[RMB1]

(Taking this discussion out of "Simple Rulings".)

VixTD, on 2014-October-08, 07:21, said:

This does not address the problem of how an insufficient bid can have a "meaning".

If the intention of the law is to use the offender's intended meaning, then the best way to find this out is to ask the player (away from the table, to avoid transmitting UI). If not, then on what basis should the director ascribe a meaning to it?

I think the TD can assign a likely meaning* for the insufficient bid without investigating the intended meaning.
We imagine the insufficient bid was made in one of the following auctions

• Opponent's previous bid was a pass
  
• Offender's suit bid out-ranked the opponent's bid
  
• Partner's previous bid was a level lower
  
• Offender's bid was a level higher

If these plausible alternatives give similar meaning for the insufficient bid, this is the meaning the TD should ascribe.
If the plausible alternatives give wildly different meanings for the insufficient bid, the TD should decide there is no likely meaning.

* Assuming a re-formulation of Law 27 in terms of "likely meaning", "apparent meaing" or even "information conveyed" by the insufficient bid.

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2014-October-08, 11:40

[blackshoe]

Quote

Footnote to Law 27B1{b}: The meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes.

Also:

Quote

From 27B1{b}: (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid)

It seems "information conveyed" and "apparent meaning" both fit. Probably so does "likely meaning".

More to the point, "you can't have an agreement as to the meaning of an insufficient bid," while possibly true in the jurisdiction of discourse, is a red herring. Whether the offending side have an agreement is germane only to the question whether they have violated a regulation prohibiting such agreements. It has nothing to do with the ruling on the IB itself, which is dependent on the TD's judgment as to the meaning of the IB. In particular, what was the IBer's apparent intended meaning, and what would a reasonable partner infer from the IB, based on his general bridge knowledge, his knowledge of this partnership's understanding, and his knowledge of his partner's tendencies?

[VixTD]

RMB1, on 2014-October-08, 08:57, said:

I think the TD can assign a likely meaning* for the insufficient bid without investigating the intended meaning.
* Assuming a re-formulation of Law 27 in terms of "likely meaning", "apparent meaing" or even "information conveyed" by the insufficient bid.

I think this is possible in some cases, although not all. But I think the lawmakers should decide whether they want us to use "intended meaning" or some other concept, such as Jeffrey's idea of what information is conveyed to offender's partner, before we can even get started with this law.

If a Precision pair have the auction: 2♣ - P - 1♦ observers can speculate on the likelihood that offender was trying to respond to 1♣ with 1♦, or respond to 2♣ with 2♦. (There are other possibilities, but these are less likely.) I don't see what's wrong with basing the law on the intended meaning rather than requiring the TD to guess which it was, but it would help if the law were worded to make this clear.

I recall a few years ago my elderly partner overcalling an Acol strong 2♣ opener with 2♦. This sequence does not contain an insufficient bid, and you may see nothing unusual in it, but it transpired later in the auction that she thought that I had opened 2♣ and she was responding to it with a relay. (She didn't alert the opponent's bid, she was still in touch with reality until just before she made her call.) It's a good example of how far removed the intended meaning of a bid can be from the information conveyed to others by the bid.

[nige1]

RMB1, on 2014-October-08, 08:57, said:

I think the TD can assign a likely meaning* for the insufficient bid without investigating the intended meaning.
We imagine the insufficient bid was made in one of the following auctions

• Opponent's previous bid was a pass
• Offender's suit bid out-ranked the opponent's bid
• Partner's previous bid was a level lower
• Offender's bid was a level higher

If these plausible alternatives give similar meaning for the insufficient bid, this is the meaning the TD should ascribe. If the plausible alternatives give wildly different meanings for the insufficient bid, the TD should decide there is no likely meaning. * Assuming a re-formulation of Law 27 in terms of "likely meaning", "apparent meaing" or even "information conveyed" by the insufficient bid.

