[PrecisionL]

blackshoe, on 2018-September-26, 18:11, said:

Who is "ACBL"? If it's not the Board of Directors in an official pronouncement of the board, then I submit that "ACBL" didn't tell you anything. Sounds like some director's opinion. He might be right, but then again he might not.

Consulted with rulings@acbl.org plus an education class at Gatlinburg on the new laws.

[gordontd]

PrecisionL, on 2018-September-26, 18:38, said:

Consulted with rulings@acbl.org plus an education class at Gatlinburg on the new laws.

Using a negative double as a replacement for an insufficient response in the auction 1m - (1S) - 1H was the poster child for the new Law 27B1b when it was introduced in 2007, and this sort of use has been further extended in 2017. I suspect you were given one situation when a double was considered not to be an appropriate replacement call, rather than a blanket prohibition.

[weejonnie]

blackshoe, on 2018-September-26, 18:31, said:

Is this based on some EBU regulation? It's certainly not a matter of law, afaics. And I'm pretty sure in the ACBL you're not supposed to alert calls just because there is no partnership agreement. Other jurisdictions, I don't know. Asking about comparable calls might be justified under the "alternative calls not made" provision of Law 20, or it might be disallowed because once an IB is withdrawn (because not accepted) any "comparable calls" are future calls, and I don't think a player is permitted to ask about those.

You can ask about relevant calls not made when the IB was selected until you decide to refuse to accept the call. Once that is done you can only ask about relevant calls to the replaced call.

And YES! The EBU thinks that because you are entitled to know about the other side's agreements you are entitled to know when they don't have an agreement.

Example: Blue Book 2D1

(b) The partner has given an incorrect statement of the partnership understanding (including stating incorrectly that there is, or is not, any mutual agreement). If the opponents have been damaged by this they are entitled to redress.

and 2D2

Unless a player knows that his partner’s call is not alertable (or announceable) he must alert. If the player is unsure when asked for its meaning he may refer the opponents to the system card if it is likely to be on the card. If there is no relevant partnership understanding, he must not say how he intends to interpret his partner’s call.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2018-September-26, 18:15, said:

That's not how it works. First, 3♥ is ignored for the moment. If 2♥ is not accepted, both bids are cancelled and the appropriate law applied to 2!H. If 2♥ is accepted, 3♥ stands and the appropriate part of 27B is applied to that. NOS does not get the opportunity to accept or reject 3!H.

I think your last two sentences should read “If 2♥ is NOTaccepted, 3♥ stands and the appropriate part of 27B is applied to that. NOS does not get the opportunity to accept or reject 3♥.”

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2018-September-26, 10:37, said:

I don't know whether a PD would be comparable in this case. Assuming the Heart overcall shows a natural heart suit (at least 4), the penalty double (assuming it is so) a desire to punish a 2 heart contract by the opponents e.g. on cards and AQJ stiff in hearts. Note that the caller's partner cannot make use of the fact that the 2H call was withdrawn to deduce that the double is a penalty double.

But if their agreement is that double would be penalty here and the hearts cards held are those indicated in OP, then double would be comparable?

weejonnie, on 2018-September-26, 10:37, said:

I don't think the TD can tell you (the opponent) what CCs the offender has available. However you can ask (it is your turn to call at the moment).

Whether that will be successful or not I don't know.

I can see it turning into a farce, where the offender now asks the TD about his possible CCs.

weejonnie, on 2018-September-26, 10:37, said:

One could argue that the correct explanation from partner about the meaning of the original (insufficient bid) is "No partnership agreement" - which suggests that if partner DOES make an insufficient bid then you must alert it!

I take it you are kidding here: if you had any agreement about the meaning of an insufficient bid it would be a serious matter, I think.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2018-September-26, 12:42, said:

3♥ is a cuebid by definition, because it's a bid in a suit bid or shown by opponents. That doesn't mean that 3♥ is not natural. That depends on the meaning of the cuebid.

Isn't this why we have to find out what the offender thought was going on when they made the IB? If they didn't notice 2♥, then they didn't intentionally bid the opponent's suit.

[blackshoe]

sanst, on 2018-September-27, 02:08, said:

I think your last two sentences should read “If 2♥ is NOTaccepted, 3♥ stands and the appropriate part of 27B is applied to that. NOS does not get the opportunity to accept or reject 3♥.”

Quote

Law 27A1: Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender’s LHO. It is accepted if that player calls.

