clear enough.

I disagree. To the average (not an experienced TD) player, there is obvious use of UI here, the second post does not address this.

[mycroft]

Correct, to the average player, there is obvious use of UI. Of course, that is incorrect, but we don't expect the average player to know that.

 

The TD's job in this case - and because she knows this is a strange case, she should explicitly mention it - there is obvious use of *AI*. The TD then has to decide whether it was a L27D case, and she should make *that* clear at the original call as well.

 

It takes a little longer, and it causes odd questions, but at least they're aimed at the TD and not the "unethical" players.

[PeterAlan]

The insufficient bid, the TD's ruling, and the corrected bid are all AI [Law 16 does not apply].

David, may I ask two questions on this please?

 

1. I'm not clear what you're saying the basis is for the insufficient bid being AI (see the last paragraph of my post above for the reason I was dubious). Can you enlighten me, please?
   
2. When you say "Law 16 does not apply", are you referring to just Law 16D or the whole Law? And if Law 16's not in point at all, what's the reason for this, please?
   

[bluejak]

UI does not apply to an insufficient bid because Law 27 says so: Law 16D does not apply. 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.

[aguahombre]

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.

 

Applying 27D should be procedural in every such case. No need to accuse anyone of improperly using the IB. My personal opinion about the silliness of it being authorized information to the offending side is clearly irrelevent to the laws as they stand. Fine, as Mycroft points out --adjust when they use AI in these cases.

 

One of the purposes of competitive bidding is to make it difficult for the opps to reach their correct level and/or strain. To say that by "legally" using the IB to reach their goal, parity has been achieved is absurd. The adjustment must be to something else.