[aguahombre]

I just read Mike Flader's "Ruling the Game" in the June ACBL Bulletin, and have the following question:

1C (1S) 1H (obviously insufficient and not mechanical error-didnt see 1s call)

Mike states in the article than the offending player, under the new Law 27B, may substitute a negative double without penalty -- as the equivalent of a 1H response.

How can this be right, since it is possible for the negative double to have to be made without four hearts and an awkward hand? Partner of the offender has gained the information that this negative double guarantees hearts.

[jdonn]

aguahombre, on May 28 2009, 11:14 AM, said:

I just read Mike Flader's "Ruling the Game" in the June ACBL Bulletin, and have the following question:

1C  (1S)  1H (obviously insufficient and not mechanical error-didnt see 1s call)

Mike states in the article than the offending player, under the new Law 27B, may substitute a negative double without penalty -- as the equivalent of a 1H response.

How can this be right, since it is possible for the negative double to have to be made without four hearts and an awkward hand?  Partner  of the offender has gained the information that this negative double guarantees hearts.

It seems opener can function by being careful to avoid taking advantage of the UI. For example if he is a balanced minimum with three hearts and no spade stopper he should rebid 1NT even if he would normally rebid 2♥ since some (good) players bid 1NT on such hands. Or maybe that specific example isn't good, but as long as opener keeps in mind to choose a logical alternative that he thinks would work worse if responder does have hearts he should be fine.

I think this solution is a big improvement over barring either player if the bid is changed. That creates an artificial situation, whereas the current rule comes a lot closer to restoring equity rather than punishing the offender.

[gnasher]

You're allowed to substitute a bid only if the new bid "has the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid)".

That seems completely clear to me: the hands that would make the replacement bid must be a subset of the hands that would make the insufficient bid. You can replace a 1♥ response with a double only if double promises four hearts, and only if there are no hands that would respond 1♦ in an uncontested auction but would make a negative double of 1♠.

For most partnerships that wouldn't be true. Even if the double guarantees four hearts, there are x45x 13-counts which would respond 1♦ but make a negative double of 1♠.

I'm not an expert (so I'm not sure why I'm expressing an opinion), but I don't believe that the laws about unauthorised information are relevant. If the change of call conveyed unauthorised information, it wouldn't be allowed under Law 27B.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on May 28 2009, 11:53 AM, said:

You can replace a 1♥ response with a double only if double promises four hearts


I'm not an expert (so I'm not sure why I'm expressing an opinion), but I don't believe that the laws about unauthorised information are relevant.  If the change of call conveyed unauthorised information, it wouldn't be allowed under Law 27B.

I am not expert in the laws either, but I believe our opinions, thought out and articulate, are important -- as are those of other non-officials and non experts. Maybe directors and officials read these forums.

However, let me throw another monkey wrench in to the part about "only if double promises four hearts".

From a bidding contest in the May ACBL Bulletin.

XXX Qxx - AJTXXXX. Both responders bid 1H after pard opened one Diamond.
Presumably A negative double of a spade overcall is possible, depending on partnership agreements. this hand makes Jdonn's comments (first reply) even more "right on". The auction should continue.

[mycroft]

The auction was 1C (1S) 1H, not 1D (1C (1S) 1D is a very different beast). If your negative double promises 4H+6 (and, potentially, denies 5H+10, but that's irrelevant here), even if there's one hand that you'd double on that doesn't have it, then fine. If there are enough non-heart hands in the negative double (for instance, because you're playing negative free bids, so the double is "4 hearts or many INV+ hands") that you don't explain the negative double, if asked, as "promises 4 hearts", then you're as hooped as you were before. Good luck.

Yes, the question to answer is "would all hands that would make the new call in the legal auction make the illegal call in the auction the player thought she was calling in?" So, the TD has to determine three things: a) the auction the player thought she was in, what the illegal call in the auction in a) means, and c) what their system is in the real auction, so that the TD can determine which call or calls will be allowed without penalty.

The new L27B is a good law in theory, but requires much more careful handling in practise. Provided your director can do the handling, that's a big plus in really awkward auctions.

[hrothgar]

This same subject produced an ENORMOUS amount of debate on the Bridge Laws mailing list.

Unfortunately, the BLML changed servers recently and I can't seem to find the older archives. I was able to track down the following in my gmail account which stirs up a distant memory that the interpretation of Law 27 might differ in ACBL land versus the rest of the world.

Quote

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE ACBL LAWS COMMISSION
HILTON HOTEL, LAS VEGAS, NV
JULY 19, 2008

MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chip Martel, Chairperson
Adam Wildavsky, Vice-Chair
Peter Boyd
Chris Compton
Allan Falk
Ron Gerard
Robb Gordon
Georgia Heth
Matt Smith
John Solodar
Peggy Sutherlin
Howard Weinstein

ALSO PRESENT:
Rick Beye, ACBL Chief Tournament Director
Gary Blaiss, ACBL Executive Administrative Officer
Olin Hubert, ACBL Tournament Director
Dan Morse, ACBL President
Matt Koltnow, ACBL Tournament Director
Tadashi Yoshida, Japanese Contract Bridge League Executive
Secretary

...

Law 27 - parts B1(a) and (B) were discussed. On the point of
use of Law 16D for application of part B1(B), there was a
consensus that 16D may be applied as it is not stated that it
is not to apply. However, a director should first apply 27D.
There was also a consensus that if there was a possible rare
holding included in the meaning of the sufficient bid, but not
the insufficient bid, that a change under 27B1(B) should still
be permitted. For example, 2NT - Pass - 2D, which is treated
as a transfer to hearts but where 3D over 2N could (rarely) be
the start of a slam try in a minor. The offender should be
permitted to bid 3D over 2N without further rectification
except for 27D and possibly 16D.

[jeffford76]

The plain text of the law does not allow substitution of the negative double. However guidance from the ACBL is to be more liberal in applying it.

From http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/about...on-Minutes.pdf:

After review of the report of the Law 27 survey as reported by Matt Smith, there was a consensus to continue to encourage tournament directors to be reasonably flexible/liberal in allowing a replacement call without immediate rectification (penalty) when that replacement call is more precise or similar in meaning to the insufficient bid (Law 27B1.) However, if without assistance gained through the insufficient bid the result could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged, the director applies Law 27D.

[Cascade]

This seems completely wrong to me.

It will be all but impossible for most players to ignore the information from the withdrawn call when that information is not contained in the replacement call as in the case where a 1♥ response is replaced by a negative double that does not promise four hearts.

I much prefer the law as written rather than this liberal fuzzy interpretation.

[jdonn]

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%.

When the auction goes 1♣ (1♠) DBL (Something) back to my partner I think it's reasonable to say he has a relatively clear bid to make 80% of the time.

When partner doesn't have a clear rebid to make after that start then I will estimate his call doesn't relate to the heart suit (in other words any UI from the withdrawn 1♥ bid has nothing to do with it) 75% of the time.

As much as I like bashing the ACBL I think they have done something very smart here, in using common sense to create a subjective application of the law. Returning us to normal 1 - (.005 * .2 * .25) = 99.975% of the time, and forcing us to deal with a UI issue 0.025% of the time, is a much better idea than barring one of us and necessarily creating an artificial situation that will probably lead to a swing. The main purpose of the laws is to restore equity when possible.

Admitting that it's quite obvious this is in violation of a strict interpretation of the law, I am always in favor of common sense over a completely strict interpretation of anything. But if you insist on some law, I bolded the part of this one that I care about.

Law 84 D, on Rulings on Agreed Facts, said:

Director's Option
The director rules any doubtful points in favor of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgment it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these Laws provide no rectification, he adjusts the score (see Law 12).

[hanp]

Pretty much agree with jdonn here.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on May 29 2009, 10:56 AM, 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%.

When the auction goes 1♣ (1♠) DBL (Something) back to my partner I think it's reasonable to say he has a relatively clear bid to make 80% of the time.

When partner doesn't have a clear rebid to make after that start then I will estimate his call doesn't relate to the heart suit (in other words any UI from the withdrawn 1♥ bid has nothing to do with it) 75% of the time.

As much as I like bashing the ACBL I think they have done something very smart here, in using common sense to create a subjective application of the law. Returning us to normal 1 - (.005 * .2 * .25) = 99.975% of the time, and forcing us to deal with a UI issue 0.025% of the time, is a much better idea than barring one of us and necessarily creating an artificial situation that will probably lead to a swing. The main purpose of the laws is to restore equity when possible.

Admitting that it's quite obvious this is in violation of a strict interpretation of the law, I am always in favor of common sense over a completely strict interpretation of anything. But if you insist on some law, I bolded the part of this one that I care about.

Law 84 D, on Rulings on Agreed Facts, said:

Director's Option
The director rules any doubtful points in favor of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgment it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these Laws provide no rectification, he adjusts the score (see Law 12).

1. The UI is not always only a problem in the bidding

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.

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.

Further when the rule is cut and dried - subset or not - then I can expect consistent rulings. When the director has to judge whether your double is "close enough" then we will get all manner of inconsistencies in the rulings.

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?

The most important aspect of a law or regulation is to define the boundary. This interpretation does not do that.

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.

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

[jdonn]

Cascade, on May 28 2009, 06:59 PM, said:

Where is the boundary?

I don't see how you can possibly expect me to answer that question when I have already been clear that I reject the premise that "The most important aspect of a law or regulation is to define the boundary."

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

As much as I like bashing the ACBL I think they have done something very smart here, in using common sense to create a subjective application of the law.
....
Admitting that it's quite obvious this is in violation of a strict interpretation of the law, I am always in favor of common sense over a completely strict interpretation of anything.

You don't need to dig very deep to see I don't agree with having a clear boundary. Such a thing would directly contradict my preferred premise of common sense in order to restore equity. That goal is quite a bit more important to me than absolutely consistent rulings in borderline cases.

[Lobowolf]

Cascade, on May 28 2009, 06:59 PM, said:

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.

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

I think the operative phrase is "in the Director's opinion has the same meaning as or a more precise meaning." I also think that it's fairly clear that this phrase is dependent upon the agreements of the pair in question. If you're playing negative free bids, IMO, it doesn't apply to you.

If you're playing BWS, the double (speaking of "it either is or it isn't") "guarantees" 4 hearts, but it might be a 3-card suit "in a pinch." I think the "in a pinch" exemption doesn't add much meaning beyond the recognition that some auctions get awkward, and you take actions that are unexpected by partner and the opponents. I think the BWS definition of the 1-level negative double is clear enough that the new 27( applies to pairs playing it.

While it's possible that the double might be a manufactured bid on an awkward hand, it's much more likely (playing standard negative doubles) that it's narrowed down a legitimate 1♥ bid, by excluding hands with 5 or more hearts and 10 or more points (i.e., those hands that would have bid 1♥ without interference, but 2♥ over the 1♠ bid). On balance, I think that clearly makes the double, if anything, "more precise" than the 1♥ bid would be in the absence of interference.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on May 29 2009, 12:13 PM, said:

Cascade, on May 28 2009, 06:59 PM, said:

Where is the boundary?

I don't see how you can possibly expect me to answer that question when I have already been clear that I reject the premise that "The most important aspect of a law or regulation is to define the boundary."

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

As much as I like bashing the ACBL I think they have done something very smart here, in using common sense to create a subjective application of the law.
....
Admitting that it's quite obvious this is in violation of a strict interpretation of the law, I am always in favor of common sense over a completely strict interpretation of anything.

You don't need to dig very deep to see I don't agree with having a clear boundary. Such a thing would directly contradict my preferred premise of common sense in order to restore equity. That goal is quite a bit more important to me than absolutely consistent rulings in borderline cases.

This fuzziness that you advocate just gives directors a licence to make biased rulings.

I want to know in advance whether my sides correction will be allowed or whether my opponent's correction will be allowed.

I don't want decided on the whim of a director that might vary from time to time or opponent to opponent.

[blackshoe]

How's that song go? Oh, yeah. "You can't always get what you want"

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on May 29 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

How's that song go? Oh, yeah. "You can't always get what you want"

Sure but there is a perfectly good law why do they want to twist it in interpretation.

That attitude seems completely bizarre to me.

[jdonn]

Quote

fuzziness

Freedom?

Quote

biased

Equitable?

Quote

whim

Judgment?

Quote

perfectly good law

Law that punishes when it could instead restore equity?

Quote

twist

Apply common sense?

I guess it's all in how you look at it.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on May 29 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

Quote

fuzziness

Freedom?

Quote

biased

Equitable?

Quote

whim

Judgment?

Quote

perfectly good law

Law that punishes when it could instead restore equity?

Quote

twist

Apply common sense?

I guess it's all in how you look at it.

It is not equitable when the offending side gains an advantage. Even if that advantage is small as you claim.

There are two options for looking at it when equity cannot be restored:

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.

I have no comprehension of that.

[Gerben42]

I think it's also practice in Germany to not try to construct one remote hand type where one might have not chosen the original bid, but this negative Dbl case is really complicated. I wouldn't allow this one, as one can construct hands with both red suits for example that would have responded 1♦, and what about strong hands with only 3♥ and no real suit? Replacing a suit bid with a Dbl can almost never work, since Dbls are almost always more flexible than the suit bid you are replacing.

An example what I WOULD allow, but which is technically against the law:

1♠ (2♥) 2♣ (didn't see 2♥)

replaced by

1♠ (2♥) 3♣ (natural GF)

Technically responder could have 5♥ 5♣ and would have bid 2♥ with that, but I will ignore that.

[Cascade]

Gerben42, on May 29 2009, 07:12 PM, said:

I think it's also practice in Germany to not try to construct one remote hand type where one might have not chosen the original bid, but this negative Dbl case is really complicated. I wouldn't allow this one, as one can construct hands with both red suits for example that would have responded 1♦, and what about strong hands with only 3♥ and no real suit? Replacing a suit bid with a Dbl can almost never work, since Dbls are almost always more flexible than the suit bid you are replacing.

An example what I WOULD allow, but which is technically against the law:

1♠ (2♥) 2♣ (didn't see 2♥)

replaced by

1♠ (2♥) 3♣ (natural GF)

Technically responder could have 5♥ 5♣ and would have bid 2♥ with that, but I will ignore that.

I don't quite follow your example.

If the player didn't see the 2♥ wouldn't he have bid 2♥ not 2♣ insufficient.