Standard operating procedure

[mycroft]

I note that it is acceptable to ask about relevant calls not made. So I can't tell you what was going through her brain when she bid IB, I can, and must if relevant and asked, explain what IB+1level would mean.

 

What's relevant? Well the TD is already here, why don't we ask him?

[jallerton]

Under the old Law 27, some TDs would investigate tell the table whether the insufficient bid was (not) natural {based on the apparent meaning of the bid), whether the minimum correction was (not) natural (based on the offender's system or by asking one of the offending side at the table), and therefore whether the minimum correction would (not) silence partner; before giving the option to accept.

 

Yes, for the correction to not silence partner, both the insufficient and replacement calls had to be "incontrovertibly not artificial". It was usually fairly easy for the TD to judge whether or not these criteria were satisfied. So he would make his ruling at the table (reading the relevant Law to the players and explaining the consequences to the players) and then the players would continue the auction; in fact, just like the recommended answer to the scenario in David's original post.

 

One reason why many non-offenders find the recommended Law 27B1(b) procedure so unsatisfactory is the secretive nature of the ruling, which is based on the (potentially self-serving) undisputed evidence of one player.

[Vampyr]

I can't think where you get that idea from.

From the perhaps fanciful notion that players are entitled to know the systemic meaning of a bid their opponents have made.

 

There is also the fact that if everyone is guessing partner will have a far better change of a successful guess, but this is mainly a side benefit of the correct procedure.

[jallerton]

The only law that gives players a right to know what future bids mean is this one.

 

"Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done."

 

The RA has specified that this should be done by exchanging completed convention cards. To give opponents the gist of your system verbally, and spare them the trouble of reading it, is simply a courtesy. What is true is that there is nothing in the laws that gives players the right to ask specific questions about future bids. All you get is what is (or rather should be) on the CC.

 

Your last sentence is the important one. The convention cards are technically not complete unless they disclose all of the partnership's understandings. Some pairs try a lot harder than others to include as much detail as space allows on their convention card, but even they struggle to find room for all partnership understandings (in practice, this is only likely be achieved in a new partnership which uses the convention card categories as a template for its for system discussion). The workaround is for players to freely disclose verbally all relevant agreements which would be on their convention card if only the partnership had managed to comply with the strict requirements of Law 40A1b.

 

Anyway, all the opponents are entitled to is the partnership understandings. Most partnerships have no understandings about insufficient bids beyond "we try not to make them".

 

You might think that, but the WBF has decreed that all insuffcient bids must have meanings. There's no general bridge knowledge as to what particular IBs should mean, so perhaps these meanings are derived from implicit partnership agreements.

[blackshoe]

… if only the partnership had managed to comply with the strict requirements of Law 40A1b.

If the partnership has not managed to put everything they know about their agreements on the card because the card doesn't have enough space, the fault lies with the RA, not the partnership.

[Vampyr]

If the partnership has not managed to put everything they know about their agreements on the card because the card doesn't have enough space, the fault lies with the RA, not the partnership.

 

Both the EBU and the WBF have a CC that is 2 sides of A4. Do you think that changing them to, say, 4 sides of A4 will double the amount of information people put on? I doubt it. Some players do not even fill in every line provided for supplying additional information that doesn't have a space assigned to it. Supplementary sheets are currently permitted to be included as part of the EBU CC, but few people use them. Some of the post here.

 

Anyway, is that your cowardly answer, that the fault lies with the RA, so sod the players, whose "entitlement" to information depends on how complete the opponents' convention card is? I should think that you would be particularly sympathetic to the problem, since the ACBL CC is smaller than A4, is one-sided, and is filled up with suggestions that you can check and no space to describe anything.

 

And it is not really reasonable to expect most people to describe their opening bids and responses, with maybe a few follow-ups and some early-round conventional and a bit of general information. Even that is not reasonable to enforce at the club level, where there are many casual and firstand-time partnerships, some of whom were paired up 5 minutes before the game.

 

But blame the RA. Then it is nobody's problem, and just bad luck to the victims.

[Vampyr]

There's no general bridge knowledge as to what particular IBs should mean, so perhaps these meanings are derived from implicit partnership agreements.

 

Or partnership experience, or a subtle inference based on the partnership's agreements.

[Vampyr]

 

the WBF has decreed that all insuffcient bids must have meanings.

 

Do people need to write out this sentence 100 times?

[blackshoe]

Anyway, is that your cowardly answer, that the fault lies with the RA, so sod the players, whose "entitlement" to information depends on how complete the opponents' convention card is? I should think that you would be particularly sympathetic to the problem, since the ACBL CC is smaller than A4, is one-sided, and is filled up with suggestions that you can check and no space to describe anything.