Arguably, the intended meaning of the IB is irrelevant and what matters is what the IB and its replacement actually mean to the offenders' partner. If the director judges that several meanings are possible, it is the latter whom the director might take away from the table.

[RMB1]

nige1, on 2014-October-10, 10:27, said:

If the director judges that several meanings are possible, it is latter whom the director should take away from the table.

If several meaning are possible, then there would be no advantage to the offending side as long as the replacement call matched one of the meanings - because the insufficient bid is less informative than the replacement.

[VixTD]

nige1, on 2014-October-10, 10:27, said:

Arguably, the intended meaning of the IB is irrelevant and what matters is what the IB and its replacement actually mean to the offenders' partner. If the director judges that several meanings are possible, it is the latter whom the director might take away from the table.

And what would you do if offender's partner also thinks that several meanings are possible? This approach may be more closely aligned with the way the laws are worded at the moment, but I can't see that it's an improvement on the current practice of using the intended meaning. I would prefer a complete change to the law so that insufficient bids are corrected without penalty except that withdrawn calls are UI, or so that partner is forced to pass throughout.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2014-October-10, 10:27, said:

If the director judges that several meanings are possible, it is the latter whom the director might take away from the table.

RMB1, on 2014-October-10, 10:30, said:

If several meaning are possible, then there would be no advantage to the offending side as long as the replacement call matched one of the meanings - because the insufficient bid is less informative than the replacement.

Although the director may think there are several possible meanings, that may not be true for the offender's partner. A replacement call that matches the meaning of the IB is allowed, anyway.

VixTD, on 2014-October-10, 10:41, said:

And what would you do if offender's partner also thinks that several meanings are possible? This approach may be more closely aligned with the way the laws are worded at the moment, but I can't see that it's an improvement on the current practice of using the intended meaning. I would prefer a complete change to the law so that insufficient bids are corrected without penalty except that withdrawn calls are, or so that partner is forced to pass throughout.

Vixtd's suggestion is much better than current law but, IMO, doesn't go far enough.

IMO rule-makers should drastically simplify all the laws about illegal calls (including IBs, COOTS, and mechanical errors). The offending call is cancelled and is UI to the offender's partner, who is silenced for the rest of the auction, with L23 protection. Many more players and directors would be able to understand such a rule and apply it fairly. The offending side would benefit less often.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2014-October-10, 11:24, said:

IMO rule-makers should drastically simplify all the laws about illegal calls (including IBs, COOTS, and mechanical errors). The offending call is cancelled and is UI to the offender's partner, who is silenced for the rest of the auction, with L23 protection. Many more players and directors would be able to understand such a rule and apply it fairly. The offending side would benefit less often.

(Unless the call has been accepted).

[blackshoe]

I think the current intent of the lawmakers is to try to get a bridge result as often as possible. Nigel's approach, while simple, moves away from that. Not sure that's a good thing.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-10, 17:39, said:

(Unless the call has been accepted)

That might seem fair but unforunately it provides options to the offender's LHO Options open a can of worms about (possibly implicit "Just bridge knowledge") agreements depending on your choice of option. These create unnecessary stumbling blocks for both directors and players. Better IMO to prohibit the condoning of infractions (except in special circumstances*). Normally, an attempt to condone an illegal call would itself be an infraction..

* e.g. We youngsters would ask the director to consider waiving rectification against the old and infirm.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2014-October-10, 20:18, said:

Normally, an attempt to condone an illegal call would itself be an infraction..

Most people, having played for decades under rules that allow condoning illegal calls, will have great difficulty with this, at least for some time.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-10, 20:49, said:

Most people, having played for decades under rules that allow condoning illegal calls, will have great difficulty with this, at least for some time.

Not only that, but it is wrong to force players to police their opponents and make sure that all their calls were legal. The NOS should not be at risk of becoming OS themselves if they are a little in attentive (or non-vigilant) and call when it seems to be their turn (similar if the bid was insufficient).

As for getting a "bridge result", in my opinion that ship has sailed.