[jdonn]

Cascade, on May 29 2009, 02:02 AM, said:

1. Give an advantage to the non-offending side (or punish the offenders if you like)

2. Give an advantage to the offending side (or punish the non-offenders)

Josh you seem to be proposing that the second method is somehow equitable.

It's again all in the bias of how things are stated. Your statements 1 and 2 are not exact opposites, nor did I suggest the one you claim I did, nor are they the only potential situations.

I have proposed a situation, to use the example of how I play negative doubles there, where 3999 times out of 4000 no one gains any advantage and we simply get to play bridge. 1 time out of 4000 there is (a little) relevant unauthorized information for the offending side. Since this information can legally used by the non-offending side but not by the offending side, the offending side is at a disadvantage not an advantage.

So the "method" I say is equitable is a vast majority of neither of the ones you point out, and a slim minority of the first. None at all of the second. And yes, that is much more equitable than what you are suggesting.

For someone who argues strongly so often for the purest possible form of bridge, such as allowing any methods at all, you sure are in a hurry in this situation to create some artificial form of bridge (that of a player barred from the auction for one round or the entire auction) in situations where the overwhelming likelihood is we would get to enjoy absolutely pure and normal bridge by simply allowing the auction to continue with a correction.

[david_c]

I believe that the idea to apply this Law more leniently has actually come from the WBF. So it isn't just an ACBL thing. I don't know exactly what the WBF has said (maybe someone can help us out here), but I think the gist of it is that we're supposed to consider the basic meaning of a bid, and not worry about exceptional cases or subtle negative inferences.

See this BLML post about the EBU's discussion of the issue.

[gnasher]

We expect directors to use their judgement all the time. They use judgement in establishing facts, ruling on unauthorised information and misinformation, issuing procedural penalties, and lots of other things - look how many times the phrase "director judges" appears in the Laws. A director's judgement may sometimes be faulty, or he may be biased, but that's why we have appeals committees. I can't see anything that makes a director's judgement less reliable in this situation than in others.

I don't disagree with a move away from penalties that have nothing to do with bridge, and towards restoring equity. Like the revoke penalty, the old version of this rule varied randomly between restoring equity and giving a massive undeserved bonus to the non-offenders. The newer version is better, but apparently not enough better. Even so, I'm not quite comfortable with saying "This may be what the Law says, but we're going to pretend it says something else."

[gnasher]

david_c, on May 29 2009, 08:35 AM, said:

I believe that the idea to apply this Law more leniently has actually come from the WBF.

If that's true, I find it really irritating. The WBF Laws Committee have just revised this rule. Most of them have an excellent understanding of English, so when they wrote it presumably they knew what it was that they were saying. If they meant to say something else, why didn't they say so?

This isn't just a matter of making things easier for directors - it can have nasty consequences for the players. Before I try to correct an insufficient bid, I want to know whether the correction will be allowed without penalty.

For example, I might be considering correcting an insufficient 1♥ to a sufficient 2♦ transfer, but if that fails to pass the conditions of 27B1 I'll be left in 2♦. I'm not sure whether I can have, or want to have, an involved conversation with the director away from the table about whether 2♦ passes 27B1, but in any case I might want to make my own evaluation of whether what he's told me is correct.

In making that evaluation I should be able to assume that what I read in the Laws is what will actually be applied. Burying this stuff in the minutes of a committee meeting that won't be read by anyone but rules geeks is just wrong.

[Oof Arted]

From memory the World Chief TD Max Bavin did a Paper on this containing examples of when a substitution of another bid/call which was covered by 27b

I think 1 was where a precisiion player did not see an opening bid by opponent and then bid 1♣ If the subsequent DOUBLE of the opening bid wouls show 16+ and have the same meaning throughout then this would be permited

[Cascade]

jdonn, on May 29 2009, 07:26 PM, said:

Cascade, on May 29 2009, 02:02 AM, said:

1.  Give an advantage to the non-offending side (or punish the offenders if you like)

2. Give an advantage to the offending side (or punish the non-offenders)

Josh you seem to be proposing that the second method is somehow equitable.

