[Vampyr]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-01, 08:33, said:

Um.... Yes, I know that. But the inexperienced director did not.

I thought that what I wrote was clear.

[nige1]

it would be simpler and fairer if the illegal call were cancelled and the offender's partner silenced for the remainder of that auction

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2014-October-01, 20:34, said:

it would be simpler and fairer if the illegal call were cancelled and the offender's partner silenced for the remainder of that auction

It totally would be, and it might be best, but I would be content with a limited application df 27B1(a). Perhaps this could be achieved, if, say, and NBO produced guidance to the effect that the conditions of 27B1(b)can virtually never be met, so that the Law can be ignored. It would not surprise me if this was already the case in numerous clubs. After all "in the Director's opinion" offers a lot of leeway, and any director can truly claim not to know enough about the OS system or style to be sure that the conditions are met.

Although, Nigel, you can't disallow LHO to accept the bid. A case can certainly be made for this, but then you would have to penalise a dozy opponent who acted over the bid. I don't think that the NOS should be in danger of incurring a penalty.

[helene_t]

nige1, on 2014-October-01, 20:34, said:

it would be simpler and fairer if the illegal call were cancelled and the offender's partner silenced for the remainder of that auction

Simpler but not fairer IMO. If the conditions for 27B1(b) are met, the IB does not give any UI to partner. The only (slight) problem is that everyone has EI from the next player's decision not to accept the IB.

Anyway, silencing a player makes the auction unrealistic and should be avided if at all possible. If it is possible to get the board back on the trails and get a real bridge result from a normal auction, it is much preferable.

[weejonnie]

OK:

In the first case (assuming at least 3 clubs) the EBU have declared such a bid to be natural. (Blue Book 3.E.1). All the TD has to do (away from the table) is to ask if the bidder would ever open 1 Club on a 2 card suit. If 2 Clubs is also natural then there is no problem. Partner is even allowed to know that the bidder has a better than average overcall (27B1b) (but an adjusted score may be made if the NOS is damaged (27D))

In the second case (1 Club = 2+) then the opening bid is artificial (3.E.1 again) (presumably denying a 5-card major, but promising opening values) so the question then becomes: is there a rectification bid under 27B1b?

IMHO a response of 2♣ is NOT a rectification bid in this context since it could be made on substantially weaker hands than an opening 1♣ (e.g a good 9 with club suit) However 3♣ (assuming strong and natural e.g. 15-18 with clubs) would be allowed as it is more precise than 1♣ (12-18 with at least 2 clubs).

Note that the offender does NOT HAVE to have the hand the rectification bid promises! (Also an adjusted score is possible under 27D again) (nor can the offending side have an agreement that following an irregularity the meaning of bids change).

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-01, 20:55, said:

It totally would be, and it might be best, but I would be content with a limited application df 27B1(a). Perhaps this could be achieved, if, say, and NBO produced guidance to the effect that the conditions of 27B1(b)can virtually never be met, so that the Law can be ignored.

On the contrary, the WBFLC issued guidance some years ago that they favour a liberal interpretation of 27B1(b).

I think we'll have to wait to see what they come up with for the next set of laws, although I doubt they will choose to reduce the application of this aspect.

[VixTD]

weejonnie, on 2014-October-02, 03:14, said:

IMHO a response of 2♣ is NOT a rectification bid in this context since it could be made on substantially weaker hands than an opening 1♣ (e.g a good 9 with club suit) However 3♣ (assuming strong and natural e.g. 15-18 with clubs) would be allowed as it is more precise than 1♣ (12-18 with at least 2 clubs).

This was part of my reply earlier, but I've had second thoughts. If there are some hands that would respond 3♣ to 1♦ that would not open 1♣ (e.g. game-forcing hands that would open an Acol 2♣, or 2NT openers with good clubs) then a correction to 3♣ should not be allowed without penalty. (I don't believe anyone plays limited strong jump-shifts as you suggest, although I could be persuaded if I saw the evidence.)

If a 1♣ opener shows either a natural opening bid with clubs or a weak NT, and a 3NT response (or a 2NT response in North America) would show a balanced hand with 13-15 pts and at least two clubs, I assume you'd allow these corrections as well.

Pran apparently wouldn't....:

pran, on 2014-October-01, 08:28, said:

A Law 27B1b substitution is available only when the substituting call can not show any hand with which the offender had not made the insufficient bid had that been legal.

In clear language this means that the 1♣ insufficient bid may be replaced by another call under L27B1b without restraining offender's partner only if every possible hand that can be shown with the actually selected replacing call would have been shown (opened) with the 1♣ bid had this been legal.

....but I'm not sure why.

[weejonnie]

VixTD, on 2014-October-02, 07:06, said:

This was part of my reply earlier, but I've had second thoughts. If there are some hands that would respond 3♣ to 1♦ that would not open 1♣ (e.g. game-forcing hands that would open an Acol 2♣, or 2NT openers with good clubs) then a correction to 3♣ should not be allowed without penalty. (I don't believe anyone plays limited strong jump-shifts as you suggest, although I could be persuaded if I saw the evidence.)

If a 1♣ opener shows either a natural opening bid with clubs or a weak NT, and a 3NT response (or a 2NT response in North America) would show a balanced hand with 13-15 pts and at least two clubs, I assume you'd allow these corrections as well.

Pran apparently wouldn't....:


....but I'm not sure why.

If we define 1♣ as 12-19 with clubs (possible 2 card suit) and 3!C as 15 - 26 then you are of course correct since partner knows you haven't got 20+ points.