If it's accepted, it stands, the premature correction is withdrawn, and there is no further rectification. The withdrawn call may convey UI to the bidder's partner (Law 16C).

Quote

Law 27C: If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on rectification, the substitution, if legal, stands unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A1 allows (but see B3 above). The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution.

If the IB (2♥) is not accepted, the substitution (3♥) stands.

Looks like you're right, I got my nots in a knot.

[weejonnie]

pescetom, on 2018-September-27, 07:38, said:

But if their agreement is that double would be penalty here and the hearts cards held are those indicated in OP, then double would be comparable?



I can see it turning into a farce, where the offender now asks the TD about his possible CCs.


I take it you are kidding here: if you had any agreement about the meaning of an insufficient bid it would be a serious matter, I think.

If the agreement that a double in this situation is for penalty AND shows at least 4 hearts then I would agree.


I think the offender need only be told the law by the TD. It is up to him to understand the law - ignorance of the law is no defence - and decide whether he has a CC before making his call. Once made then the TD must find out what the call means and decide it is comparable or not. This should mean looking at the CC and asking questions of the offender's partner (as if he were another player). I agree that there are arguments made that the offender should be told by the TD whether he will accept a call as being comparable were he to make it - but that would certainly involve a long discussion away from the table. As I say - there is nothing in the law that requires a TD to say how (s)he will rule in hypothetical situations.

Of course it would be a serious matter, if you had an agreement to make an IB: but the EBU Blue book says that you should alert any call if you have no agreement what it means: I am just pointing out the result of that rule in this case.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2018-September-27, 08:39, said:

Isn't this why we have to find out what the offender thought was going on when they made the IB? If they didn't notice 2♥, then they didn't intentionally bid the opponent's suit.

We need to determine meanings that are "attributable". I don't believe that necessarily requires us to find out the intention behind the call.

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2018-September-27, 09:35, said:

We need to determine meanings that are "attributable". I don't believe that necessarily requires us to find out the intention behind the call.

But players generally don't have agreements about the meanings attribuable to IBs.

2NT-2♣ -- what is the meaning attributable to this? Is it the meaning that 2♣ would have if partner had opened 1NT (regular Stayman for this pair), or the meaning that 3♣ would have over 2NT (Puppet Stayman for this pair)?

SImilarly with the bid in this auction, 1♠ (P) 2♦ (2♥) - 2♥ -- does it have the meaning it would have without the interference (natural), or does it have the meaning that 3♥ would have in the actual auction (a cue bid)?

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2018-September-28, 06:52, said:

But players generally don't have agreements about the meanings attribuable to IBs.

2NT-2♣ -- what is the meaning attributable to this? Is it the meaning that 2♣ would have if partner had opened 1NT (regular Stayman for this pair), or the meaning that 3♣ would have over 2NT (Puppet Stayman for this pair)?

SImilarly with the bid in this auction, 1♠ (P) 2♦ (2♥) - 2♥ -- does it have the meaning it would have without the interference (natural), or does it have the meaning that 3♥ would have in the actual auction (a cue bid)?

In most cases we don't need to find a single attributable meaning; we are looking for all meanings that might be attributed to this call, and then from among them we can determine which replacement calls might be comparable.

In your first auction above, 2♣ might show clubs, or might show a game-forcing opening hand, or might show an enquiry for the major suits. Any one of those is a meaning that is attributable to the call, and the law can be applied on that basis.

In the original auction of this thread, the two obvious attributable meanings are: natural, hearts; or artificial forcing bid. Others, more imaginative than I, might be able to think of further possibilities.

[barmar]

Yes, I think we had this discussion before -- as long as the replacement is comparable to the meaning in any of the auctions the offender might have thought was going on, it's OK.

I actually liked this interpretation of yours, since it avoids the TD having to read minds or take the offender's word for what they intended, although I don't think there was much concensus that it's what was intended.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2018-September-28, 07:25, said:

Yes, I think we had this discussion before -- as long as the replacement is comparable to the meaning in any of the auctions the offender might have thought was going on, it's OK.

I actually liked this interpretation of yours, since it avoids the TD having to read minds or take the offender's word for what they intended, although I don't think there was much consensus that it's what was intended.

You are correct that this is not universally accepted. I hope that when the Commentary on the laws is published (soon!) it will clarify this among other things, one way or the other. The law does in part talk of "meanings attributable", which I believe supports my interpretation.