[VixTD]

lamford, on 2015-February-04, 04:24, said:

I have often wondered if a private discussion is correct, given that the response to the TD is only used to establish whether someone can change their call without penalty, and that information is authorised to the opponents but unauthorised to the partner of the person making the IB. Surely the correct procedure is to ask only the partner of the person making the IB to leave the table.

I don't think the opponents have the right to know whether offender has a penalty-free substitute call available.

The TD should tell them they can accept the insufficient bid, and if they don't, there's no penalty if offender corrects to the lowest legal bid in the same denomination when both calls are not conventional, or if offender makes a call with much the same or a narrower meaning than the insufficient bid. Other than that, offender may not double or redouble and partner will have to pass for the rest of the auction.

One other English TD who doesn't like our current approach argues that the opponents have to know whether a penalty-free call is available in order to work out whether they want to accept the insufficient bid. I can see that they might want to know this, but not that they have a right to know. Why should they have it all their way?

I don't see what's unsatisfactory with the current EBU approach, other than the problem of teaching it to new directors.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-February-04, 11:28, said:

Looking at the laws, it seems to me that all four players at the table are entitled to know what the relevant laws and regulations are before anyone takes any action (Law 9B2). I don't see anything in the laws that would change that. Am I missing something?

No - of course they are.

blackshoe, on 2015-February-04, 11:28, said:

Secondly, the opponents of a bidder are entitled to know what his bids mean per the bidder's partnership agreements.

Again - yes, of course.

blackshoe, on 2015-February-04, 11:28, said:

No partnership will have an agreement as to the meaning of an insufficient bid, so the correct explanation is "no agreement". This means that Law 27's reference to the "meaning" of an insufficient bid makes no sense. In its defense, the law does refer to "the possible meanings of an insufficient bid", so I suppose that implies the construction of a set of possible meanings which will hopefully include a meaning which fits the bidder's hand (or his intent). But it seems to me that how to determine this set of possible meanings hasn't really been well discussed anywhere. Perhaps that is where we should focus our efforts?

But from here on we must be careful. The laws do not say anything about the agreed meaning of an insufficient bid, they leave it for the Director to judge if the substituted call in his opinion meets certain criteria as specified in the relevant law.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2015-February-04, 13:32, said:

I don't think the opponents have the right to know whether offender has a penalty-free substitute call available.

That is a point of view, but it seems to me that "it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations". Whether an offender has to lead a card at the first opportunity is authorised; whether an offender has a penalty-free substitute call seems to me to "arise from the legal procedures authorized in these laws". Note that it only says "arising from".

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2015-February-04, 17:39, said:

That is a point of view, but it seems to me that "it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations". Whether an offender has to lead a card at the first opportunity is authorised; whether an offender has a penalty-free substitute call seems to me to "arise from the legal procedures authorized in these laws". Note that it only says "arising from".

More important, IMO, in opposition to your idea that the PARTNER of the IB'r should be the one called away from the table --- is this:

Only the guy who did it truly knows what he thought when it happened. We should not be encouraging his partner to speculate on something which might have the same or more precise meaning than the IB when we really don't want him considering it at all.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2015-February-04, 17:59, said:

Only the guy who did it truly knows what he thought when it happened. We should not be encouraging his partner to speculate on something which might have the same or more precise meaning than the IB when we really don't want him considering it at all.

I fail to see how it makes any difference. The player is just as likely to speculate on what his partner originally thought while the offender is away from the table.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-February-04, 16:09, said:

But from here on we must be careful. The laws do not say anything about the agreed meaning of an insufficient bid, they leave it for the Director to judge if the substituted call in his opinion meets certain criteria as specified in the relevant law.

Which is precisely why some guidance for TDs on how to form this opinion is — IMO at least — a good idea. I'm talking about process here, not "this is what your opinion should be".

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-February-04, 17:39, said:

That is a point of view, but it seems to me that "it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations". Whether an offender has to lead a card at the first opportunity is authorised; whether an offender has a penalty-free substitute call seems to me to "arise from the legal procedures authorized in these laws". Note that it only says "arising from".

That information is authorized does not mean that the player to whom it is authorized is entitled to it.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-February-04, 19:26, said:

That information is authorized does not mean that the player to whom it is authorized is entitled to it.

I think it is implied by 9B2:
2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

Note that it says "all matters". That must include whether someone will have a penalty-free correction, before deciding whether to accept the IB. I agree with Vampyr, however, that the opponent has no right to know what the offender originally thought the auction was, although the Laws expert will be able to work it out from the TD's ruling (with a few supplementary questions about the opponents' methods).

