[barmar]

lamford, on 2017-October-09, 11:25, said:

Assuming that we are talking about the auction 2NT-Pass-2D, some other possibilities arise and give further attributable meanings. The player may have opened 2D as a multi, or as a Benji 2D, or as an Ekron 2D, so all might be attributable meanings, depending on what an opening 2D means and replacement calls will be varied and numerous. He might, if he needed to go to Specsavers, have been bidding 2D (Multi-Landy) over an opposing 1NT. All these are much more likely than the actual thread where the player was responding to Lebensohl with an insufficient 3C. The TD DOES need to know what went through the player's mind before he can guess at an attributable meaning. In practice, of course, the player says something like "Sorry, I didn't see the 2NT bid.", and the TD does little about the UI created.

I don't think the TD needs to know what went through his mind before allowing the call. He just needs to know if the meaning of the replacement is consistent with what the original call could have meant in some other auction.

Suppose he thought he was opening 2D as multi, showing a weak 2 in an unspecified major. He replaces it with a transfer to the major he actually has, and everything proceeds normally.

If he meant it as Flannery, and they play Smolen over 2NT, he can replace it with that.

He might have a hand that they don't have a method to show over 2NT (e.g. a Flannery hand when they don't play Smolen); in that case there might not be a comparable call.

I'm a little unsure about the Flannery->Smolen replacement, though, because it's not a single call but a series of calls. It starts with Stayman, which doesn't show anything in particular. The CC definition says that a call is comparable if it asks the same question, but Flannery doesn't ask anything.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2017-October-10, 10:04, said:

I'm a little unsure about the Flannery->Smolen replacement, though, because it's not a single call but a series of calls.

I was just about to pick you up on this point before I saw you had done it yourself. I don't think it should be allowed as it's the sequence that is needed to have the same meaning, not just a single call.

[MinorKid]

Please have a look on


"LAW 27
B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted
If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (but see 3 following). Then:
1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call, the auction proceeds without further rectification. Laws 26B and 16C do not apply but see D following.
(b) except as in (a), if the insufficient bid is corrected with a comparable call (see Law 23A) the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16C does not apply but see D following."

2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26B may apply, and see Law 72C.

...

D. Non-offending Side Damaged
If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred.




Although the 4♣ may not be a comparable call for the artificial 3♣, but in any circumstances it does not bar partner from bidding.

[gordontd]

MinorKid, on 2017-October-10, 23:51, said:

Although the 4♣ may not be a comparable call for the artificial 3♣, but in any circumstances it does not bar partner from bidding.

Unless we think that 3♣ specifies clubs, which you clearly do not since you have described it as artificial, then L27B1a does not apply to this situation and 4♣ would bar partner.

[nige1]

pran, on 2017-October-07, 08:17, said:

What if we as a main rule allow the withdrawal of unintended calls (including calls out of rotation) but more strictly enforce Law 16 (unauthorized information) in all such cases.
Extreme? Maybe. Worth considering? I think so.

A great suggestion by Sven Pran and David Burn. Although, the director will often have to sort out UI implications, later. Their change is a also a drastic simplification but more acceptable to "equity" advocates than mine.

An unfortunate consequence of such reforms is that there would be fewer controversial decisions for us to discuss.

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2017-October-11, 04:59, said:

A great suggestion by Sven Pran and David Burns. Although, the director will often have to sort out UI implications, later. Their change is a also a drastic simplification but more acceptable to "equity" advocates than mine.

An unfortunate consequence of such reforms is that there would be fewer controversial decisions for us to discuss.

On the contrary: UI cases produce more controversial decisions, more acrimony and more appeals than any other group of cases. That's why I'm opposed to the idea of simply treating these sorts of infractions as UI.

btw, it's Burn not Burns.

[lamford]

There is one simple answer to insufficient bids and bids out of turn. One bidding box, placed by North next to the dealer, and passed on after each call. And it should be referred to as a "calling box" not a "bidding box".

Homer Simpson: I guess some people never change. Or, they quickly change and then quickly change back.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2017-October-05, 10:52, said:

The takeout double of 3S also says that partner should pass unless he has four hearts, and partner will rarely bid 4m, so it needs some defence.

