[pran]

helene_t, on 2015-March-06, 10:10, said:

Law 23 says in a footnote "for example by partner's enforced pass" so clearly it is meant to solve exactly this problem.

It is also strange that 27D refers only to 27B1, is there any reason why it wouldn't apply after 27B2 had been used?

Because if the offending side gains from offender's partner being forced to pass this is not "with assistance from the IB" but as a consequence of the forced pass.

[lamford]

pran, on 2015-March-06, 10:30, said:

Because if the offending side gains from offender's partner being forced to pass this is not "with assistance from the IB" but as a consequence of the forced pass.

It doesn't say that; it says "without assistance gained through the infraction". It does seem that 27D should provide the right to adjust for all insufficient bids and their effect. In this example, the infraction assisted EW in avoiding -1400. Just a gentle nudge, however ...

[pran]

lamford, on 2015-March-06, 10:36, said:

It doesn't say that; it says "without assistance gained through the infraction". It does seem that 27D should provide the right to adjust for all insufficient bids and their effect. In this example, the infraction assisted EW in avoiding -1400. Just a gentle nudge, however ...

All right: The result of avoiding -1400 was not obtained with assistance from the IB, it was obtained from the forced pass which was obtained with assistance from the IB.

In order to fully understand Law 27D you will probably need to know the historical developments leading up to the addition of this Law.

There is no problem adjusting any result gained through the infraction when Law 27B2-4 applies, only you use Law 23, and if this occationally proves insufficient: Law 12A1.

[lamford]

pran, on 2015-March-06, 10:47, said:

All right: The result of avoiding -1400 was not obtained with assistance from the IB, it was obtained from the forced pass which was obtained with assistance from the IB.

In order to fully understand Law 27D you will probably need to know the historical developments leading up to the addition of this Law.

There is no problem adjusting any result gained through the infraction when Law 27B2-4 applies, only you use Law 23, and if this occationally proves insufficient: Law 12A1.

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.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-March-06, 08:49, said:

It is in the section of the Law Book that deals with the auction. Another Law (22A1, for example) states:

The auction ends when:
1. all four players pass (but see Law 25). The hands are returned to the board without play. There shall not be a redeal.

I hope that you are not suggesting that when all four players pass that is "an irregularity" or a departure from correct procedure, and the penalty or rectification for the irregularity is to return the hands to the board without play! You will have some support from the EHAA players, however.

Of course I'm not suggesting that.

In my Law book, Chapter V is headed "The Auction". Part I of that chapter is "Correct Procedure". Part II is "Irregularities in Procedure". Section Three in Part II is "Insufficient Bid". Clearly, then, an insufficient bid is an irregularity. And don't give me "the headings aren't part of the laws". They are there, they are there for a purpose, and that purpose is to organize the laws.

RMB1, on 2015-March-06, 09:28, said:

I don't believe any of this is important but it is bizarre that in all words in Law 18 B/C/D the law makers could not find room to say that bids must be sufficient.

Agreed. This entire thread has turned into a discussion that would be better off on blml.

pran, on 2015-March-06, 10:15, said:

I believe they have trusted that bridge players possess a minimum level of intelligence.
And I (for one) have no problem understanding that the words "sufficient" describes a correct procedure and that "insufficient" imply a violation of correct procedure.

Intelligence perhaps. Based on this thread though, common sense seems to be lacking.

[pran]

lamford, on 2015-March-06, 10:52, said:

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.

[weejonnie]

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.

[pran]

weejonnie, on 2015-March-06, 12:48, said:

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://158.255.45.21...de/contents.asp include headings.

[billw55]

lamford, on 2015-March-06, 09:07, said:

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.

[lamford]

billw55, on 2015-March-06, 13:35, said:

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.

[pran]

lamford, on 2015-March-06, 13:54, said:

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?

[barmar]

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.

[lamford]

pran, on 2015-March-06, 14:06, said:

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.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2015-March-06, 14:15, said:

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!

[barmar]

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.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2015-March-06, 14:42, said:

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.

[weejonnie]

pran, on 2015-March-06, 12:51, said:

WBFLC publications http://158.255.45.21...de/contents.asp include headings.

I've looked there - can't see those headings.

[pran]

weejonnie, on 2015-March-06, 15:12, said:

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.

[FrancesHinden]

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.

[pran]

lamford, on 2015-March-06, 14:52, said:

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