pran Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 Yes, it does seem 27D is unnecessary, and its wording is confusing. Law 23 only works here, however, if you assume the Laws are wrong and that an IB is an infraction. I think that is the only practical approach.Law 27D was included in the laws for a purpose and I honestly consider it well written for that purpose. Either you understand it or you don't. Either way I believe that further clarification attempts will probably be futile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weejonnie Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 It's funny but my copy of the laws of duplicate bridge do not have those headings in at all. I think they have been added by a third party (ACBL?) to help with understanding the logic of the laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 It's funny but my copy of the laws of duplicate bridge do not have those headings in at all. I think they have been added by a third party (ACBL?) to help with understanding the logic of the laws.WBFLC publications http://158.255.45.213/departments/laws/internationalcode/contents.asp include headings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 And I think we have to assume the error in the Laws, and decide that an IB is an irregularity. Certainly I will rule as though it is, whatever the Laws say.Agree. I would also add a large PP for violation of 72B1. SB is a fictional character and so is the similar antagonist in (most of) your threads. I wonder if people are being such jerks in real bridge events, and how long they would stick around if properly dealt with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted March 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 Agree. I would also add a large PP for violation of 72B1.I would adjust but would not give a PP. We have not found any Law that SB has broken, intentionally or otherwise. It should be the Second Commandment, "Thou shalt make sufficient bids", but, somehow or other, Moses lost that one, no doubt fatigued by getting the First Commandment, "Thou shalt follow suit" broadly correct, but only broadly, as Riccardi once found to his cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 I would adjust but would not give a PP. We have not found any Law that SB has broken, intentionally or otherwise. It should be the Second Commandment, "Thou shalt make sufficient bids", but, somehow or other, Moses lost that one, no doubt fatigued by getting the First Commandment, "Thou shalt follow suit" broadly correct, but only broadly, as Riccardi once found to his cost.What about Law 74A2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 I just posted in the the other thread the clause that I believe indicates that an insufficient bid is an infraction. It says that an IB will be treated as legal if the offender's LHO accepts it. Thus, it is not actually legal, it can only be "treated as legal". Since this whole thread is predicated on the misunderstanding that the Laws don't state that an IB is illegal, I suggest we put it to rest. Perhaps you might want to post something in the Changes forum suggesting that this implication be made explicit in the law that describes the auction process. But the argument that an IB is legal is clearly ridiculous -- every player knows that bids are required to supercede the previous bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted March 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 What about Law 74A2?We have had discussions about this clause before, and some have argued that doubling the opponent for a large penalty, executing a bunny squeeze, false-carding etc, are actions that might cause embarrassment to another player. I think that one could apply this clause to a gesture, such as the Quenelle, or to some racist or vulgar remark, but I do not think it is intended to apply to bids or plays. There was no evidence here that SB breached this clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted March 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 I just posted in the the other thread the clause that I believe indicates that an insufficient bid is an infraction. It says that an IB will be treated as legal if the offender's LHO accepts it. Thus, it is not actually legal, it can only be "treated as legal". Since this whole thread is predicated on the misunderstanding that the Laws don't state that an IB is illegal, I suggest we put it to rest. Perhaps you might want to post something in the Changes forum suggesting that this implication be made explicit in the law that describes the auction process. But the argument that an IB is legal is clearly ridiculous -- every player knows that bids are required to supercede the previous bid.Indeed, even Wikipedia manages to explain it correctly: "During the auction, each bid must be 'sufficient', i.e. it must be higher than its predecessor." That appears to be entirely missing in the Laws. Law 27 further states that if an IB is not accepted it must be replaced by a legal call etc. In this clause "legal" and "sufficient" seem to be synonymous, so all you are arguing is that there is an obligation both to make sufficient bids and legal bids. I cannot find that obligation anywhere, and, as I stated, Law 40A3 appears to permit both sufficient and insufficient bids. Maybe it is left understood, and there was no need for Wikipedia to bother with it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 Sometimes things like that just slip through. Everyone just "knows" this fact, and no one ever notices that it's not written down explicitly. You'd