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-February-04, 11:28, said:

But it seems to me that how to determine this set of possible meanings hasn't really been well discussed anywhere. Perhaps that is where we should focus our efforts?

No, because it has become established that you have to find out what the bidder thought was going on when he made his bid. Hilariously, this can result in different rulings for players who made the exact same bid in the exact same auction.

Then to determine whether the player can have a penalty-free correction, you have to have a thorough knowledge of the players' system. Someone in our club has been waiting four years for a ruling, because the director is still not a sufficiently strong or experienced player to understand all of the implications of the system involved.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-February-04, 19:37, said:

I think it is implied by 9B2:
2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

Note that it says "all matters". That must include whether someone will have a penalty-free correction, before deciding whether to accept the IB. I agree with Vampyr, however, that the opponent has no right to know what the offender originally thought the auction was, although the Laws expert will be able to work it out from the TD's ruling (with a few supplementary questions about the opponents' methods).

Must it? Certainly it includes that there is a possibility in the law for such a correction, but I do not see how that leads to a right to know whether the player actually has one in his bidding system (other than natural bids in the same denomination).

There is nothing in the laws, it seems to me, that gives players the right to know now what their opponents' future bids might mean.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-February-04, 20:54, said:

There is nothing in the laws, it seems to me, that gives players the right to know now what their opponents' future bids might mean.

Well, if you are speaking in general terms, players have the right to know their opponents' entire system.

But in type of case, are we to deny knowledge of the opponents' past bids as well? I am coming around to the position that the opponents are entitled to know what the IBer was trying to do, because if they accept the IB, it becomes part of the legal auction and the OS are obligated to explain the meaning.*

I suppose this may mean that only after LHO has accepted the bid do we do as Lamford suggests and send partner of the IBer away so that the "explanation" can be given. In any case it must be done at some point, and I cannot believe that no one has realised this before.

* this also eliminates the fact that if everyone is required to guess, partner will have a much better chance of guessing correctly.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-February-04, 20:54, said:

There is nothing in the laws, it seems to me, that gives players the right to know now what their opponents' future bids might mean.

I shall quote you when opponents arrive and say, "I am Bill and my partner is Anne. We play strong NT and 5-card majors. And you?"

I will reply:
"There is nothing in the laws that gives players the right to know now what their opponents' future bids might mean."

[campboy]

The only law that gives players a right to know what future bids mean is this one.

Law 40A1b said:

Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done.

The RA has specified that this should be done by exchanging completed convention cards. To give opponents the gist of your system verbally, and spare them the trouble of reading it, is simply a courtesy. What is true is that there is nothing in the laws that gives players the right to ask specific questions about future bids. All you get is what is (or rather should be) on the CC.

Anyway, all the opponents are entitled to is the partnership understandings. Most partnerships have no understandings about insufficient bids beyond "we try not to make them".

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-February-04, 23:00, said:

Well, if you are speaking in general terms, players have the right to know their opponents' entire system.

But in type of case, are we to deny knowledge of the opponents' past bids as well? I am coming around to the position that the opponents are entitled to know what the IBer was trying to do, because if they accept the IB, it becomes part of the legal auction and the OS are obligated to explain the meaning.*

I suppose this may mean that only after LHO has accepted the bid do we do as Lamford suggests and send partner of the IBer away so that the "explanation" can be given. In any case it must be done at some point, and I cannot believe that no one has realised this before.

* this also eliminates the fact that if everyone is required to guess, partner will have a much better chance of guessing correctly.

Players have an obligation to complete a system card IAW RA regulations. Their opponents have a right to see those cards before beginning play with them. They do not have a right to ask questions during the auction or play periods about possible future calls.

Players are not "obligated to explain the [intended] meaning" of an IB, whether the IB becomes part of the legal auction or not. They are obligated to explain the agreed meaning. There can be no agreement about the meaning of an IB. So there's nothing to explain except the agreed meaning of the bid, even if it doesn't match the hand or the bidder's intent.

I will grant that if a player frequently makes a particular IB, always or nearly always with the same intended meaning, that his partner is obligated to explain both the tendency and the implied understanding, but he also must make it clear that this is implicit, and also give the explicit meaning. Assuming there is one.

lamford, on 2015-February-05, 06:23, said:

I shall quote you when opponents arrive and say, "I am Bill and my partner is Anne. We play strong NT and 5-card majors. And you?"

I will reply:
"There is nothing in the laws that gives players the right to know now what their opponents' future bids might mean."

Not a constructive reply, sir. I am sure you know damn well what I meant. Campboy did (see below).

campboy, on 2015-February-05, 07:33, said:

The only law that gives players a right to know what future bids mean is this one.