MinorKid, on 2017-October-07, 20:07, said:

How about x replacing the 3C as comparable call, and that partner is not allow to convert it to penalty? (Puntative Retification)

Do we need to be worried about partner passing a takeout double for penalties here? If offender didn't have the defensive values required for a takeout double of 3♠ they presumably wouldn't try using double as a replacement call. If they did have those values they would have doubled if they'd been paying proper attention at their turn to call, so we're back on track for a normal result.

[StevenG]

lamford, on 2017-October-11, 05:44, said:

There is one simple answer to insufficient bids and bids out of turn. One bidding box, placed by North next to the dealer, and passed on after each call.

... and several minutes getting the cards back in the box in the right order

[barmar]

The basic principle behind the "comparable call" idea is that there generally won't be any UI to sort out.

[lamford]

StevenG, on 2017-October-11, 07:05, said:

... and several minutes getting the cards back in the box in the right order

If the bidding box is electronic, displaying the call and the auction to date, then it will be several milliseconds resetting it.

[Vampyr]

VixTD, on 2017-October-11, 06:32, said:

Do we need to be worried about partner passing a takeout double for penalties here? If offender didn't have the defensive values required for a takeout double of 3♠ they presumably wouldn't try using double as a replacement call. If they did have those values they would have doubled if they'd been paying proper attention at their turn to call, so we're back on track for a normal result.

LOL partner will have to pass for penalties!

I don't want club directors to deal with UI. Or with this. I would much prefer strict laws.

Because the whole thing is a minefield. Suppose it goes 1NT-(2♠-2. If offender bids 3(systemically forcing)♦, opener may pass, since the two diamond bid indicates that partner may have been trying to sign off in ♦. Will the club director know what to change the contract and result to?

This is one of the main problems with this law. As is the case with doubles becoming penalty, the offenders get another weapon in their arsenal. I don't think that club directors will even know that in such cases an adjusted score must be applied.

Many clubs and privately played matches rely on telephone referees for appeals and initial ruling respectively. I think will need a lot more of them.

[MinorKid]

Indeed, in some situations there does not exist a comparable bid nor a fair lowest sufficient bid, such as,
1♦ (3♠) 4♠ (5♠) 4NT
The lowest sufficient bid cannot be applied here as 5NT should have another purposes in most system.
Nor there is any comparable bid that has the similar purpose of 4NT bid which should be blackwood.
Furthermore, the intention of this behavior is clear that offender is going to slam and checking on key cards solely rely on the convention.
Finally and most importantly, a use of blackwood tells partner a lot of his hand (e.g. at least 2nd round ctrl in every suit), allowing auction to continue will gain a lot of advantage. Therefore, the almost all directors will have no option but to slience the partner.

Back in this case, the intention of the 3♣ IBer was not clear, he would use it as stayman, where one alternative will provide after the advance, or he would be thinking of response to the lebonsohl 2NT, in that it had no meaning at all and any sufficient bids would all be comparable bids (see 23A2). Futhermore, the use of stayman does not nessary have either major which may also be the start of some special sequence, while the response of lebonsohl dose not tell anything. So I cant see any advantage gained in both case.
So the rule that forbids partner is all too harsh to be applied here. However as a punishment, maybe designating a specific call for stayman would work. (A wrong for a wrong)

[Vampyr]

MinorKid, on 2017-October-11, 11:00, said:

Indeed, in some situations there does not exist a comparable bid nor a fair lowest sufficient bid, such as,
1♦ (3♠) 4♠ (5♠) 4NT
The lowest sufficient bid cannot be applied here as 5NT should have another purposes in most system.
Nor there is any comparable bid that has the similar purpose of 4NT bid which should be blackwood.
Furthermore, the intention of this behavior is clear that offender is going to slam and checking on key cards solely rely on the convention.
Finally and most importantly, a use of blackwood tells partner a lot of his hand (e.g. at least 2nd round ctrl in every suit), allowing auction to continue will gain a lot of advantage. Therefore, the almost all directors will have no option but to slience the partner.

Yes.

Quote

Back in this case, the intention of the 3♣ IBer was not clear, he would use it as stayman, where one alternative will provide after the advance, or he would be thinking of response to the lebonsohl 2NT, in that it had no meaning at all and any sufficient bids would all be comparable bids (see 23A2). So the rule that forbids partner is all too harsh to be applied here. However as a punishment, maybe designating a specific call for stayman would work.