If that's the tone you are going to take, you are no longer welcome here. Please go away.

[Vampyr]

There are so many different types of problems that can arise here. Here is one example of one type of problem (by the way, this example is the best I could do at the time; it is NOT any kind of dig at anyone):

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n3s]133|100[/hv]

 

Sorry. I don't know how to insert comments in the diagram or to include an insufficient bid.

 

1NT = 12-14

3♠ = wide-ranging; shows a good suit.

? = South bids 3♥.

 

South tootles off with the director and changes his call to 4♥.

 

E/W do not bid 4♠ and of course can't get to 3NT, either of which would have made, or double any contracts (which wouldn't have made) that N/S ended up in, but West doesn't bid on, thinking that South has values.

 

It turns out that N/S's agreement is that 1NT-3♥ is weak with 6+ ♥, and this was what South intended to do, after not noticing the 3♠ bid. Should it have occurred to E/W to look at the CC or ask about 3♥, usually played as natural and GF, or at least invitational? Are they not entitled to the knowledge of what the bid probably means, even though North has that knowledge?

 

Anyway 27D is applied, and N/S are not even given the "best probably outcome" but will probably receive some sort of factored score, which they may well have outscored if given the chance.

 

But wait, there's more. South knows the Laws and bids 3NT (or passes, but now E/W will probably investigate). Partner is barred, and 27D does not seem to apply to 27C cases. So E/W are stuffed.

[Vampyr]

If that's the tone you are going to take, you are no longer welcome here. Please go away.

 

Seriously, your answer is no solution, and it would be nice if you gave one.

[blackshoe]

Seriously, your answer is no solution, and it would be nice if you gave one.

Well, I had unapproved my reply, but apparently I was too late, so it's now visible again.

 

You would have done better to say this in the first place, instead of calling me a coward.

[campboy]

You might think that, but the WBF has decreed that all insuffcient bids must have meanings. There's no general bridge knowledge as to what particular IBs should mean, so perhaps these meanings are derived from implicit partnership agreements.

Of course the IB had a meaning -- to the player making it. It normally doesn't have a meaning to their partner, who isn't aware of what was going through offender's mind at the time.

 

Say it goes 1NT (3♠) 3♥, like in Vampyr's example. Now the possible meaning to offender could be one of (at least) three things.

1. like 1NT - 3♥, because he hadn't seen the overcall.
   
2. like 1NT (2♠) 3♥, because he misread the overcall.
   
3. like 1NT (3♥) 3♠, because he just got a bit confused.
   

Now I think NOS should be entitled to know what those possible meanings are (that's partnership understanding). What they should not be entitled to know is which one it is in this particular instance (although of course if offender used the stop card they would be able to guess).

[Vampyr]

Now I think NOS should be entitled to know what those possible meanings are (that's partnership understanding). What they should not be entitled to know is which one it is in this particular instance (although of course if offender used the stop card they would be able to guess).

 

I don't think that's good enough, because whatever the IBer was doing, it was intended as a systemic bid based on his agreements. It's like an MI case where the misexplainer is not allowed to know what the real agreement is but the opponents are.

[Vampyr]

Well, I had unapproved my reply, but apparently I was too late, so it's now visible again.

 

You would have done better to say this in the first place, instead of calling me a coward.

 

Oh, I didn't know. I don't object to your making it invisible again. Including where I quoted you.

 

So, I doubt it but let's say that in 100 years all bridge RAs will have changed to a 20 page CC which must be completely filled in, and will enforce this regulation at all levels and with all types of partnerships, even those who were paired up 5 minutes before the game, even with weak players who can't think up many auctions.

 

Rather than bemoaning the fact that this state of affairs does not yet exist, it is necessary to ensure that players' entitlement to information does not include how thoroughly their opponents' convention card is filled out.*

 

How?

 

*Remembering that not going beyond opening bids and responses will not normally be an infraction, and that you can't give out PPs like sweeties when, at club level, CCs are often very poorly written out or absent. We are talking about the real world.

[campboy]

I don't think that's good enough, because whatever the IBer was doing, it was intended as a systemic bid based on his agreements. It's like an MI case where the misexplainer is not allowed to know what the real agreement is but the opponents are.

I think an IB is more like a misbid case than an MI case, because it is the player who made the bid who is under a false impression, not their partner. And like a misbid, opponents aren't entitled to know what that false impression is.

[Trinidad]

I don't think that's good enough, because whatever the IBer was doing, it was intended as a systemic bid based on his agreements.

Since when are opponents entitled to know the intent of my bid?

 

Next time I overbid, I will have to tell the opponents: "I am bidding 3♥. I don't think that I can make it, but I hope that you will take the push to 3♠ which I might be able to beat."

