[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2017-January-18, 01:29, said:

No, though he can ask the meaning of a 3H bid in this auction.

I don't think it can be correct to give LHO options without her knowing what the implications of her choice will be. Clearly, it matters whether there is a penalty-free correction -- this is a huge factor in her choice.

But I gather we will not have to worry about this much longer?

[Lanor Fow]

I agree it will affect her decision, but the current advice I've seen on ruling on these is that as a director I'm not meant to say whether there is a 27b1b replacement before a choice is made, but to make LHO aware of the law and make sure she is aware that she can ask questions about the system to determine for herself whether such is available.

I had to give such a ruling at YE to four experienced players. One had bid 1c (could be 2) not noticing a 1M bid before them. In this situation LHO decided not to accept the bid, but the table was then surprised that I then ruled 2c not to fit 27b1b. I gather than everyone (but the player I took away from the table) was expecting 1c to be replaced with 2c and bidding to continue.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-18, 03:41, said:

I don't think it can be correct to give LHO options without her knowing what the implications of her choice will be. Clearly, it matters whether there is a penalty-free correction -- this is a huge factor in her choice.

But I gather we will not have to worry about this much longer?

Law 9B2 said:

No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

And that says it all.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-18, 03:41, said:

I don't think it can be correct to give LHO options without her knowing what the implications of her choice will be. Clearly, it matters whether there is a penalty-free correction -- this is a huge factor in her choice.

But I gather we will not have to worry about this much longer?

Well the player doesn't have to decide what they are going to do until LHO has decided not to accept the insufficient bid and I can't see how you are going to compel them. As has always been said (including in the only written advice I've seen from the EBL/WBF, although it was written a long time ago soon after this law came into being) LHO is free to ask questions about their system and use that information in making the decision.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2017-January-18, 07:22, said:

Well the player doesn't have to decide what they are going to do until LHO has decided not to accept the insufficient bid and I can't see how you are going to compel them. As has always been said (including in the only written advice I've seen from the EBL/WBF, although it was written a long time ago soon after this law came into being) LHO is free to ask questions about their system and use that information in making the decision.

This might be too difficult, dince only the bidder and the director know what the bid was intended to mean. Probably both opponents or at least LHO should be told, otherwise she will not be equipped to ask relevant questions. Is this too mush information to give the opponents? Bid legally next time.

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-January-17, 15:51, said:

Because all players' choices after an error are void when the Director has given incorrect information on the options after that error.]

Do we know that he told the players that the IBer wouldn't be able to replace it with an equivalent call before asking his LHO whether he accepts the IB? At may not be technically correct, but many directors treat situations like this as two-part processes -- first they ask the next player if they'll accept it, then if it's not accepted they go to the IBer and tell them their options regarding the replacement call (and the corresponding implications).

This came up last night at the club. My partner made a lead out of turn. The TD first asked declarer if he'll accept it.

My partner did later ask me why the TD didn't tell declarer all the options he'll have regarding the penalty card if he doesn't accept it. I told him that directors often do this to avoid giving declarer a confusing array of implications all at once.

That's probably wrong, although in this case declarer was one of the most clueless players in the club, so his head probably would have been spinning if the director tried to follow the complete procedure.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-January-18, 09:31, said:

Do we know that he told the players that the IBer wouldn't be able to replace it with an equivalent call before asking his LHO whether he accepts the IB? At may not be technically correct, but many directors treat situations like this as two-part processes -- first they ask the next player if they'll accept it, then if it's not accepted they go to the IBer and tell them their options regarding the replacement call (and the corresponding implications).

This came up last night at the club. My partner made a lead out of turn. The TD first asked declarer if he'll accept it.

My partner did later ask me why the TD didn't tell declarer all the options he'll have regarding the penalty card if he doesn't accept it. I told him that directors often do this to avoid giving declarer a confusing array of implications all at once.

That's probably wrong, although in this case declarer was one of the most clueless players in the club, so his head probably would have been spinning if the director tried to follow the complete procedure.

That is a dilemma for any Director when the ruling depends on several choices (by NOS as well as by OS).
He may feel that he should try to simplify matters for the players and not confuse them, but it is still a Director's error if it turns out that a player has been deprived of some of his rights because of insufficient information from the Director.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-January-18, 09:31, said:

This came up last night at the club. My partner made a lead out of turn. The TD first asked declarer if he'll accept it.

My partner did later ask me why the TD didn't tell declarer all the options he'll have regarding the penalty card if he doesn't accept it. I told him that directors often do this to avoid giving declarer a confusing array of implications all at once

Directors do this"often"? I guess I am just lucky that I have never encountered this.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2017-January-17, 15:53, said:

No. I see no reference to 12C2 in 12C1d and no indication that the artificial scores assigned under 12C1d are limited to the narrow range mandated in 12C2.

pran, on 2017-January-17, 16:09, said:

There is an implied cross reference between 12C1d and 12C2:

12C1d simply allows the Director to award an artificial adjusted score in certain situations.

12C2 specifies how the Director shall proceed when awarding artificial adjusted scores and it includes a reference to 12C1d to make it clear that 12C1d cases are indeed subject to this procedure.

gordontd, on 2017-January-18, 01:28, said:

That's not how I read it. 12C2 specifies how to proceed when a result has been unable to be obtained. It also notes the existence of 12C1d, which applies in other situations, when a result has been obtained.

Okay, Gordon, I'll bite. What is the procedure for awarding an artificial adjusted score under 12C1{d}, and where in the laws is it specified?

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-18, 21:24, said:

Okay, Gordon, I'll bite. What is the procedure for awarding an artificial adjusted score under 12C1{d}, and where in the laws is it specified?

No procedure needed, and I checked with one of my colleagues that I'm not a lone voice in this. You just award an artificial score but are not subject to the constraints of 12C2 so you could for example award 80/40 if you thought that reflected the numerous likely outcomes. In practice I've never encountered the need to do this as it's not usually necessary to award artificial scores in these cases.

[blackshoe]

I see. Why then does 12C2 refer to 12C1{d} in the way that it does? Will the "disconnect" between 12C1{d} and 12C2 be clearly identified in the new laws?

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-19, 11:16, said:

I see. Why then does 12C2 refer to 12C1{d} in the way that it does? Will the "disconnect" between 12C1{d} and 12C2 be clearly identified in the new laws?

I would have thought it was to distinguish between the two different situations. But prompted by your post I've looked at the new laws and see that a reference to 12C2 has been added to 12C1d, so perhaps I'm wrong. It doesn't seem to me to be completely unambiguous though, but I doubt either of us is ever going to be in a situation where it matters!

[axman]

gordontd, on 2017-January-19, 02:49, said:

No procedure needed, and I checked with one of my colleagues that I'm not a lone voice in this. You just award an artificial score but are not subject to the constraints of 12C2 so you could for example award 80/40 if you thought that reflected the numerous likely outcomes. In practice I've never encountered the need to do this as it's not usually necessary to award artificial scores in these cases.

I am inclined to see blackshoe's view as so strong that this view has no merit. 12C2 gives the parameters for the range of art scores such that when a (different) law specifies an art score it is important to look to 12C2.

[steve2005]

Why isn't the actual hand posted? Then you can make an educated guess as to possible outcomes instead of guessing.

[blackshoe]

An educated guess may be better than an uneducated guess, but it's still a guess.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-19, 15:43, said:

An educated guess may be better than an uneducated guess, but it's still a guess.

True, but the law says the TD is supposed to try. We resort to the artificial adjusted score only when we determine that this isn't feasible.

[blackshoe]

Also true.