Comparable Call

[Vampyr]

Does this mean that the new call does not need to be more precise than the old call? Is it meant to make it easier for directors to determine whether the call is allowed?

 

But if it needn't be more precise, then the fact that the old call is UI is somehow missing from the text.

[gordontd]

The proposed wording is:

A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call if it:

1. has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or

2. defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or

3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the

withdrawn call.

 

There's also the usual possibility of the TD adjusting if they have gained from the IB.

[Vampyr]

Will this wording be in a footnote? It does not appear in the text.

 

I really hate the "heads I win, tails I break even" approach to insufficient bids. Perhaps as there is no actual law that says you have to bid sufficiently, so it is not, strictly speaking, a requirement?

 

I realise that the WBFLC are for some reason married to the idea that bridge should return to "normal" after an irregularity. So this L27 could be somewhat reasonable if the addition of a mandated PP for the offenders was added.

 

This s would still leave us with the mind reading aspect though. And the fact that it is anyway illegal for an insufficient bid to have any meaning at all.

 

I am surprised that the 2017 Laws do not award a bonus for making an insufficient bid. Maybe the next version will.

[gordontd]

Will this wording be in a footnote? It does not appear in the text.

 

There's more to that law than I quoted, but you asked for an explanation of the term "comparable call" and the whole text is on a password-protected site, accessible law by law, so although we haven't been asked not to give any of it away, I'm reluctant to divulge too much.

 

it is anyway illegal for an insufficient bid to have any meaning at all.

That's why it uses the word "attributable".

[Vampyr]

There's more to that law than I quoted, but you asked for an explanation of the term "comparable call" and the whole text is on a password-protected site, accessible law by law, so although we haven't been asked not to give any of it away, I'm reluctant to divulge too much.

 

I have seen what I thought was the full text, but maybe those words have been added in a subsequent version.

[lamford]

Perhaps as there is no actual law that says you have to bid sufficiently, so it is not, strictly speaking, a requirement?

Please tell me that the requirement to make a sufficient bid, missing in the last laws, has now been reinstated, or is that "instated"?

[pran]

Please tell me that the requirement to make a sufficient bid, missing in the last laws, has now been reinstated, or is that "instated"?

"missing in the last laws"???

If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call ....

This introduction to Law 27B continues with a variety of alternative substitutions, but none of them allows the substitution of another insufficient bid.

[blackshoe]

I think his problem is with Law 18, which simply says that a bid that fails to supersede the last previous bid is insufficient, rather than saying that each bid must be sufficient.

[pran]

I think his problem is with Law 18, which simply says that a bid that fails to supersede the last previous bid is insufficient, rather than saying that each bid must be sufficient.

Law 18 defines "bid" and distinguishes between "sufficient" and "insufficient" bids.

 

But law 18 (correctly) does not state that a bid must be sufficient in order to be legal. Such a statement would have been contradictory to Law 27 which allows for an insufficient bid to be legal in certain specific situations.

 

Law 27 tells how to handle insufficient bids and includes a specific procedure when the offender attempts to substitute an(other) insufficient bid for an insufficient bid that has not been accepted.

 

So what is the problem?

[lamford]

So what is the problem?

I think blackshoe, and RMB1 at the time of a previous SB "shenanigan", clearly point out that nowhere does it say that one cannot deliberately make an insufficient bid. For all the newby knows, it is permitted to bid 1C over 1D, and that is an "insufficient" bid, and it is allowed and handled accordingly. Just as it is permitted to open 3C, and that is a "pre-emptive" bid.

[blackshoe]

Exactly. For that matter, if a player deliberately makes an insufficient bid, can the TD penalize him? Under which Law?

[pran]

Exactly. For that matter, if a player deliberately makes an insufficient bid, can the TD penalize him? Under which Law?

Are you serious?

Even without us having to interpret Law 18 and understand what is meant by the word "insufficient", Law 27 makes it clear to us that an insufficient bid (as defined in Law 18) is an irregularity which will result in certain prescribed rectifications.