It's again all in the bias of how things are stated.

For example if you misquote me you are likely to give a biased impression of what I am saying.

1. and 2. above were not statements to be considered on their own. They were predicated by a conditional statement that said they applied "when equity cannot be restored".

Quote

Your statements 1 and 2 are not exact opposites, nor did I suggest the one you claim I did, nor are they the only potential situations.

I have proposed a situation, to use the example of how I play negative doubles there, where 3999 times out of 4000 no one gains any advantage and we simply get to play bridge. 1 time out of 4000 there is (a little) relevant unauthorized information for the offending side. Since this information can legally used by the non-offending side but not by the offending side, the offending side is at a disadvantage not an advantage.

I think this is unrealistic. There are many situations where UI is used by offenders even if not deliberately and from which they gain an advantage but for many reasons equity is never restored.

3999/4000 you have hearts when you make a negative double. 1/4000 you do not. To me this means that every time you make an insufficient bid of 1♥ and replace it by a negative double of 1♠ you clarify that you are not in the 1/4000. That leaves 3999/3999 where you have resolved the ambiguity. That is 3999/3999 you gain an advantage over a player who made a negative double without making the insufficient bid.

Quote

So the "method" I say is equitable is a vast majority of neither of the ones you point out, and a slim minority of the first. None at all of the second. And yes, that is much more equitable than what you are suggesting.

The method you are proposing gives you an advantage everytime you have a heart response and make an insufficient bid. The advantage might be small but it is an advantage.

Quote

For someone who argues strongly so often for the purest possible form of bridge, such as allowing any methods at all, you sure are in a hurry in this situation to create some artificial form of bridge (that of a player barred from the auction for one round or the entire auction) in situations where the overwhelming likelihood is we would get to enjoy absolutely pure and normal bridge by simply allowing the auction to continue with a correction.

I am not saying the Law is perfect but I am saying it is the Law and I can't think of any reason to not follow it.

You get to enjoy a form of bridge in which one side who offended against the laws of the game gained an advantage of being able to communicate something about their hand that they would not otherwise have been able to do at that point in the auction. I don't call that a pure form of the game.

[Cascade]

david_c, on May 29 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

I believe that the idea to apply this Law more leniently has actually come from the WBF. So it isn't just an ACBL thing. I don't know exactly what the WBF has said (maybe someone can help us out here), but I think the gist of it is that we're supposed to consider the basic meaning of a bid, and not worry about exceptional cases or subtle negative inferences.

See this BLML post about the EBU's discussion of the issue.

From that thread on BLML

"For example, after the auction starts 2N (_P) 2C (Stayman), you may need
a different director depending on whether partner or an opponent is the
culprit."

This is exactly the problem with fuzzy or in Josh's case "Freedom" interpretations.

[RMB1]

gnasher, on May 29 2009, 08:40 AM, said:

david_c, on May 29 2009, 08:35 AM, said:

I believe that the idea to apply this Law more leniently has actually come from the WBF.

If that's true, I find it really irritating. The WBF Laws Committee have just revised this rule. Most of them have an excellent understanding of English, so when they wrote it presumably they knew what it was that they were saying. If they meant to say something else, why didn't they say so?

Oh it's true all right. See www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/WBFInformation/Reports_Minutes/LawsCommitteeMinutes/2008-Beijing.pdf, bottom of page 2.

The revision of Law 27 has had a chequered history. In late drafts there was only (what is now) 27B1(b.) not 27B1(a.). I guess someone pointed out that a simple correction to lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination would not always be permitted by 27B1(b.) and so the original law (now 27B1(a.)) was reinstated.

Robin

[Gerben42]

Quote

"For example, after the auction starts 2N (_P) 2C (Stayman), you may need
a different director depending on whether partner or an opponent is the
culprit."

I think here in Germany there is a consensus between the directors on a national level, so a different director would not help.

[655321]

Seems to me that jdonn's point of view makes a lot of sense.

Of course, if Cascade makes 10 more posts in this thread to repeat his case 10 more times I might change my mind.

