[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2015-February-05, 20:54, said:

There are so many different types of problems that can arise here. Here is one example of one type of problem (by the way, this example is the best I could do at the time; it is NOT any kind of dig at anyone):

---

Sorry. I don't know how to insert comments in the diagram or to include an insufficient bid.

1NT = 12-14
3♠ = wide-ranging; shows a good suit.
? = South bids 3♥.

South tootles off with the director and changes his call to 4♥.

I'm not sure why that was necessary. Reading out the three possibilities should be sufficient in this instance for South to decide what to do if West declines to accept 3♥.

Vampyr, on 2015-February-05, 20:54, said:

E/W do not bid 4♠ and of course can't get to 3NT, either of which would have made, or double any contracts (which wouldn't have made) that N/S ended up in, but West doesn't bid on, thinking that South has values.

It turns out that N/S's agreement is that 1NT-3♥ is weak with 6+ ♥, and this was what South intended to do, after not noticing the 3♠ bid. Should it have occurred to E/W to look at the CC or ask about 3♥, usually played as natural and GF, or at least invitational? Are they not entitled to the knowledge of what the bid probably means, even though North has that knowledge?

They have the entitlement to know what 1NT - 3♥ means in an uncontested auction and what 1NT - (2♠) - 3♥ means: all they have to do is ask.

Vampyr, on 2015-February-05, 20:54, said:

Anyway 27D is applied, and N/S are not even given the "best probably outcome" but will probably receive some sort of factored score, which they may well have outscored if given the chance.

Why would 27D be applied? They haven't reached a contract they couldn't have reached without making an insufficient bid. Presumably since South has chosen to bid 4♥ now rather than Pass, that's what he would have done if he had realised at the time that this is what was needed to make a sufficient bid in hearts.

Vampyr, on 2015-February-05, 20:54, said:

But wait, there's more. South knows the Laws and bids 3NT (or passes, but now E/W will probably investigate). Partner is barred, and 27D does not seem to apply to 27C cases. So E/W are stuffed.

I'm not sure I even understand this bit.

It does seem to me that in your scenario the thing that damages EW is having an unusual and wide-ranging agreement that has made it hard for advancer to know what to do. In those circumstances I would have thought it would be all the more important to ask what are their opponents' agreements.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2015-February-05, 13:02, said:

I don't have to have asked them what they might do any more than I would check, in cases where lead restrictions apply, whether the player has any cards of the suit to lead.

You have presumably established away from the table whether they have a penalty-free correction and what call(s) are permitted without penalty. That is information derived from the offenders' methods, and should be disclosed to the non-offender before he makes the decision whether to accept the IB. I cannot find anywhere where I suggested that the non-offender should be told which call the offender would choose if allowed a penalty-free correction, but if I did that was an error.

If a director fails to disclose which penalty-free calls he has established are available and which are not, then, in my opinion, he is not conveying "all matters" connected with the rectification. The word "all" is unambiguous.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2015-February-06, 11:23, said:

Why would 27D be applied? They haven't reached a contract they couldn't have reached without making an insufficient bid. Presumably since South has chosen to bid 4♥ now rather than Pass, that's what he would have done if he had realised at the time that this is what was needed to make a sufficient bid in hearts.

Yes, but he might not have chosen it with a weak hand.

Quote

I'm not sure I even understand this bit.

There is an error in 27D, as it reads that it applies only if 27B1 is applied.

Quote

It does seem to me that in your scenario the thing that damages EW is having an unusual and wide-ranging agreement that has made it hard for advancer to

Yes, maybe. Perhaps my example is poor, but I had realised after posting it that giving examples is not the right approach. All that matters is that, according to the Laws, an IB has a meaning, and that players are entitled to the meanings Of their opponents' bids. That should be enough.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2015-February-06, 20:50, said:

Yes, but he might not have chosen it with a weak hand.

He did choose it with that hand.

Vampyr, on 2015-February-06, 20:50, said:

There is an error in 27D, as it reads that it applies only if 27B1 is applied.

That's not an error - it was deliberate. L23 applies to other cases.

Vampyr, on 2015-February-06, 20:50, said:

Yes, maybe. Perhaps my example is poor, but I had realised after posting it that giving examples is not the right approach. All that matters is that, according to the Laws, an IB has a meaning, and that players are entitled to the meanings Of their opponents' bids. That should be enough.

You are entitled to ask appropriate questions about their understandings.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2015-February-06, 14:21, said:

You have presumably established away from the table whether they have a penalty-free correction and what call(s) are permitted without penalty.

I think you are wrong to presume that. I will have read out the options and said that if the player wishes to make a 27B1b correction it might well be a good idea for us to go away from the table to discuss it. If they don't ask for that, either because they don't want to use 27B1b or because they are absolutely clear as to what would be allowed to them under that, then next stage is for you to decide whether or not to accept the bid. After having asked whatever systemic questions you want of them.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2015-February-07, 02:28, said:

I think you are wrong to presume that. I will have read out the options and said that if the player wishes to make a 27B1b correction it might well be a good idea for us to go away from the table to discuss it. If they don't ask for that, either because they don't want to use 27B1b or because they are absolutely clear as to what would be allowed to them under that, then next stage is for you to decide whether or not to accept the bid. After having asked whatever systemic questions you want of them.

Interesting. The procedure I was taught at the County Director's course (as I recall) was first to take the player away from the table and establish what he thought he was doing when he made the IB. Then I established whether he was allowed a penalty-free correction (which often involved my asking supplementary questions). Then I returned to the table and gave a ruling which started with offering the person next to speak an opportunity to accept or refuse the IB. In the example we "acted" it was obvious that no penalty-free correction was available, but I presumed the same applied if there were.

I have also found that the first action by the TD arriving on the scene in EBU events is to take the offender away from the table. Has the EBU guidance changed?

And, as a footnote, when you say "it might well be a good idea", do you mean that there is more than a 50% chance that it would be a good idea?

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2015-February-07, 06:49, said:

Interesting. The procedure I was taught at the County Director's course (as I recall) was first to take the player away from the table and establish what he thought he was doing when he made the IB. Then I established whether he was allowed a penalty-free correction (which often involved my asking supplementary questions). Then I returned to the table and gave a ruling which started with offering the person next to speak an opportunity to accept or refuse the IB. In the example we "acted" it was obvious that no penalty-free correction was available, but I presumed the same applied if there were.

I have also found that the first action by the TD arriving on the scene in EBU events is to take the offender away from the table. Has the EBU guidance changed?

The published guidance is that to which I linked in #38, written by Max Bavin when the new laws came out, at which time he was the Chief TD of the EBU as well as Head TD of the WBF. Since that time some senior TDs have found that it is easier from a practical point of view for them to start by taking the player away from the table and I don't have any objection to that if they find it works better. However, I don't think it follows from that that you have some sort of entitlement to know what the insufficient bidder was thinking when making his bid, or what he might do if you choose not to accept the insufficient bid.

The one way in which we are all in accord about this law is that we don't like it and hope it will be improved in the next revision. I'm not holding my breath about that though.

lamford, on 2015-February-07, 06:49, said:

And, as a footnote, when you say "it might well be a good idea", do you mean that there is more than a 50% chance that it would be a good idea?

Yes, if the player wishes to make a 27B1b correction, then it's quite likely (ie more than 50% ) that it would be a good idea for us to discuss it away from the table.