And

A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

Law 90A gives the Director the necessary authority.

 

 

(And to Lamford: There is no prescribed rectification anywhere for a "pre-emptive" bid so your example is just a red herring and represents no infringement of any law.)

[barmar]

Law 18 defines "bid" and distinguishes between "sufficient" and "insufficient" bids.

 

But law 18 (correctly) does not state that a bid must be sufficient in order to be legal. Such a statement would have been contradictory to Law 27 which allows for an insufficient bid to be legal in certain specific situations.

27 says it may be "treated as legal". That implies that it's not actually legal, there are just situations where we ignore its illegality. There's similar laws regarding calls and plays out of turn.

 

I think we had a SB thread a year or two ago surrounding this -- SB claimed that the Laws never say that an IB is an infraction, so some other Laws related to infractions didn't apply. I'm pretty sure I found a number of clauses in the Laws that together made it clear that it's implicitly an infraction, even though there's no "MUST" in Law 18.

[barmar]

Please tell me that the requirement to make a sufficient bid, missing in the last laws, has now been reinstated, or is that "instated"?

Just noticed that no one actually answered this question. No, Law 18 has not been touched.

 

I just sent email to the ACBL LC suggesting this be tweaked to add such a requirement. Also, Law 18 doesn't say that the first bid in the auction is sufficient. The definitions of sufficient and insufficient make reference to the last preceding bid, but don't say how they're defined if there hasn't been a preceding bid.

[jeffford76]

I have seen what I thought was the full text, but maybe those words have been added in a subsequent version.

 

If you have access to the laws, read the new Law 23.

[pran]

Please tell me that the requirement to make a sufficient bid, missing in the last laws, has now been reinstated, or is that "instated"?

FWIW I looked up the 1987 laws (I don't have the 1997 laws easy at hand) and found that the only change in this law from 1987 to 2007 was:

 

Law 18 A: "(tricks in excess of six)" was added after "odd tricks"

 

Law 18 A & B: "names" was changed to "designates"

 

Law 18 C & D: "immediately previous" was changed to "last preceding"

 

and Law 18 F was added

 

Not much of a change?

[Vampyr]

If you have access to the laws, read the new Law 23.

 

Ah, now I see where the text Gordon quoted is. I wonder why it is not closer to, or in, L27.

 

Anyway parameters for "similar" have to be defined or it will not be much easier for directors. What will still be difficult for volunteer playing directors will be advantage gained through UI from the original call. This, at least, was not as big a problem when the new bid had to be a subset of the old one.

 

But the WBFLC believe that adhering to the basic mechanics of the game is too much to ask. Perhaps the next version of the Laws will include the Christmas party rule that you can make any bid as long as it is still in your box.

[blackshoe]

Are you serious?

Even without us having to interpret Law 18 and understand what is meant by the word "insufficient", Law 27 makes it clear to us that an insufficient bid (as defined in Law 18) is an irregularity which will result in certain prescribed rectifications.

And

Law 90A gives the Director the necessary authority.

Nowhere in Law 27 does it say an IB is an irregularity.

 

Law 90A does give the TD authority to penalize various things. I suppose an IB might inconvenience another contestant, or unduly delay the game, but you can't penalize it on the basis that it's an irregularity if the law doesn't say it's an irregularity.

 

Law 18 defines "sufficient bid" and "insufficient bid" and the proper form of a bid. It talks of 'superseding bids", but it nowhere says that a bid must supersede the previous bid.

 

The point of all this, Sven, is to say that Law 18 should be changed to clarify that any subsequent bid must (or shall, or should, whatever the lawmakers think is appropriate) be sufficient (and that the first bid in an auction is always sufficient, as someone else pointed out upthread).

[pran]

I have now consulted my archive (mainly with Norwegian translations of the laws after 1947) and found that what are now Laws 18 and 27 have never been essentially changed since 1936.

 

However the organization of the laws has undergone several revisions and in 2007 the use of chapters grouping several of the laws under a common main heading disappeared.