The RA has specified that this should be done by exchanging completed convention cards. To give opponents the gist of your system verbally, and spare them the trouble of reading it, is simply a courtesy. What is true is that there is nothing in the laws that gives players the right to ask specific questions about future bids. All you get is what is (or rather should be) on the CC.

Anyway, all the opponents are entitled to is the partnership understandings. Most partnerships have no understandings about insufficient bids beyond "we try not to make them".

Thank you, Campboy. I was in fact referring to the process of asking questions, and not to the only law which refers to "prior disclosure".

[lamford]

campboy, on 2015-February-05, 07:33, said:

Anyway, all the opponents are entitled to is the partnership understandings. Most partnerships have no understandings about insufficient bids beyond "we try not to make them".

That is all the opponents are wanting, partnership understandings. You and I both know that it is nothing to do with understanding about insufficient bids. If the auction goes 1NT-(2S)-2D, then, before deciding whether to accept 2D, the player is entitled to know whether 2D without the 2S overcall would be a transfer, and also whether 3H instead of 2D would be game-forcing, or whether they are playing 2NT as artificial. He is not entitled to know whether the player should have gone to Specsavers and thought 2S was actually 2C. If he is not entitled to ask and get the information about methods, before deciding whether to accept the IB, then this falls way, way, short of "all matters with regard to rectification".

Anyway, if the card is silent on these matters, and the non-offender is surely allowed to consult the card before making the decision, he can just claim breach of 40A1b, and damage as a result.

[blackshoe]

That is a very different example from the one in the OP.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-February-05, 09:27, said:

That is a very different example from the one in the OP.

Indeed it is; because in the original example, no penalty-free correction is available for an OBOT by 4th seat. The thread has indeed changed theme. But the principle of making sure the non-offenders have ALL the information they need is the same.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2015-February-05, 09:21, said:

That is all the opponents are wanting, partnership understandings. You and I both know that it is nothing to do with understanding about insufficient bids. If the auction goes 1NT-(2S)-2D, then, before deciding whether to accept 2D, the player is entitled to know whether 2D without the 2S overcall would be a transfer, and also whether 3H instead of 2D would be game-forcing, or whether they are playing 2NT as artificial. If he is not entitled to ask and get this information, before deciding whether to accept the IB, then this falls way, way, short of "all matters with regard to rectification".

Certainly a player is entitled to ask all these things before making his decision. That was explicitly stated in the original EBU document I linked to in #36. However, that's not the same thing as saying, as I thought you and vampyr were, that the TD should question the player away from the table and come back to tell you whether it was his opinion that they had a replacement call available.

It seems strange to me that this keeps coming up when, as far as I know, no-one used to demand that they be told under the old laws whether or not their opponents had a natural sufficient call available that would not bar them.

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2015-February-05, 09:21, said:

That is all the opponents are wanting, partnership understandings. You and I both know that it is nothing to do with understanding about insufficient bids. If the auction goes 1NT-(2S)-2D, then, before deciding whether to accept 2D, the player is entitled to know whether 2D without the 2S overcall would be a transfer, and also whether 3H instead of 2D would be game-forcing, or whether they are playing 2NT as artificial. If he is not entitled to ask and get this information, before deciding whether to accept the IB, then this falls way, way, short of "all matters with regard to rectification".

The original EBU operating procedure for the current Law 27 did acknowledge that the non-offender could ask about the opponents (in order to determine for themselves if there were non-silencing calls available) before deciding whether to accept.

Quote

The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to guess!). However, he is entitled to know full details of his opponents system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) and he is entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification of the Law from the Tournament Director

I am not sure whether the TD should routinely invite the non-offender to ask questions about the opponent's system before deciding whether to accept.

Some players and some TDs think the TD should tell the non-offender whether there are non-silencing calls, or what they are.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2015-February-05, 09:31, said:

Certainly a player is entitled to ask all these things before making his decision. That was explicitly stated in the original EBU document I linked to in #36. However, that's not the same thing as saying, as I thought you and vampyr were, that the TD should question the player away from the table and come back to tell you whether it was his opinion that they had a replacement call available.

It seems strange to me that this keeps coming up when, as far as I know, no-one used to demand that they be told under the old laws whether or not their opponents had a natural sufficient call available that would not bar them.

I think the old (relevant) law was basically just 27B1a, but I do not have a copy to hand. I certainly found out on at least two occasions whether a bid a level higher would be artificial before deciding whether to accept. It does seem unfair now that the Laws expert can work out from the opponents' methods what the TD will judge, while the average player (and the average TD it seems) will not have a clue. Yes, I do think that the opinion of the TD as to whether the player has a replacement call available should be conveyed to the non-offender before he makes his decision. That comes under "all matters" as far as I am concerned.