think that in over 100 years since bridge replaced whist someone might have realized it, but apparently not. And if a fact can be construed by inference from other laws, it has the same force as if it were stated explicitly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted March 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 Sometimes things like that just slip through. Everyone just "knows" this fact, and no one ever notices that it's not written down explicitly. You'd think that in over 100 years since bridge replaced whist someone might have realized it, but apparently not. And if a fact can be construed by inference from other laws, it has the same force as if it were stated explicitly.Indeed. I wonder if any edition of the Laws specified that bids must be sufficient? Does anyone with old copies know? I do agree that this thread has run its course and some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weejonnie Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 WBFLC publications http://158.255.45.213/departments/laws/internationalcode/contents.asp include headings. I've looked there - can't see those headings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 I've looked there - can't see those headings.Incredible.Well, here is a copy of Law 18, fetched from that very same URL, the actual layout is lost but the headings and text bodies are accurate Law 18 BIDS A. Proper Form A bid designates a number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six), from one to seven, and a denomination. (Pass, double and redouble are calls but not bids.) B. To Supersede a Bid A bid supersedes a previous bid if it designates either the same number of odd tricks in a higher-ranking denomination or a greater number of odd tricks in any denomination. C. Sufficient Bid A bid that supersedes the last preceding bid is a sufficient bid. D. Insufficient Bid A bid that fails to supersede the last preceding bid is an insufficient bid. E. Rank of the Denominations The rank of the denominations in descending order is: no trump, spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs. F. Different Methods Regulating Authorities may authorize different methods of making calls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 I am not sure what you think to be 'incredible', the section and chapter headings are not included at the WBL link given. Are you imagining them?They aren't in the EBU version of the Laws either, as suggested, perhaps they are an ACBL addition. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 Indeed. I wonder if any edition of the Laws specified that bids must be sufficient? Does anyone with old copies know? I do agree that this thread has run its course and some.Laws of Auction Bridge 1925:Law 19: A bid of a greater number of odd tricks ranks higher than a bid of less number. When two bids are of the same number, they rank: No Trump (highest), Spades, Hearts, Diamonds, Clubs (lowest).Law 20: (a) A bid, unless it is the first bid of the hand, is insufficient if it be not higher than the last previous bid.(b) A player having made an insufficient bid, may correct it without penalty if [...]{c} [...](d) If [...] the bidder must make his bid sufficient and his partner is barred from further participation in the auction. [...] Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1932 (USA only, before the worlwide syncronization of bridge laws):Law 6: Each successive bid must name either a greater number of odd tricks than the last preceding bid or an equal number of a higher denomination. Laws of Contract Bridge 1935 (the first international code):Law 16: [essentially equivalent to Duplicate Contract Bridge Law 1932 Law 6 Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1935: Law 6: [essentially equivalent to Duplicate Contract Bridge Law 1932 Law 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 I am not sure what you think to be 'incredible', the section and chapter headings are not included at the WBL link given. Are you imagining them?They aren't in the EBU version of the Laws either, as suggested, perhaps they are an ACBL addition. I can only say that I do indeed connect to the address given and receive the content pages for the laws. 'http: // 158 .255.45.213 / departments / laws / internationalcode / Law18 . asp' is the link I use directly to Law 18, but in order to avoid any changes of the string I have added quotes at the beginning and end of the string and also inserted several Spaces.Copy the string and remove all the embedded Spaces before using the link. If that doesn't help I have no idea why it works for me and not for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 It's funny but my copy of the laws of duplicate bridge do not have those headings in at all. I think they have been added by a third party (ACBL?) to help with understanding the logic of the laws.Actually, they weren't added by the ACBL, they were removed by the WBF. Take a look at the 1997 law book (both versions have the headings). Personally, I think the removal was a mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bixby Posted March 7, 2015 Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 . . . SB is a fictional character and so is the similar antagonist in (most of) your threads. I wonder if people are being such jerks in real bridge events, and how long they would stick around if properly dealt with. There is an important distinction between Victor Mollo's original Secretary Bird and Lamford's character. The original SB knew the Laws of bridge and their correct meanings but his special characteristic