[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2019-January-28, 08:20, said:

You only adjust for damage, so if someone did use five-card Stayman and found their partner did not have five hearts and then bid 3NT, they would be in the same position as someone who had not used it.

Yes but, for instance, it might give the opponents the chance to double the 3♣ call and find a better lead against 3NT.

[sanst]

weejonnie, on 2019-January-28, 10:33, said:

Yes but, for instance, it might give the opponents the chance to double the 3♣ call and find a better lead against 3NT.

Then there is Law 23C.

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2019-January-28, 07:16, said:

Of course not - but the argument was that 1♣ denied a 5-card heart suit.

Yes I realise that openng 2NT does not deny a 5-card heart suit, but it does not guarantee it either. I think this would only be of significance if the situation after the 2NT requires partner to allow for a 5-card heart suit.

In that case I think the point is that 2NT may contain a 5-card heart suit, whereas 1♣ may not. The latter is a superset of the former, rather than a subset as the law requires. I assume that as always the law has to do with agreements and that whether or not the hand actually contains a 5-card heart suit is irrelevant, so if the call is not comparable there is an infraction which obliges partner to pass for the rest of the auction. Or have I misunderstood?

[weejonnie]

pescetom, on 2019-January-28, 15:31, said:

In that case I think the point is that 2NT may contain a 5-card heart suit, whereas 1♣ may not. The latter is a superset of the former, rather than a subset as the law requires. I assume that as always the law has to do with agreements and that whether or not the hand actually contains a 5-card heart suit is irrelevant, so if the call is not comparable there is an infraction which obliges partner to pass for the rest of the auction. Or have I misunderstood?

Yes I understand that, however I think I would still regard it as "having the same or similar as that attributable to the withdrawn call" meaning. A 1♣ call does not deny 4 hearts - so we are within 1 card of the same suit length.

[Cyberyeti]

I would think the lawmakers should make a more black and white interpretation of the law, otherwise you're going to get a series of appeals that come down that the director (most likely) allowed a call that was not comparable or possibly the reverse.

Director error rulings are bad for bridge, both for confidence in the directors and affecting results when both sides get +rulings.

[Vampyr]

A tangential issue: is offender’s LHO allowed to know whether or not offender has a call that does not bar partner?

[BudH]

Vampyr, on 2019-January-29, 07:36, said:

A tangential issue: is offender’s LHO allowed to know whether or not offender has a call that does not bar partner?

The recently released WBF commentary on the laws says offender’s LHO may ask questions about meanings of possible (replacement) calls But nothing else, so it is implied LHO has to judge for himself.

There should have been explicit text in the commentary to tell us the Director shall not inform offender’s opponents about existence (or non-existence) of one or more calls that will avoid offender’s partner from being required to pass.

[pran]

BudH, on 2019-January-30, 12:26, said:

The recently released WBF commentary on the laws says offender’s LHO may ask questions about meanings of possible (replacement) calls But nothing else, so it is implied LHO has to judge for himself.

There should have been explicit text in the commentary to tell us the Director shall not inform offender’s opponents about existence (or non-existence) of one or more calls that will avoid offender’s partner from being required to pass.

Are you aware of

Law 9B2 said:

No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

I'd say that "all matters" is rather comprehensive?

[BudH]

pran, on 2019-January-30, 14:02, said:

Are you aware of

I'd say that "all matters" is rather comprehensive?

The WBF Laws Commission likely has a less liberal view of “all matters”.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-January-29, 06:35, said:

I would think the lawmakers should make a more black and white interpretation of the law, otherwise you're going to get a series of appeals that come down that the director (most likely) allowed a call that was not comparable or possibly the reverse.

Director error rulings are bad for bridge, both for confidence in the directors and affecting results when both sides get +rulings.

A more black and white interpretation of the Law has emerged, see the main topic on Commentary:
My link
Unfortunately the Commentary doesn't seem to be on quite the same wavelength or willing to go into similar detail.

[pran]

Law 9B2 said:

No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

pran, on 2019-January-30, 14:02, said:

I'd say that "all matters" is rather comprehensive?

BudH, on 2019-January-31, 06:31, said:

The WBF Laws Commission likely has a less liberal view of “all matters”.