 

They simply aren't. Whether I intend a bid as natural, or artificial, systemic or antisystemic is. The only thing that opponents are entitled to are agreements: about the bid itself (i.e. the insufficient bid: No agreement), and about relevant bids that weren't made (i.e. bids that would have been sufficient).

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Since when are opponents entitled to know the intent of my bid?

 

Next time I overbid, I will have to tell the opponents: "I am bidding 3♥. I don't think that I can make it, but I hope that you will take the push to 3♠ which I might be able to beat."

 

They simply aren't. Whether I intend a bid as natural, or artificial, systemic or antisystemic is. The only thing that opponents are entitled to are agreements: about the bid itself (i.e. the insufficient bid: No agreement), and about relevant bids that weren't made (i.e. bids that would have been sufficient).

 

Rik

So the proper question to be answered would be "please tell me about the meanings of the relevant sufficient bids that were not made"?

[Vampyr]

I think an IB is more like a misbid case than an MI case, because it is the player who made the bid who is under a false impression, not their partner. And like a misbid, opponents aren't entitled to know what that false impression is.

 

No, because the insufficient bid was not on purpose; the bid in the IBer's mind was systemic. It is that bit of the system that the opponents are entitled to.

 

Since when are opponents entitled to know the intent of my bid?

 

Next time I overbid, I will have to tell the opponents: "I am bidding 3♥. I don't think that I can make it, but I hope that you will take the push to 3♠ which I might be able to beat."

 

I didn't mean to confuse by using the word "intent". I meant "intended systemic meaning".

 

They simply aren't. Whether I intend a bid as natural, or artificial, systemic or antisystemic is. The only thing that opponents are entitled to are agreements: about the bid itself (i.e. the insufficient bid: No agreement), and about relevant bids that weren't made (i.e. bids that would have been sufficient). [my emphasis]

 

You are not the only person having this problem; refer to post #83.

[campboy]

No, because the insufficient bid was not on purpose; the bid in the IBer's mind was systemic. It is that bit of the system that the opponents are entitled to.

A misbid is not done on purpose either; in a misbidder's mind the bid is systemic. Of course he is wrong, so opponents are not entitled to know about that bit of "system".

[aguahombre]

The problem posters are having, IMO, is --- and Trinidad/Campboy are trying to explain --- that the opponents are indeed entitled to know what a particular bid means by agreement in our system.

 

In no case are the opponents entitled to know the bidder's "intention" at the time he made the call. The TD might need to know this, in order to determine the suitability of substitute calls.

 

This might lead to the opponents rightfully being entitled to MORE information, from which they can infer at their own risk what part of that information applies.

 

1) If he thought he was opening the bidding, the agreement for 2H is x

2) If he didn't see the overcall, the agreement for 2H is y.

3) If he thought RHO bid 2D, the agreement for 2H is Z.

 

(Side note: This is the first and last time I will ever discuss xyz) :rolleyes:

[Vampyr]

A misbid is not done on purpose either; in a misbidder's mind the bid is systemic. Of course he is wrong, so opponents are not entitled to know about that bit of "system".

 

OK, best to just say it is not like a misbid or a misexplanation.

[Vampyr]

This might lead to the opponents rightfully being entitled to MORE information, from which they can infer at their own risk what part of that information applies.

 

Is the point here that "at their own risk" is OK for the non-offenders since there is always 27D, and so no real risk? Maybe I should go along and agree that no 27B(1)b, 2, 3, 4 or 27C case can ever be used without the subsequent application of 27D. I was hoping that its use could be avoided, ie the NOS could end up not damaged, even if only in a small number of cases.

 

But even this will not work because 27D only mentions 27B1. Is this assumed to be accidental?

[barmar]

I think an IB is more like a misbid case than an MI case, because it is the player who made the bid who is under a false impression, not their partner. And like a misbid, opponents aren't entitled to know what that false impression is.

A significant difference is that after a misbid, the opponent isn't given the choice of whether to accept it or force you to correct it. And the point in question is what information he's entitled to when making that decision.

 

The TD needs to know the intent of the IB, so that he can determine whether a particular replacement call is equivalent or silences his partner. But you're saying that the opponent making the decision of whether to accept or not shouldn't be privy to whether there's such a correction available.

[aguahombre]

 

The TD needs to know the intent of the IB, so that he can determine whether a particular replacement call is equivalent or silences his partner. But you're saying that the opponent making the decision of whether to accept or not shouldn't be privy to whether there's such a correction available.

He should be privy to the extent of knowing the systemic meanings of 2H in various contexts. From that he can conclude --- if he wants to --- the intent of the IB.