[jhenrikj]

West makes an insufficient bid. The irregularity is pointed out by north and west quickly replaces it with a sufficient bid before the director is called. Now law 27C says that we shall give north the opportunity to accept the insufficient bid, if he does not, we apply the relevant part of 27B on the substituted bid.

Now we look at 25B1, "A substituted call may be accepted by the offenders LHO". Does this mean that we also should give the offenders LHO the option to accept the premature replacement without any rectification for offenders partner? (very unlikely he will do that, but do we give him the option?)

[blackshoe]

No. Law 27C tells us to apply the relevant part of 27B. There is no mention of Law 25, so it is irrelevant at this point.

[jhenrikj]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-05, 10:57, said:

No. Law 27C tells us to apply the relevant part of 27B. There is no mention of Law 25, so it is irrelevant at this point.

That's exactly what I thought but as usual someone disagrees ;=)

[dburn]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-05, 10:57, said:

No. Law 27C tells us to apply the relevant part of 27B. There is no mention of Law 25, so it is irrelevant at this point.

This is not clear. The words of Law 27C are:

If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A allows the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution.

Now, "the relevant foregoing section" might be held by a reasonable man (such as blackshoe) to apply only to Law 27B, the immediately foregoing section to Law 27C. But it might also be held by a lawyer (who despite popular belief and much evidence to the contrary is not automatically held to be an unreasonable man) to apply to any relevant section of the Laws that "foregoes" Law 27C. Since Law 25B1 foregoes Law 27C, it may be considered that Law 25B1 is potentially applicable.

This may mean only that the authors of the Laws should pay more attention to what they write. But I am not so sure...

Suppose that West bids 2♥, insufficient, and substitutes 3♥ (sufficient) before the Director is called. And suppose that it would suit North's purposes very well not to have East barred from further activity over 3♥, but North knows that (the conditions of Law 25B1a not being met) the Director will bar East from further activity over 3♥. Why, in equity or Law or anything else, should North not be permitted to allow West to bid 3♥ without imposing any constraint on East?

[blackshoe]

Regarding holding the lawyer automatically to be unreasonable, I suppose that depends on who is doing the holding.

Regarding the argument that "revelant forgoing section" might refer to something other than 27B, to me "section" means "part of Law 27". I think arguing that 25B could just as easily be meant is the kind of lawyerly argument that I got tired of on blml, and which we do not appreciate here, saving perhaps in the "changing laws" forum. Here we try for practical and sensible readings of the law, and I don't think this one qualifies.

As to why North should not be permitted to accept the substituted bid if he wants, I'd say because the laws don't allow him to do so.

[VixTD]

Quote

As to why North should not be permitted to accept the substituted bid if he wants, I'd say because the laws don't allow him to do so.

But they do, as dburn correctly points out.

If I were called to the table where West has bid an insufficient 2♥ and corrected it to 3♥ before I had a chance to give a ruling, I would first say to North that they may accept the 2♥ bid, in which case the auction proceeds with no further penalty (Law 27A1); failing that they may accept the substituted 3♥ bid, in which case the auction proceeds with no further penalty (Law 25B1). If they don't wish to do that either, West may substitute any legal bid or pass, the choice of which may or may not impose restrictions on partner. West has already chosen 3♥ as this substitute call, doesn't get a second chance as they would have under the previous laws (Law 27C), and so I now impose any restrictions of Law 27B that apply to the 3♥ bid.

I agree it's not very tidy, but this is entirely consistent with the laws. To do as you suggest would be to deny the non-offenders their rights under Law 25B1 to accept without penalty a call substituted for another intended call.

[jhenrikj]

VixTD, on 2011-May-06, 07:59, said:

I agree it's not very tidy, but this is entirely consistent with the laws. To do as you suggest would be to deny the non-offenders their rights under Law 25B1 to accept without penalty a call substituted for another intended call.

But now you are not following the instructions given in 27C. 27C says that if the IB is not accepted the director applies the relevant forgoing section to the substitution. The relevant forgoing section is not the entire lawbook before 27C it's 27B. And it does not say may or can, it's a must. You as a director is not allowed not to apply some part of 27B to the IB.

[VixTD]

jhenrikj, on 2011-May-06, 09:12, said:

But now you are not following the instructions given in 27C. 27C says that if the IB is not accepted the director applies the relevant forgoing section to the substitution. The relevant forgoing section is not the entire lawbook before 27C it's 27B. And it does not say may or can, it's a must. You as a director is not allowed not to apply some part of 27B to the IB.

I agree that "foregoing" is probably intended to refer to earlier parts of law 27 and not other laws, but I don't think that makes any difference. I am not not-applying law 27B, I am applying it, I'm just going via law 25B, which also applies in this situation.

Cross-referencing in the laws is not very thorough - if we start applying one law we are not always directed to other laws that may apply. I don't think you can assume that because we are directed to one law in this case that it is supposed to be to the exclusion of all other laws.

[blackshoe]

The basis of the assertion that Law 25B applies is that "foregoing section" in 27C refers to the entire body of the law prior to 27C. I disagree with that assertion. I read it as referring to the relevant part of 27B. So I disagree that 25B applies.

[VixTD]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-11, 08:16, said:

The basis of the assertion that Law 25B applies is that "foregoing section" in 27C refers to the entire body of the law prior to 27C.

This is not the basis of my assertion that law 25B applies. I think it applies because we have a change of call to which law 25A does not apply, and law 25B then states that any such call may be accepted by offender's LHO. I would rule the same way if for some reason law 25 had been renumbered as law 83 in the last edition of the law book. As I said, I apply law 25B (because law 25B says that it should be applied) and then (unless the insufficient bid has been accepted, in which case there's no need to do anything else) I apply law 27B, because law 27C says that I should.

I do think I am following the laws more closely than you are, but I don't think it really makes much difference in practice. Not many players will want to accept the premature correction without penalty, but if the laws allow them to, who am I to deprive them of the option?

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that Law 25B is more general than Law 27C, and that the specific overrides the general. So again I must disagree that Law 25B applies in this situation.

[bluejak]

It is clear to me that Law 25B does not apply. There is no reason for me to repeat the entirely convincing reasons given in this thread.

As often is the case, Vix, we rule as the Law says, not as we feel it should.