BBO Discussion Forums: Insufficient bid - allowed call - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Insufficient bid - allowed call

#21 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,018
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-December-21, 13:27

View Postgordontd, on 2017-December-21, 10:17, said:

I don't think I'm saying that. What I'm saying is that by making an insufficient bid I have created a natur 72C.

One time I did use it (under the old laws) was when a Blackwood sequence proceeded:

4NT-5S
5H

corrected to 5NT, silencing partner when they were missing two aces.


How old were these laws? I think you would fall foul of L23, whatever it is called now, under the previous two versions of the laws at least.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#22 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,746
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-December-21, 15:14

View PostVampyr, on 2017-December-21, 13:27, said:

How old were these laws? I think you would fall foul of L23, whatever it is called now, under the previous two versions of the laws at least.

Sure, but under the current laws there might have been other non-barring options (though not any that would get you to 5NT).
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#23 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,919
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2017-December-21, 20:03

View Postgordontd, on 2017-December-21, 10:17, said:

I don't think I'm saying that. What I'm saying is that by making an insufficient bid I have created a natural 2C overcall where one didn't exist before. It wouldn't surprise me if this worked to my advantage, even more so if partner had been a passed hand (which I know is not the case here).

It wouldn't surprise you because you've thought about it as a director, I suspect. And if you pointed it out to a player after the fact he would probably acknowledge that he now would not be surprised about it working to his advantage if he did it again. But I'd bet he'd be very surprised if you told him you were ruling on the basis that the thought might (should?) already have occurred to him.

It seems like after 1-1 a player must be aware (or be made aware) that choosing a 2 correction might very well subject him to score adjustment under 72C. In such a case it would seem incumbent on the director to tell him that, or at least to read him the law, before he chooses his correction. I've never seen a director do that.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#24 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,018
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-December-21, 21:08

View Postblackshoe, on 2017-December-21, 20:03, said:

It wouldn't surprise you because you've thought about it as a director, I suspect. And if you pointed it out to a player after the fact he would probably acknowledge that he now would not be surprised about it working to his advantage if he did it again. But I'd bet he'd be very surprised if you told him you were ruling on the basis that the thought might (should?) already have occurred to him.

It seems like after 1-1 a player must be aware (or be made aware) that choosing a 2 correction might very well subject him to score adjustment under 72C. In such a case it would seem incumbent on the director to tell him that, or at least to read him the law, before he chooses his correction. I've never seen a director do that.


Any player could have been aware. And in this case, why did the player choose to bid 2? He thought it might be to his advantage to do so. Thus even with the ludicrously high bar you set, 72C has been satisfied.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#25 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,746
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-December-22, 01:39

View PostVampyr, on 2017-December-21, 21:08, said:

Any player could have been aware. And in this case, why did the player choose to bid 2? He thought it might be to his advantage to do so. Thus even with the ludicrously high bar you set, 72C has been satisfied.

Choosing 2C is not the infraction. Bidding 1C is.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#26 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,746
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-December-22, 01:41

View Postblackshoe, on 2017-December-21, 20:03, said:

It wouldn't surprise you because you've thought about it as a director, I suspect. And if you pointed it out to a player after the fact he would probably acknowledge that he now would not be surprised about it working to his advantage if he did it again. But I'd bet he'd be very surprised if you told him you were ruling on the basis that the thought might (should?) already have occurred to him.

It seems like after 1-1 a player must be aware (or be made aware) that choosing a 2 correction might very well subject him to score adjustment under 72C. In such a case it would seem incumbent on the director to tell him that, or at least to read him the law, before he chooses his correction. I've never seen a director do that.

A general comment about the possibility of further adjustment is fairly routine.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
1

#27 User is offline   sanst 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 2014-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2017-December-22, 01:58

I don't think you have to use Law 72C, snce 23C is more specific in this situation. Not that it matters, an AS is an AS.
Joost
0

#28 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,746
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-December-22, 02:14

View Postsanst, on 2017-December-22, 01:58, said:

I don't think you have to use Law 72C, snce 23C is more specific in this situation. Not that it matters, an AS is an AS.

23C applies following the substitution of a comparable call - not the case here.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#29 User is offline   sanst 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 2014-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2017-December-22, 04:02

View Postgordontd, on 2017-December-22, 02:14, said:

23C applies following the substitution of a comparable call - not the case here.