At first glance a 2NT reply showing 13-15 and 2+ clubs would seem to be identical to a 1 Club option of 13-15 and 2+ clubs.

BUT are there any hands where you would reply 2NT when you would would not open 1 Club. And the answer must be yes! If you had 5 diamonds for instance you might not open 1 Club - however you would most likely reply 2NT. So your partner knows you don't have 5 Diamonds. Under a liberal interpretation I would probably let this example ride.

Another example - are you allowed to bid 3♣ (Stayman) over 2NT having responded 2♣ (Stayman) as you thought partner opened 1NT? the answer is no! since with a hand of 6 points 4=4=3=2 you probably would not have launched Stayman over 1NT - but would over 2NT. Partner knows you don't have that hand (but are stronger).

[aguahombre]

weejonnie, on 2014-October-02, 08:49, said:

If you had 5 diamonds for instance you might not open 1 Club - however you would most likely reply 2NT. So your partner knows you don't have 5 Diamonds. Under a liberal interpretation I would probably let this example ride.

This example, you could let ride..true..because with 5 Diamonds and the strength for 2NT responder would show the diamond support via inverted or whatever they have as a tool rather than bid 2NT at all.

The rest of your post above seems logical.

[Vampyr]

weejonnie, on 2014-October-02, 03:14, said:

*‰

Partner is even allowed to know that the bidder has a better than average overcall (27B1b) (but an adjusted score may be made if the NOS is damaged (27D))

...

Note that the offender does NOT HAVE to have the hand the rectification bid promises!

This is one of the more risible aspects of this law.

gordontd, on 2014-October-02, 03:25, said:

On the contrary, the WBFLC issued guidance some years ago that they favour a liberal interpretation of 27B1(b).

Yes, I realise that, and I was wondering whether an NBO could overrule "guidance".

One of the reasons that this is very poor guidance is the fact that it has the potential for a great many more 27D rulings. But anyway you could still go with "liberal" but note that the director must be absolutely positive that the case is met, taking pressure off inexperienced directors who are also weak players. And who are volunteers and don't have the time to devote to figuring it all out.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-02, 17:19, said:

Yes, I realise that, and I was wondering whether an NBO could overrule "guidance".

Not, I think, when it comes in the form of a LC minute which makes it an official interpretation of the law. I suppose a minute could be worded in such a way as to allow leeway, but I don't recall having seen one that does.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-02, 17:19, said:

One of the reasons that this is very poor guidance is the fact that it has the potential for a great many more 27D rulings.

How many L27D rulings have you seen? Me neither.

[weejonnie]

gordontd, on 2014-October-03, 00:38, said:

How many L27D rulings have you seen? Me neither.

I would point out that under law 27D it is the duty of the Director to judge whether the NOS has been damaged (not the NOS themselves).

[jallerton]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-02, 17:19, said:

Yes, I realise that, and I was wondering whether an NBO could overrule "guidance".

One of the reasons that this is very poor guidance is the fact that it has the potential for a great many more 27D rulings. But anyway you could still go with "liberal" but note that the director must be absolutely positive that the case is met, taking pressure off inexperienced directors who are also weak players. And who are volunteers and don't have the time to devote to figuring it all out.

blackshoe, on 2014-October-02, 17:24, said:

Not, I think, when it comes in the form of a LC minute which makes it an official interpretation of the law. I suppose a minute could be worded in such a way as to allow leeway, but I don't recall having seen one that does.

In this case the WBFLC minute recommends an approach which directly contradicts the Law, so it can hardly be an official interpretation!

The minute says:

Quote

The 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).

However, Law 27B1b itself (quoted in full by Sven upthread) includes the phrase:

Quote

....has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid)...

As long as you accept the concept of an insufficient bid having a meaning at all, this wording is explicit and clear. It is therefore surprising that the WBFLC favours an approach of not following its Laws, but at least its use of "recommends" and "in so far as they wish" means that Regulatory Authorities have not been forced to adopt this illegal approach.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2014-October-03, 00:38, said:

How many L27D rulings have you seen? Me neither.

Well, 27B1(b) rulings are not thick on the ground either.

Thanks Jeffrey, for finding the text. It is gratifying that NBOs are permitted to approach this law in a sensible way. It will be even more gratifying if they do it.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2014-October-03, 15:09, said:

In this case the WBFLC minute recommends an approach which directly contradicts the Law, so it can hardly be an official interpretation!

The minute says:



However, Law 27B1b itself (quoted in full by Sven upthread) includes the phrase:



As long as you accept the concept of an insufficient bid having a meaning at all, this wording is explicit and clear. It is therefore surprising that the WBFLC favours an approach of not following its Laws, but at least its use of "recommends" and "in so far as they wish" means that Regulatory Authorities have not been forced to adopt this illegal approach.

Well, it would seem prudent then to point out to the LC that their recommended approach is illegal. Has anyone done that? I suppose the best way would be through your NBO, particularly if there's a representative from your country on the LC. Or you could contact such a representative, or the board as a whole if there is none, but I think communications from those in authority - an official communication from an NBO, for example - would have more impact.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-03, 22:11, said:

Well, it would seem prudent then to point out to the LC that their recommended approach is illegal.

Because they are so responsive to the people whose service they are supposedly in...

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-03, 22:31, said:

Because they are so responsive to the people whose service they are supposedly in...

You know of a better way to get them to change this?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-04, 06:25, said:

You know of a better way to get them to change this?

Well, no, which is the say that I know of no way at all...

But the good news is that the recommendation is optional and can be ignored.

[blackshoe]

I suppose even if it weren't optional, folks who don't like it would ignore it, but that's life.