But I doubt it.

[helene_t]

Which hands could have have doubled 1♠ but could not have bid 1♥ will depend on partnership agreements. For example if this pair always respond 1♦ with 4-4 reds, then the UI may be substantial.

But if Josh is right that he has 4+ hearts more than 99% of the time, then the remaining <1% can hardly be relevant IMHO.

In any case I agree with most posters that the new law is a huge improvement.

[hrothgar]

I'm a fence sitter on this one.

I think that my attitude can best be summarized as:

1. It's fine to grant discretionary authority to the directors
2. I think that we can do a much better job establishing/publicizing precedents

[jdonn]

Cascade, on May 29 2009, 04:40 AM, said:

david_c, on May 29 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

I believe that the idea to apply this Law more leniently has actually come from the WBF. So it isn't just an ACBL thing. I don't know exactly what the WBF has said (maybe someone can help us out here), but I think the gist of it is that we're supposed to consider the basic meaning of a bid, and not worry about exceptional cases or subtle negative inferences.

See this BLML post about the EBU's discussion of the issue.

From that thread on BLML

"For example, after the auction starts 2N (_P) 2C (Stayman), you may need
a different director depending on whether partner or an opponent is the
culprit."

This is exactly the problem with fuzzy or in Josh's case "Freedom" interpretations.

No, all that means is two pairs may be playing different systems. At least that's what it should be saying, it looks like in this case someone must be very paranoid.

I completely concur with gnasher's latest post. I see nothing different between directors 'whims' in this situation, and in dozens of others. Directors have to make bridge judgments every day. It's their job.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on May 29 2009, 04:16 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 29 2009, 07:26 PM, said:

It's again all in the bias of how things are stated.

For example if you misquote me you are likely to give a biased impression of what I am saying.

1. and 2. above were not statements to be considered on their own. They were predicated by a conditional statement that said they applied "when equity cannot be restored".

You are right, I didn't fully read what you wrote. Of course since this shows you didn't fully read what I wrote

Quote

3999/4000 you have hearts when you make a negative double.  1/4000 you do not.

when I actually said

jdonn, on May 28 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

I can safely say when I make a negative double after 1♣ (1♠) that I have four (or more) hearts over 99% of the time, but less than 100%. For this exercise I'll call it 99.5%.

Then I guess we are both guilty. (I went on to say there would only be relevant UI 1 time in 4000 in my estimation, since even when 4 hearts aren't held then opener may have a clear rebid, or may have a choice of rebids not affected by the UI.)

[aguahombre]

What a great discussion. Can someone with "juice" send this whole string to the Committee, so they will have input? When I look at the list of members, I know that there are several who would read and appreciate what us commoners think.

[Cascade]

Gerben42, on May 30 2009, 01:03 AM, said:

Quote

"For example, after the auction starts 2N (_P) 2C (Stayman), you may need
a different director depending on whether partner or an opponent is the
culprit."

I think here in Germany there is a consensus between the directors on a national level, so a different director would not help.

So where is the boundary in Germany?

Because it is that that there needs to be consensus about.

Is 1% not hearts ok? How about 2%, 5%, 10%, 35% etc etc

[Cascade]

jdonn, on May 30 2009, 03:36 AM, said:

Cascade, on May 29 2009, 04:40 AM, said:

david_c, on May 29 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

I believe that the idea to apply this Law more leniently has actually come from the WBF. So it isn't just an ACBL thing. I don't know exactly what the WBF has said (maybe someone can help us out here), but I think the gist of it is that we're supposed to consider the basic meaning of a bid, and not worry about exceptional cases or subtle negative inferences.

See this BLML post about the EBU's discussion of the issue.

From that thread on BLML

"For example, after the auction starts 2N (_P) 2C (Stayman), you may need
a different director depending on whether partner or an opponent is the
culprit."

This is exactly the problem with fuzzy or in Josh's case "Freedom" interpretations.

No, all that means is two pairs may be playing different systems. At least that's what it should be saying, it looks like in this case someone must be very paranoid.