Now I'm lost. This whole discussion is about a comparable call in the 1-1 situation. If the call is not comparable, partner is barred. And yes, there are situations in which that may harm the opponents, but those are rare and it's not the case here.
Joost
0

#30 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,746
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-December-22, 04:21

View Postsanst, on 2017-December-22, 04:02, said:

Now I'm lost. This whole discussion is about a comparable call in the 1-1 situation. If the call is not comparable, partner is barred. And yes, there are situations in which that may harm the opponents, but those are rare and it's not the case here.

Well one of us is lost! I think we were talking about 1C being replaced with 2C (not comparable) and therefore partner being barred. Thus a natural 2C overcall has been created where it didn't exist before the infraction. It certainly could be known that this might harm the opponents.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#31 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,461
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2017-December-22, 04:41

View PostVampyr, on 2017-December-21, 13:27, said:

How old were these laws? I think you would fall foul of L23, whatever it is called now, under the previous two versions of the laws at least.

1976
0

#32 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,018
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-December-22, 05:39

View Postgordontd, on 2017-December-22, 01:39, said:

Choosing 2C is not the infraction. Bidding 1C is.


Yes of course. I only meant that the resulting advantage was the ability to bid a natural 2.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#33 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,919
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2017-December-22, 10:42

I am not setting any bar, ludicrous or not. I'm trying to figure out how "could have known" is intended to be used. "Any player at any time 'could have known' that his action might damage opponents" is a ludicrously low bar. Put it another way: "72C always applies" is too low; "72C never applies" is too high. The bar is somewhere between the two, obviously, but where? And how does the director determine on which side of the bar a particular action falls?
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#34 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,461
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2017-December-22, 13:38

View Postblackshoe, on 2017-December-22, 10:42, said:

I am not setting any bar, ludicrous or not. I'm trying to figure out how "could have known" is intended to be used. "Any player at any time 'could have known' that his action might damage opponents" is a ludicrously low bar. Put it another way: "72C always applies" is too low; "72C never applies" is too high. The bar is somewhere between the two, obviously, but where? And how does the director determine on which side of the bar a particular action falls?

I was told that the original intention for the "could have known" clause was to give the Director a tool whenever he smelled a rat but was reluctant to say "cheating".
So each particular case is up to the Director's judgement.
0

#35 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 16,790
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-December-22, 16:12

This comes up frequently in lamford hypos, whenever RR lands in some ludicrous contract that has 1% of succeeding, but the bridge gods smile on him. SB argues that he "could have known" that the cards might be in all the right spots.

I prefer to interpret "could have been aware" as meaning "could have had a reasonable expectation". I.e. it might be something the offender would do intentionally to gain an advantage if they were allowed.

#36 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,919
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2017-December-22, 23:01

View Postbarmar, on 2017-December-22, 16:12, said:

I prefer to interpret "could have been aware" as meaning "could have had a reasonable expectation". I.e. it might be something the offender would do intentionally to gain an advantage if they were allowed.

How do you determine that? Particularly if you do not know the player?
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#37 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,018
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-December-23, 08:43

View Postblackshoe, on 2017-December-22, 23:01, said:

How do you determine that? Particularly if you do not know the player?


It does not matter who the actual player is. As long as it occurred to the player that he could now bid 2 naturally, barmar's criterion, which I like, has been satisfied.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#38 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 16,790
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-December-23, 11:30

View Postblackshoe, on 2017-December-22, 23:01, said:

How do you determine that? Particularly if you do not know the player?

I guess I should have said "an offender" rather than "the offender" -- it's not specific to that particular player, just a hypothetical, reasonable (hmm, does that exclude some in the Menagerie?) player in the same situation. I.e. would someone have an expectation that the action could work to their benefit?

#39 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,919
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2017-December-23, 20:41

Hm.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#40 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,018
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-December-23, 22:18

View Postbarmar, on 2017-December-23, 11:30, said:

I guess I should have said "an offender" rather than "the offender" -- it's not specific to that particular player, just a hypothetical, reasonable (hmm, does that exclude some in the Menagerie?) player in the same situation. I.e. would someone have an expectation that the action could work to their benefit?


Would upvote if I could.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users