I am not sure what the last sentence meant, but this does seem to be a situation where we have to find out the bidder's intention.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2017-October-11, 05:10, said:

On the contrary: UI cases produce more controversial decisions, more acrimony and more appeals than any other group of cases. That's why I'm opposed to the idea of simply treating these sorts of infractions as UI.

btw, it's Burn not Burns.

Thank you, I corrected the latter.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2017-October-09, 11:25, said:

Assuming that we are talking about the auction 2NT-Pass-2D, some other possibilities arise and give further attributable meanings. The player may have opened 2D as a multi, or as a Benji 2D, or as an Ekron 2D, so all might be attributable meanings, depending on what an opening 2D means and replacement calls will be varied and numerous. He might, if he needed to go to Specsavers, have been bidding 2D (Multi-Landy) over an opposing 1NT. All these are much more likely than the actual thread where the player was responding to Lebensohl with an insufficient 3C. The TD DOES need to know what went through the player's mind before he can guess at an attributable meaning. In practice, of course, the player says something like "Sorry, I didn't see the 2NT bid.", and the TD does little about the UI created.

With regard to your second sentence, how would you rule if the 2♦ bidder had intended her call to be "Benji" but her hand lacked wither 16+HCP or 5+ controls?

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2017-October-11, 05:44, said:

There is one simple answer to insufficient bids and bids out of turn. One bidding box, placed by North next to the dealer, and passed on after each call. And it should be referred to as a "calling box" not a "bidding box".

Not fool-proof. A few players, Zia for example, only remove from the bidding box the bidding card relating to the bid they are making. This leaves some "insufficient" bidding cards in your shared bidding box.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2017-October-11, 16:29, said:

Not fool-proof. A few players, Zia for example, only remove from the bidding box the bidding card relating to the bid they are making. This leaves some "insufficient" bidding cards in your shared bidding box.

That's simple enough. Making cherry picking a single bidding card an infraction. I suggest twenty lashes with a wet noodle.

[VixTD]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-11, 09:46, said:

VixTD, on 2017-October-11, 06:32, said:

Do we need to be worried about partner passing a takeout double for penalties here? If offender didn't have the defensive values required for a takeout double of 3♠ they presumably wouldn't try using double as a replacement call. If they did have those values they would have doubled if they'd been paying proper attention at their turn to call, so we're back on track for a normal result.

LOL partner will have to pass for penalties!

I don't want club directors to deal with UI. Or with this. I would much prefer strict laws.

I don't understand why "LOL partner" will have to pass for penalties. (Although they could of course choose to do so if they wish.)

I agree that these changes to law 27 make life very difficult for club TDs, who generally had a pretty good grasp of the 1997 law. When I taught courses on the 2007 laws I would say to anyone who was struggling that if they could get a good approximation of a 1997 ruling it would be fine in most cases. I feel we've moved too far away from that now.

We have to accept, though, that we're going to get a different standard of ruling in a national or regional tournament than we are in a provincial club. Sometimes just making a ruling that will keep the game going is the best they can do. UI rulings shouldn't be such a problem, as they can be made after consultation after the event.

[VixTD]

MinorKid, on 2017-October-11, 11:00, said:

Indeed, in some situations there does not exist a comparable bid nor a fair lowest sufficient bid, such as,
1♦ (3♠) 4♠ (5♠) 4NT
The lowest sufficient bid cannot be applied here as 5NT should have another purposes in most system.
Nor there is any comparable bid that has the similar purpose of 4NT bid which should be blackwood.

This shouldn't come as a surprise. The new laws don't claim to provide penalty-free replacement calls in every case.

MinorKid, on 2017-October-11, 11:00, said:

Back in this case, the intention of the 3♣ IBer was not clear, he would use it as stayman, where one alternative will provide after the advance, or he would be thinking of response to the lebonsohl 2NT, in that it had no meaning at all and any sufficient bids would all be comparable bids (see 23A2).

The process of offender's intention, which is not and never has been mentioned in any law, is going to be a hard one to shift. The attributable meanings are independent of offender's intention. Lebensohl is not a naturally attributable meaning to 3♣ in this sequence.