[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-26, 16:25, said:

Maybe someday the Laws will include a legal requirement to make sufficient bids.

This was added in the 2017 Laws. 18D says, "It is an infraction to make an insufficient bid (see Law 27 for rectification)."

Maybe what you're really hoping for is a Law that says that this infraction should be penalized, rather than rectified.

I suppose we could go all the way and say that insufficient bids, bids out of turn, plays out of turn, and revokes should all get an automatic penalty of a bottom board. That'll teach people not to lose concentration or have senior moments.

That will allow the 50 perfect players who are left to enjoy the game without having to deal with all those idiots who can't follow simple rules like following suit.

[blackshoe]

50? You really think there will be that many?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-October-26, 18:20, said:

This was added in the 2017 Laws. 18D says, "It is an infraction to make an insufficient bid (see Law 27 for rectification)."

Maybe what you're really hoping for is a Law that says that this infraction should be penalized, rather than rectified.

I suppose we could go all the way and say that insufficient bids, bids out of turn, plays out of turn, and revokes should all get an automatic penalty of a bottom board. That'll teach people not to lose concentration or have senior moments.

That will allow the 50 perfect players who are left to enjoy the game without having to deal with all those idiots who can't follow simple rules like following suit.

I know that this law was added, but an IB is not really treated as an infraction.

I don't think that players would be put off by harsher, say 1997 penalties, which were, after all, not particularly harsh. I imagine that once per year, say playing one session a week) is the maximum that people will make an insufficient bid. The other infractions you mention also there or thereabouts.

The law just keeps trying harder and harder to pretend that the person did not make an insufficient bid. But the player did. The goal is to restore the board to "normal", but that ship has sailed.

[VixTD]

barmar, on 2017-October-26, 10:48, said:

You don't need to know the offender's thought process, you can infer it from the replacement.

If he replaces 2NT with 3NT, the IB was presumably intended to be natural, so you allow it with no further rectification.

If he replaces it with 4NT, it was presumably intended to be unusual, so you also allow it with no further rectification.

This is a long-winded way of saying that both "natural" and "the minors" are meanings that could be attributed to the withdrawn call, so both 3NT and 4NT are available as penalty-free replacements. There's no need to think about what was intended.

barmar, on 2017-October-26, 10:48, said:

It's possible that a player who intended 2NT as unusual could replace it with 3NT. But making a replacement with a totally different meaning than originally intended is not likely to be successful, so the opponents will rarely be damaged (I know, I just threw down the gauntlet to Lamford). And if it is, the TD will likely be able to adjust based on 27D.

I agree with the first part, but if the offender bid 2NT to show the minors, was made to retract it because it was insufficient and chose to replace it with a lucky 3NT, I don't think there's any way the TD could adjust the score unless their partner took some kind of unexplained action that could have been suggested by the withdrawn call, or the offender could been aware at the time that the irregularity could well damage the opponents (law 72C). The offender didn't get to 3NT with the help of the insufficient bid (law 27D); they could have bid it immediately if they'd wanted to.

[Vampyr]

VixTD, on 2017-October-27, 06:55, said:

This is a long-winded way of saying that both "natural" and "the minors" are meanings that could be attributed to the withdrawn call, so both 3NT and 4NT are available as penalty-free replacements. There's no need to think about what was intended.


I agree with the first part, but if the offender bid 2NT to show the minors, was made to retract it because it was insufficient and chose to replace it with a lucky 3NT, I don't think there's any way the TD could adjust the score unless their partner took some kind of unexplained action that could have been suggested by the withdrawn call, or the offender could been aware at the time that the irregularity could well damage the opponents (law 72C). The offender didn't get to 3NT with the help of the insufficient bid (law 27D); they could have bid it immediately if they'd wanted to.

But if the bid was non-systemic they are unlikely to have bid it already. So they did get assistance, since they would otherwise never be in 3NT.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-27, 08:20, said:

But if the bid was non-systemic they are unlikely to have bid it already. So they did get assistance, since they would otherwise never be in 3NT.

I think what that clause is talking about is something like making a bid that would normally be forcing, but because partner is barred you get to play there, and it turns out to be a good place. The only way to get to that contract is by first making an insufficient bid and then correcting it.

Making a psychic replacement is not really much different from making a psychic original bid, although maybe it's a little more likely because the situation forces you to make a difficult choice.