"likely" - Do you know for a fact or do you assume?

To me "all matters" include every piece of information that is relevant for a player who is about to select an action as part of the rectification after an irregularity.
(Examples of such alternative actions include: Whether or not accepting a lead or a call out of turn or an insufficient bid.)

[barmar]

I think most of us interpret "all matters" as referring to the legal issues, like listing all 5 options that the presumed declarer has when deciding what to do after an OLOOT, or all the lead options when a penalty card is on the table. It's not obvious that it also includes things like the meanings of opponents' potential calls.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2019-January-24, 06:56, said:

The offender can ask the director if 2N would be a "comparable" call.
IMO it isn't but I concede that is a matter of judgement.

Much finer judgement than can be expected of the average volunteer playing director.

Quote

The commentary on the laws apparently recommends that the director ask the offender's partner about meanings of possible replacement calls to establish if any are "comparable".

Yes, it does not seem that ”attributable” can mean anything else.

Quote

That way madness lies.
Clumsy kludges (like the rules about illegal calls) could easily be made more simple and objective (e.g. Cancel offending call, silence offender's partner).

Yes. This was the law for many years, with exceptions for “making the bid good”. I can’t imagine that anyone was unhappy with this.

One aspect of the current law that has not been discussed, as far as I know, is that judgement rulings are supposed to be made after consultation. This could be with some of the more experienced members of the club; some clubs consult via telephone referee. Perhaps the director on the night is an expert player and can quickly grasp the implications of the offender’s system. If not, play will grind to a halt at the table in question while the director is seeking consultation. I do not see a solution to this, apart from clubs advising their directors to allow no replacement bids that do not bar partner.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2019-January-31, 21:48, said:

I do not see a solution to this, apart from clubs advising their directors to allow no replacement bids that do not bar partner.

I do not think that would be a legal solution.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2019-January-31, 21:48, said:

Yes. This was the law for many years, with exceptions for “making the bid good”. I can’t imagine that anyone was unhappy with this.

If this were true, I wonder from where came the impetus to change it?

[pescetom]

gordontd, on 2019-February-01, 02:08, said:

If this were true, I wonder from where came the impetus to change it?

Was there some equivalent provision to the actual 23C, obliging an adjusted score if the Director judges at the end of the play that without the assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different?
If this was lacking then it is unsurprising that there was some dissatisfaction.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2019-February-01, 02:08, said:

If this were true, I wonder from where came the impetus to change it?

I think there is an increasing desire to get a "bridge result" on the board if at all possible. Perhaps with the increasing average age of bridge players, we have more senior moments, and the Laws have become more lenient towards careless errors. Overall I think that is quite a good thing. I would allow 2NT here, as being sufficiently "similar" if 1C was most often opened with strong balanced hands. If playing a strong NT, I think that would be going too far.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2019-January-31, 23:46, said:

I do not think that would be a legal solution.

Many clubs have to finish their sessions within a specified time. The only other solution would be to give out artificial scores.

gordontd, on 2019-February-01, 02:08, said:

If this were true, I wonder from where came the impetus to change it?

Who knows? Are you really suggesting that the lawmakers polled a representative group of players to see how they felt about it? Or investigated the practicalities of a volunteer club director making a ruling?

Don’t forget that we are talking about the fine legal minds that produced the current mess.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2019-January-31, 23:46, said:

I do not think that would be a legal solution.

Maybe easier to understand this way:

An offender informs the director:

Insufficient call A would have had meaning M1 if it had been an opening bid, M2 if it had been an overcall, M3 if it had been a response with no intervening overcall, and M4 if it had been a response with an intervening double. Calls B, C and D would have meanings M5, M6 and M7 in the auction as it stands. Would any of these be comparable to call A?

The director responds that she hasn’t the faintest clue (meanwhile play has stopped at her own table too). Now what?

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2019-February-01, 12:22, said:

Was there some equivalent provision to the actual 23C, obliging an adjusted score if the Director judges at the end of the play that without the assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different?
If this was lacking then it is unsurprising that there was some dissatisfaction.

What do you mean by equivalent provision? L23C or whatever it is now would of course apply.