what to tell?

[Sjoerds]

I explain that offender's LHO may accept the bid and there's no further penalty, if not it must be replaced by a legal call. If 1♥ was intended to show hearts, and 2♥ would now also show hearts, offender can bid that with no further penalty, or if offender has a legal call that would mean much the same as what was intended by 1♥ they can bid that with no further penalty. Other than that, double is not allowed, and lead penalties may apply.

 

Now LHO must make their decision, without knowing what offender intends to do, nor what 1♥ was supposed to mean, nor what replacement bids will bar partner. They may, however, ask questions about the opponents' system and guess.

 

I agree, that is even better

[VixTD]

We have been over this turf many times on the fora, and here we are again. "much the same as" doesn't cut it as a summary of acceptable replacement calls.

It's a pretty good approximation of what the law allows. It used to have to have the same or a more restricted meaning as the intended meaning of the insufficient bid, but now that's been relaxed it only has to be the same, more restricted or slightly wider, but not too far off. I think "much the same" are the words I use at the table, but I'll have decided away from the table which calls fall into this category and told offender.

[aguahombre]

It's a pretty good approximation of what the law allows. It used to have to have the same or a more restricted meaning as the intended meaning of the insufficient bid, but now that's been relaxed it only has to be the same, more restricted or slightly wider, but not too far off. I think "much the same" are the words I use at the table, but I'll have decided away from the table which calls fall into this category and told offender.

That is interesting. I didn't know someone rewrote 27B1(b) without telling us. "Same, or more precise meaning" does not include "slightly wider". If the replacement bid includes possible hands which would have chosen a bid other than the IB (if the IB were available), and partner now knows those hands are not possible ---then the combination of the IB and the correction is UI and the replacement bid is not to be allowed.

 

Relaxing the Laws must mean "words and definitions are just a figure of speech" to some people.

[gordontd]

That is interesting. I didn't know someone rewrote 27B1(b) without telling us. "Same, or more precise meaning" does not include "slightly wider". If the replacement bid includes possible hands which would have chosen a bid other than the IB (if the IB were available), and partner now knows those hands are not possible ---then the combination of the IB and the correction is UI and the replacement bid is not to be allowed.

 

Relaxing the Laws must mean "words and definitions are just a figure of speech" to some people.

The WBF Laws Committee issued this minute:

“The WBF Laws Committee has noted an increasing inclination among a number

of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids

even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of

hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee favours this approach

and recommends to Regulating Authorities that, insofar as they wish, mildly

liberal interpretations of Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to

continue. At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the Director

judges that the outcome could well have been different without assistance gained

through the insufficient bid (and in consequence the non-offending side has been

damaged).”

[aguahombre]

Good plan. First, allow it, then rule against it.

 

IMO, that should be reserved for the occasion when the TD did not know the replacement bid wasn't entirely within the IB set when he allowed it.

 

It might also be unfair to the offender, who could have chosen differently a final succesful guess which would not be overturned.

[Sjoerds]

IMO, that should be reserved for the occasion when the TD did not know the replacement bid wasn't entirely within the IB set when he allowed it.

It might also be unfair to the offender, who could have chosen differently a final succesful guess which would not be overturned.

I agree that in your little conversation with the offender you try to give the offender clearness if you accept his intended call under law 27B1.

 

But that brings me to the question when to use 27D?

[aguahombre]

I agree that in your little conversation with the offender you try to give the offender clearness if you accept his intended call under law 27B1.

 

But that brings me to the question when to use 27D?

27D would apply to replacement calls if the allowed call turns out not to be allowable under 27b1(b) due to lack of complete information at the time it was allowed; or when 27b1(a)---same strain natural bid--- was used and the replacement bid allowed a result which could not have been obtained without the I.B. occuring first.

 

Example:

1C (1S) 1H. Replaced by 2H (also natural), but responder did not have a hand which would warrant a 2H freebid and the result was affected by that fact.

[bluejak]

If East had real hearts he would be allowed to change to 2♥ without penalty? it is hard to tell if 1♥ is artificial given that it is forbidden to have agreements about insufficent bids.

True, but the Laws presume a meaning, which is generally understood to be the idea in the player's mind.

 

There is nothing in the law that indicates that he should. Nor does the law indicate that South should be told whether or not a penalty-free correction exists, and I feel very strongly that he should be.

There is nothing in the Law that says South should not be told, either. It is a matter for the authorities to decide. I think he should.

 

It's not hard to tell in this instance because East has told the whole table he didn't see the 1NT bid. So NS simply have to ask what 1♣ - P - 1♥ would mean.

We were asked two questions, one with the blurting out, one without.

 

They can ask, but why is East obliged to answer?

 

EW have to answer questions about what their bids mean, and what possible alternative bids would have meant. They don't have to answer questions about what bids in a totally different auction which could not have happened at the table would have meant.

 

There was a WBF minute on this, when the WBF said that after an auction including.... 4NT P 5D..., where 4NT was systemically natural but 5D was some form of blackwood response, that they didn't have to explain what 5D meant, because 4NT wasn't blackwood.

 

[i understand why the WBF came to this conclusion, but I don't agree with it, so don't moan at me... however I think it's the official interpretation of the Law so we are stuck with it]

I don't think this is relevant. I believe players are required to tell oppoents what bids mean in htis scenario, even if not in the WBFLC one.

 

EBU has made things confusing by establishing the same procedures for classifying and ruling on misbids and psyches.

Silly EBU to decide that breaches of Law 40C should be treated as breaches of Law 40C.

 

He said he bid it deliberately, so either he psyched, or he's lying. I called it a psych, but the consensus here seems to be he's a liar, which would make him a cheat. In such a case an ethics hearing seems appropriate. <shrug>

Far too strong an approach. You will be getting ethics hearings and lawsuits over hesitations.

 

The general approach, following American legal practices [well, something has to :)] is to accept that self-serving arguments have less weight than other evidence. So you can rule something that is at variance with a self-serving argument without calling anyone a cheat or a liar.

 

I have asked this question now many times to several very qualified TD's and the answers I get differ a lot. So it might look easy, but there is a lot of room to act differently.

At the EBL TD course in San Remo, I asked four senior lawmen, all members of the WBFLC, what you should tell the opponent.

 

I got four different answers. :D :lol: