[dburn]

blackshoe, on May 29 2010, 07:34 PM, said:

Amusing, Mr. Burn, but hardly a useful construct. The instant a player tells any competent director that there are two identical cards in the deck in play, the TD will stop play of that board, take it away, and replace the deck with one that complies with the laws. If he has a hand record, he will reconstitute the correct hand.

Perhaps. But might he not first verify that there actually are two identical cards in the deck?

Seriously (for a moment), if a player examines his hand and finds that it really does contain two aces of spades, he should act as in my "silly" scenario, because that might permit play of the board at his table after the deficiency has been remedied. Failure to do so might be considered on a par with bidding a hand containing some number of cards other than thirteen - but at present the Laws (rather inconsistently) penalise players for proceeding with some kinds of defective hand, but not with others.

Of course the scenario is silly; but so is the notion that a Director must never examine a player's hand before giving a ruling that will permit play to continue. Again: I know why the notion exists; I know what Law 40 says; and to an extent I understand and agree with bluejak's interpretation of Law 27. Indeed, it may be possible - even desirable - for a Director to rule under Law 27B1b without knowing what a player's actual cards are; but I question the assertion (seemingly) made by bluejak that a player must "convince the Director that 1♥ was a transfer" without being permitted to adduce his own cards in evidence.

[bluejak]

Very silly. Of course the TD would look at the player's hand to see if there were two identical cards. Why ever not?

Where does David get his curious ideas on directing from?

[dburn]

bluejak, on May 29 2010, 08:25 PM, said:

Where does David get his curious ideas on directing from?

Directors.

[pran]

dburn, on May 30 2010, 02:55 AM, said:

bluejak, on May 29 2010, 08:25 PM, said:

Where does David get his curious ideas on directing from?

Directors.

Would it have occurred to you that in your hypothetical case the Director is not requested to make a (judgement) ruling, he is requested to try save a board playable if at all possible?

I assume there is a slight possibility that you just might know the difference?

[dburn]

Some questions on Law 27 (real questions this time).

In the cases below, North opens 2♠, showing 3-8 points and (usually) six spades.

East passes and South bids 2♦. If you ask South away from the table why he did this, you will discover that he thought East was the dealer, and was unaware that his partner had opened anything at all.

Case 1. South's 2♦ opening is natural, 12-16 points with 6+ diamonds, His 3♦ response to a 2♠ opening is also natural, but it is unconditionally forcing. Is he allowed to make this response? Is North allowed to pass it? If asked to explain it, what explanation should North give?

Case 2. South's 2♦ opening is artificial, 18-19 balanced. His 2NT response to a 2♠ opening is artificial, asking for further definition. Is South allowed to make this response (since almost all hands that would open 2♦ would ask for further definition opposite this 2♠ opening)? If asked to explain it, what explanation should North give?

[pran]

dburn, on May 31 2010, 09:20 AM, said:

Some questions on Law 27 (real questions this time).

In the cases below, North opens 2♠, showing 3-8 points and (usually) six spades.

East passes and South bids 2♦. If you ask South away from the table why he did this, you will discover that he thought East was the dealer, and was unaware that his partner had opened anything at all.

Case 1.  South's 2♦ opening is natural, 12-16 points with 6+ diamonds, His 3♦ response to a 2♠ opening is also natural, but it is unconditionally forcing. Is he allowed to make this response? Is North allowed to pass it? If asked to explain it, what explanation should North give?

Case 2. South's 2♦ opening is artificial, 18-19 balanced. His 2NT response to a 2♠ opening is artificial, asking for further definition. Is South allowed to make this response (since almost all hands that would open 2♦ would ask for further definition opposite this 2♠ opening)? If asked to explain it, what explanation should North give?

The prime recent question was about the Director being shown cards and I see absolutely no reason why he should see any cards before making his ruling in these two cases.

Case 1: both 2♦ and 3♦ are natural calls and 3♦ is the lowest legal level with this denomination in the case. Thus Law 27B1A applies (subject to possible adjustment under Law 27D). To the extent that North has not received UI he may bid whatever he likes, but if he passes he will have to produce a good and convincing reason. (So long as North has not heard the exchanges between South and the Director 2♦ could even simply have been a mispull by South.) North must of course explain the true agreements.

Case 2: Once you wrote almost all hands that would open 2♦, that itself was the best evidence that 3♦ is not neccessarily a more precise call than the insufficient 2♦. South is of course allowed to make this response (or any other legal call available) but North will be forced to pass during the rest of the auction.

[gordontd]

dburn, on May 31 2010, 09:20 AM, said:

Some questions on Law 27 (real questions this time).

In the cases below, North opens 2♠, showing 3-8 points and (usually) six spades.

East passes and South bids 2♦. If you ask South away from the table why he did this, you will discover that he thought East was the dealer, and was unaware that his partner had opened anything at all.

Case 1.  South's 2♦ opening is natural, 12-16 points with 6+ diamonds, His 3♦ response to a 2♠ opening is also natural, but it is unconditionally forcing. Is he allowed to make this response? Is North allowed to pass it? If asked to explain it, what explanation should North give?

At the time of the introduction of the new Laws, Max Bavin gave a paper to the EBL and later to the EBU TDs, this part of which covers your first case:

Quote

Laws 27B1a and 27B1b work on the assumption that when the IB-er selects a call which does not silence partner, his hand actually conforms to the newly selected bid.

However, this will not necessarily be the case.  For example, it may make perfect bridge sense to make a slight misbid in order to keep the auction open rather than gamble on a final contract by making a call which silences partner.

It may also make perfect bridge sense for partner to assume that the IB-er may be ‘misbidding’, and to cater for (‘field’) this possibility.

All this is entirely legal – it is general bridge knowledge covered by Law 16A1(d).

This is why Law 27D exists.  If the player does misbid, or if his partner attempts to cater for it (regardless of whether there has been an actual misbid or not), then Law 27D may apply.

Note, however, that adjustments under Law 27D are entirely different to Law 16-type adjustments.  A Law 27D adjustment is back to the probable outcome of the board had the IB never occurred in the first place.

For those of us who allow ‘weighted’ adjusted scores under Law 12C, the adjusted score may be a weighted one and may even include part of the actual table result (something which is not permitted when adjusting under Law 16).

For your second case:

Quote

Case 2. South's 2♦ opening is artificial, 18-19 balanced. His 2NT response to a 2♠ opening is artificial, asking for further definition. Is South allowed to make this response (since almost all hands that would open 2♦ would ask for further definition opposite this 2♠ opening)? If asked to explain it, what explanation should North give?

the answer suggested by the question seems to me to be the wrong way around: for an L27B1b correction, the test from Max's paper is “Would all hands which might make the new call (the replacement bid) have also made the old call (the insufficient bid)?” Clearly there are many hands that would make an enquiry bid of 2NT that would not have opened 2♦.

[aguahombre]

gordontd, on May 31 2010, 02:27 PM, said:

For your second case:

Quote

Case 2. South's 2♦ opening is artificial, 18-19 balanced. His 2NT response to a 2♠ opening is artificial, asking for further definition. Is South allowed to make this response (since almost all hands that would open 2♦ would ask for further definition opposite this 2♠ opening)? If asked to explain it, what explanation should North give?

the answer suggested by the question seems to me to be the wrong way around: for an L27B1b correction, the test from Max's paper is “Would all hands which might make the new call (the replacement bid) have also made the old call (the insufficient bid)?” Clearly there are many hands that would make an enquiry bid of 2NT that would not have opened 2♦.

And yet in this case, allowing 2NT as a replacement for the insufficient 2D bid creates no useful UI. All it does is create useful AI for the opponents, and if the auction becomes competitive, other sections cover the UI which the 2♠ opener might have gained.

The 2♠ opener will answer the question asked by the 2NT response, and then the contract will be placed. A normal auction and result are restored. I would think that is what the framers of 27B1B were trying for, regardless of how poorly it is worded.