I completely concur with gnasher's latest post. I see nothing different between directors 'whims' in this situation, and in dozens of others. Directors have to make bridge judgments every day. It's their job.

If it is just about them playing two different systems then there is a clear boundary.

The problem is noone is saying where that boundary is?

It is that that is unreasonable.

[mycroft]

Cascade, on May 28 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

2. This is not a doubtful point.  Double either promises four hearts or not.  If it does not then it does not convey the same or more restrictive information.

Right. And are you going to allow bridge values of "always", "never" and "promise"? If not, I hope you follow that level of description with your normal explanations. I know I've opened 1NT with a singleton, responded 1H with only 3, reversed into a three-card suit, and made a "third-suit-forcing" call on 3 without actually agreeing to play third-suit-forcing at least once. I don't think that having that stops me from saying that 1NT is balanced, 1H response shows 4, and reverses are 4=5 or better in the suits - and neither does anyone else.

Quote

As well if the auction starts 1♣ (1♠) X even if double promises four hearts there are hands where many players would double but would not respond 1♥ in particular hands with five or more diamonds and exactly four hearts.  So that in general I do not believe that a negative double is the required subset of hands that a 1♥ response would be made on.

I think the hands that would double but not bid 1H, especially if playing some Walsh variant, and not bidding either 2D or 2H in the real auction (2H here, of course, because 2D would definitely not be allowed. 2H is natural, so...) is very small.

The old rule, which would force the player to bid 2H, allow the side to know that it might be a stretched 2H call, then adjusting if the (Authorized!) information was such as "the outcome could have been different" without the insufficient bid (please note, that option still exists, and still has to be judged the same way), is that not putting more judgement in the hands of the TD than judging whether a call that "shows 4+ hearts, but a few hands will make a different call" is a subset of "shows 4+ hearts, but a (different) few hands with 4+ hearts would make a different call" (and then potentially adjusting if the information was such...)

Quote

So you say your Double is 99.5%, what about a 99% or a 95% or a 90% or a 80% or a ...
Where is the boundary?

Does the double promise 4 hearts? Yes? Okay. No? Well.

Quote

Since I play negative free bids my double is hearts or some other hands mostly game force?  Is this ok?  It is still a negative double.

Does the double promise 4 hearts? Yes? Really? Is that how you explain the double when asked?
Or do you explain it as "normal negative double, or INV+ without a fit I choose to show?" Well, then.

How difficult was that?

Quote

How much do I have to relax the four heart requirement before it does not become ok?

Does your double promise 4 hearts?

How much do you have to relax the 4 heart requirement in 1D-1H before you have to tell someone in disclosure?

I reiterate that L27D applies. I don't have an issue with letting things go sanely liberal if the Loving Mallet of Correction is available to those who push it too far.

[Gerben42]

Quote

So where is the boundary in Germany?  Because it is that that there needs to be consensus about.  Is 1% not hearts ok? How about 2%, 5%, 10%, 35% etc etc

1♣ (1♠) 1♥ replaced by Dbl is not allowed since it contains many 1♦ and 1♥ responses.

Ace asking responses are allowed.

1♠ (2♥) 2♣ replaced by 3♣ is allowed, although 3♣ would include hands that would have responded 2♥ (namely those with 5♥ 5♣), but this is too remote. The reason here is that 2♣ really showed ♣ and 3♣ also really showed ♣, whereas in the 1st example the Dbl suggests ♥, it does not suggest that ♥ is the most important suit for responder.

2NT (p) 2♣ Stayman changes are not allowed, since the previous Stayman suggested at least 8 HCP unless he holds both majors, and the new one does not.

[Cascade]

Gerben42, on May 30 2009, 11:12 PM, said:

Quote

So where is the boundary in Germany?  Because it is that that there needs to be consensus about.  Is 1% not hearts ok? How about 2%, 5%, 10%, 35% etc etc

1♣ (1♠) 1♥ replaced by Dbl is not allowed since it contains many 1♦ and 1♥ responses.

This seems very sensible.