Ethical or not?

[Zelandakh]

Since the only advantage to be gained through the infraction itself is the information that the offenders hand is more likely to resemble the insufficient bid than the correction,

One of the main advantages that can be gained is by barring partner from bidding, thus allowing for a "free" psyche. I thought this tactic was the origin of this particular clause in the Laws.

[blackshoe]

One of the main advantages that can be gained is by barring partner from bidding, thus allowing for a "free" psyche. I thought this tactic was the origin of this particular clause in the Laws.

Perhaps so. Does that mean that only that tactic is verboten?

[Zelandakh]

No, but then I am one of those who cannot see why this is a Law 16 exception. I think both a limited 27 and 16 should apply. That is, the withdrawn call is UI and you are also ruled against if you could have known at the time of making the IB that it might work to your advantage.

[blackshoe]

Well, that's not what the law says.

[mycroft]

You want the Law 16 UI restrictions *and* the Law 27 "restriction of calls that don't bar partner" restrictions? That seems - brutal. In the majority of L27B1 situations we get back to equity without the infraction with proper use; in the majority of those that aren't, the OS is damaged. The number of times the OS "gets away with it", given a competent TD that checks against L27D, is very small.

[RMB1]

One of the main advantages that can be gained is by barring partner from bidding, thus allowing for a "free" psyche. I thought this tactic was the origin of this particular clause in the Laws.

 

If the advantage gained is by barring partner, then the relevant law is Law 27B2 which points to Law 23 (a "could have known" law). The "particular clause" (Law 27D) only applies to Law 27B1(a/b), not when the correction of the insufficient bid silences offenders partner.

[aguahombre]

You want the Law 16 UI restrictions *and* the Law 27 "restriction of calls that don't bar partner" restrictions? That seems - brutal. In the majority of L27B1 situations we get back to equity without the infraction with proper use; in the majority of those that aren't, the OS is damaged. The number of times the OS "gets away with it", given a competent TD that checks against L27D, is very small.

It has always confused me as to how people think allowing a sufficient raise (for instance) after an insufficient raise is getting back to equity.

 

1D (P) 1H (2s)

2H. Opener gets to bid 3H, and responder gets to know he doesn't have a 3H bid. Where is the equity? Opener did not have a way to show a hand with no extra strength but with heart support, but he has found a way. The interference screwed up their "equity", and it was legal. The OS is not entitled to equity via an IB

 

I would be content if the same rule applicable to conventional replacement bids applied to natural bids as well. The replacement bid should be within the same strength range as the IB (or more precise) and the combination of the two bids should not provide more information than the replacement bid itself.

 

In my example, if the OS can show they have a GB 2NT agreement which includes the possibility of heart support, then opener would be allowed to bid 2NT. If they didn't have that convention, or it only showed long diamonds, then they couldn't do it. Even if they did have GB, responder could not use the extra knowledge from the IB to bid more hearts if there is a spade raise next.

[Vampyr]

You want the Law 16 UI restrictions *and* the Law 27 "restriction of calls that don't bar partner" restrictions? That seems - brutal.

 

Do you consider that a problem? The recent laws make bidding sufficiently optional, but many of us still think it is required.

[pran]

It has always confused me as to how people think allowing a sufficient raise (for instance) after an insufficient raise is getting back to equity.

 

1D (P) 1H (2s)

2H. Opener gets to bid 3H, and responder gets to know he doesn't have a 3H bid. Where is the equity? Opener did not have a way to show a hand with no extra strength but with heart support, but he has found a way. The interference screwed up their "equity", and it was legal. The OS is not entitled to equity via an IB

 

I would be content if the same rule applicable to conventional replacement bids applied to natural bids as well. The replacement bid should be within the same strength range as the IB (or more precise) and the combination of the two bids should not provide more information than the replacement bid itself.

 

In my example, if the OS can show they have a GB 2NT agreement which includes the possibility of heart support, then opener would be allowed to bid 2NT. If they didn't have that convention, or it only showed long diamonds, then they couldn't do it. Even if they did have GB, responder could not use the extra knowledge from the IB to bid more hearts if there is a spade raise next.

You are aware, I hope, of:

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 non-offending 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.

This should eliminate the problem in your example.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, I wonder if Ed or David has ever applied that. I have pointed out that we were damaged by the very existence of the IB and the "16D does not apply" clause on more than a few occasions and merely been told that is the way it is. Even on a thread here over a year ago, we were told the IB is AI and basically to get over it.

[pran]

Yeh, I wonder if Ed or David has ever applied that. I have pointed out that we were damaged by the very existence of the IB and the "16D does not apply" clause on more than a few occasions and merely been told that is the way it is. Even on a thread here over a year ago, we were told the IB is AI and basically to get over it.

They must of course answer for themselves, but we have in Norway been fully aware of what was Law 27a in 1975, Law 27B1b in 1987 and 1997, and is Law 27D since 2007.

[blackshoe]

For me, it has never come up. If it did, I would apply it. I do check 27D in 27B1 cases.

[mycroft]

I direct you to my footnote above :-)

 

Yes, I have ruled L27D; and I certainly have looked at whether the ruling would apply. More often, the players treat it as if Law 16 applied (despite my explanation), and get very confused when I tell them it doesn't, but.

 

I would worry about it usually when it's a hand like the original - where a "not-real-but-natural" minor opening becomes a "would normally be a real" minor overcall. If applied properly, the OS shouldn't be advantaged by the IB; just not necessarily disadvantaged.

 

Maybe that's too lenient. I don't know.

 

I do believe that even with the fact that club TDs don't know L27D, that changing the Law so that the IB is UI would cause a fair bit more bad club TD rulings - how many bad UI rulings (especially "okay, then A+/A-") do we get at the clubs? If we say "IB is UI *and* Law 27B2 applies", a non-trivial IB becomes a death sentence - might as well just gamble out 3NT and hope it's a good score. And then the NOS freaks out because "they would never have gotten there without the IB"; especially if they would have defended better in a normal auction where they'd have more information. I know that last for a fact, because that's what happens now.

[bluejak]

The current methods for IBs seem to be that in effect if you correct to a legal call that permits the auction to continue, the IB is AI, and the result stands unless you could not have reached the final contract without the IB.

 

If you think my simple statement of it is wrong, feel free to tell me why I am wrong.

 

If you think the law should be changed, please start a thread in the correct forum.