was that he invoked the Laws at times when doing so disadvantaged his side. If SB was declarer and his RHO made the opening lead of a heart out of turn, SB would bar a heart lead even though it would turn out later that only a heart lead would let him make the contract. The special characteristic of Lamford's SB, by contrast, is that he delights in inventing absurd readings of the Laws, which may have some basis in the Laws' literal text but which no one would ever imagine to be the correct meaning of the Laws. The more absurd the literal, textualist reading of the Laws, the better Lamford's SB seems to like it. In this case, Lamford's SB doesn't do that well even on the text alone. True, he has noticed the oddity that Law 18 doesn't specify that players who bid are required to make sufficient bids. But, as others have pointed out, (1) Law 27 says that an insufficient bid can be "treated as legal," which clearly implies that it is otherwise illegal, (2) Law 27 is contained in a part of the Laws headed, "Irregularities in Procedure," which also clearly implies that insufficient bids are illegal, and (3) Law 27 references Law 23, which makes sense only if an insufficient bid is an irregularity. In interpreting the text of a law, one looks not only at the particular words at issue, but at the entire set of laws of which it is a part. Here, the full context of the Laws shows clearly that an insufficient bid is an irregularity. And besides, as others have also pointed out, perhaps the most important point is that everyone knows an insufficient bid is an irregularity. If I were the original SB, I would sue Lamford's SB for libeling my character. The original SB may make strategic errors in invoking the Laws, but at least he knows what they really mean. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted March 7, 2015 Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 And besides, as others have also pointed out, perhaps the most important point is that everyone knows an insufficient bid is an irregularity. Why should his matter? It is the laws which define bridge, not what "everyone knows". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted March 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 Why should his matter? It is the laws which define bridge, not what "everyone knows".Indeed. And why on earth should someone have to try to work out whether one can make insufficient bids by the context of other Laws when the section dealing with insufficient bids negligently omits to say that they are not permitted? I went to an auction the other day, and an object had a starting price and a reserve price. The program stated that I was not allowed to make a bid below the starting price, but I was allowed to make a bid below the reserve price, and also that bids had to be higher than and not equal to the previous bid. It further stated that if the highest bid was below the reserve price, the seller had the right to withdraw the object, but was not obliged to do so. Funny how I assumed the rules on bids were exactly as stated. I did not look elsewhere to find out what action would be taken if I made a bid below the starting price, etc. Some posters in this thread are defending the indefensible. The compilers of the Laws cannot even explain the basic rules of bridge properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 7, 2015 Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 Fine. Let's throw out the rule book and let everybody do whatever they like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted March 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 Fine. Let's throw out the rule book and let everybody do whatever they like.No, let us use this forum to debug and correct it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 7, 2015 Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 No, let us use this forum to debug and correct it.Only the WBFLC and the ACBLLC can correct problems in the laws. In any case, this forum is not the place to be debugging or correcting the laws. I'll move this thread to the "changing laws" forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted March 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 Only the WBFLC and the ACBLLC can correct problems in the laws. In any case, this forum is not the place to be debugging or correcting the laws. I'll move this thread to the "changing laws" forum.Agreed. My suggested correction is:[Law 18: Bids] <snip>D. Insufficient Bid A bid that fails to supersede the last preceding bid is an insufficient bid, which must not be made intentionally. Others may have a better wording. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 I've looked there - can't see those headings.I suspect someone is confusing the titles of the individual laws with the chapter headings. The ACBL version of the laws has them grouped into chapters, which have titles like "Chapter II - Preliminaries" (consisting of laws 1 through 5). Some of the chapters are further sub-divided into parts and/or sections. E.g. Laws 53 through 56 are in Chapter VI - The Play, Part III Irregular Leads and Plays, Section ONE - Lead Out of Turn. The WBF version doesn't have any of these groupings, it just has the laws. I think the only purpose of them is to aid someone using the table of contents to find the laws relevant to a situation, they shouldn't affect the way the laws are interpreted. You can see this at: http://www.acbl.org/acbl-content/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Laws-of-Duplicate-Bridge.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.