 

At that time the explicit requirement that a bid must superseed the last previous bid (by either naming a higher number of odd tricks or a higher ranking denomination with the same number of odd tricks) had already gone, and now Laws 18 and 27 were no longer part of groups of laws under the respective titles "Correct procedures" and "Irregularities".

 

I believe that WBFLC found the word "insufficient" in the laws sufficient(!) to designate an insufficient bid as an irregularity and that no further precision of this fact was necessary.

 

It worries me that what has been obvious for 80 years now becomes "meat for the lawyers". Where are we going?

[gordontd]

Ah, now I see where the text Gordon quoted is. I wonder why it is not closer to, or in, L27.

Because it applies to other laws too, as well as being referred to in L27.

[axman]

I have now consulted my archive (mainly with Norwegian translations of the laws after 1947) and found that what are now Laws 18 and 27 have never been essentially changed since 1936.

 

However the organization of the laws has undergone several revisions and in 2007 the use of chapters grouping several of the laws under a common main heading disappeared.

 

At that time the explicit requirement that a bid must superseed the last previous bid (by either naming a higher number of odd tricks or a higher ranking denomination with the same number of odd tricks) had already gone, and now Laws 18 and 27 were no longer part of groups of laws under the respective titles "Correct procedures" and "Irregularities".

 

I believe that WBFLC found the word "insufficient" in the laws sufficient(!) to designate an insufficient bid as an irregularity and that no further precision of this fact was necessary.

 

It worries me that what has been obvious for 80 years now becomes "meat for the lawyers". Where are we going?

 

The dither is about the distinction between a definition which is a description and the definition as to what comprises an infraction. For instance L18 goes to some length to describe how to recognize an IB. And L27 goes to some length to describe what happens after an IB.

 

By reading closely one can figure out that he generally is better off to not IB, but is not in a position to know that an IB is a crime.

 

Kojak and Endicott have suggested that the dither is of no consequence.

[barmar]

By reading closely one can figure out that he generally is better off to not IB, but is not in a position to know that an IB is a crime.

 

Kojak and Endicott have suggested that the dither is of no consequence.

One reason why it could be of consequence is because of the law saying that you can't vary your agreements after an irregularity. If an IB isn't an irregularity, that restriction doesn't apply.

 

Or the law that says you mustn't commit an infraction intentionally. If an IB isn't an infraction, you're allowed to do it intentionally, as long as you're willing to accept the rectification.

 

And the law that says the the TD should adjust if you could have known that an irregularity would work to your advantage doesn't apply if it's not an irregularity.

 

Lamford, can you resurrect the thread where SB tried to take advantage of something like this?

[Vampyr]

One reason why it could be of consequence is because of the law saying that you can't vary your agreements after an irregularity.

 

The law is actually that you can. But it is interesting that most NBOs have, I am pretty sure, interpreted this to mean you can't have agreements after your own side's irregularities. But of course there are exceptions when, say, your partner is silenced so you don't make takeout doubles or asking bids. What law is it? I am curious to see whether this has been clarified.

[blackshoe]

It worries me that what has been obvious for 80 years now becomes "meat for the lawyers". Where are we going?

To Hell in a handbasket, no doubt. :lol:

[barmar]

The law is actually that you can.

You're right, I was confusing it with 40B2, which says you can't vary your agreements by which member of the partnership is making the call, but an RA can relax this (the only time I've ever seen this done was when midnight zips allowed the "Caddy System", where most of the caddy's bids are transfers while the pro bids naturally).

But it is interesting that most NBOs have, I am pretty sure, interpreted this to mean you can't have agreements after your own side's irregularities. But of course there are exceptions when, say, your partner is silenced so you don't make takeout doubles or asking bids. What law is it? I am curious to see whether this has been clarified.

It's Law 40B3, and it's been revised significantly. The old law says that an RA can prohibit varying agreements following a question, answer, or irregularity. The new version only applies after an irregularity by opponents.

 

I believe ACBL has exercised its right to prohibit such variation, is that what you mean by "interpreted this to mean"?