[alphatango]

 gordontd, on 2011-June-22, 17:38, said:

We do generally say that, and it's a helpful aid in most circumstances. But it's not what the Law itself says, and in this unusual circumstance (where people make calls with no meaning at all) I think we need to go back to the original text.

Indeed. But then I read:

Footnote to L27 said:

* the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes.

and it is not clear to me what this implies in the case of "bids with no meaning". (Actually, perhaps it shows that the player does not know his system, and he may thus replace the insufficient bid with any other legal call which shows that he does not know his system...)

And, now that I have been reminded, a further question came up in a recent session for those who advocate discovering the player's intention: where the two do not coincide, are you trying to find out the auction the player intended, or the meaning the player intended to convey? For example, consider a case where the player has forgotten some bit of system in making his call, but has now remembered it during his conversation with the director (without the assistance of UI, of course).

[Vampyr]

 alphatango, on 2011-June-22, 21:38, said:

And, now that I have been reminded, a further question came up in a recent session for those who advocate discovering the player's intention: where the two do not coincide, are you trying to find out the auction the player intended, or the meaning the player intended to convey? For example, consider a case where the player has forgotten some bit of system in making his call, but has now remembered it during his conversation with the director (without the assistance of UI, of course).

It seems that in this case, the player is able to choose the meaning that gives him a correction without penalty.

[bluejak]

 gordontd, on 2011-June-22, 17:38, said:

We do generally say that, and it's a helpful aid in most circumstances. But it's not what the Law itself says, and in this unusual circumstance (where people make calls with no meaning at all) I think we need to go back to the original text.

So you think that a meaning of a certain subset of hands is "more precise" than a null set? Suppose the insufficient bid was a nearly null set [only used with 13 card suits, for example]. Then is it more precise?

It does not feel right that we have explained the rule as the replacement call is allowed if the set of hands described is included in the original set, and you say that the rule should now be the replacement call is allowed if the set of hands described is included in the original set or if the original set is a null set. It feels completely wrong to me, and I do not think the wording is clear enough to say that is what it means.

[gordontd]

 bluejak, on 2011-June-23, 07:53, said:

It does not feel right that we have explained the rule as the replacement call is allowed if the set of hands described is included in the original set, and you say that the rule should now be the replacement call is allowed if the set of hands described is included in the original set or if the original set is a null set. It feels completely wrong to me, and I do not think the wording is clear enough to say that is what it means.

Then we should have further debate about it, though I don't think the possibility of calls with absolutely no meaning had been considered when the original debate took place in advance of the laws coming into force. I've certainly asked a couple of our senior colleagues (though I'm not completely certain which ones) whether they think we should allow any replacement if we really are convinced the insufficient bid is without meaning, and I thought they both agreed.

To my mind, if the Insufficient Bid + Replacement Bid provides no more information than would the Replacement Bid by itself, then it seems to fulfil the requirements of the law, and I remember a point like this being made at the original EBU TD weekend on the new laws back in 2008(?)

Maybe RMB1 and mamos would like to continue this discussion?

[WellSpyder]

 gordontd, on 2011-June-22, 17:38, said:

We do generally say that, and it's a helpful aid in most circumstances. But it's not what the Law itself says, and in this unusual circumstance (where people make calls with no meaning at all) I think we need to go back to the original text.

Bluejak has argued strongly in the past that there is no such thing as an "impossible" bid. This has typically been in the context of partner's bidding not providing confirmation that he must have got the system wrong and thereby negating the effects of UI. But I think a similar argument could apply here. The fact that the system does not allow a 2♥ response to a 2♣ opening bid does not mean that such a bid has no meaning, even if I can't work out what on earth partner was trying to tell me....

[RMB1]

If the auction is 2♣-(2♠)-2♥ and the agreement is that 2♣-(P)-2♥ has no meaning then we can assume that the 2♥ bidder was not intending to bid on the auction 2♣-(P)- . (It is implicit in our approach to Law 27 that there is an intended meaning for the insufficient bid.)

I am sure that if we speak to offender away from the table, he will not say both that he intended to bid 2♥ on the auction 2♣-(P)-2♥ and that their agreement is that all hands bid 2♣-(P)-2♦.

[gordontd]

 WellSpyder, on 2011-June-23, 08:15, said:

Bluejak has argued strongly in the past that there is no such thing as an "impossible" bid. This has typically been in the context of partner's bidding not providing confirmation that he must have got the system wrong and thereby negating the effects of UI. But I think a similar argument could apply here. The fact that the system does not allow a 2♥ response to a 2♣ opening bid does not mean that such a bid has no meaning, even if I can't work out what on earth partner was trying to tell me....

And yet he was the one who introduced the most recent auction and said "Now 2♥ has no meaning..."

[gordontd]

 bluejak, on 2011-June-22, 17:21, said:

Are you sure? We generally say that a call is allowed if any hand that would make the call would also make the original call. If the original call has no meaning then this is certainly not the case.

The other thing that occurs to me is that since that guidance was given we have been told to take a more liberal approach to allowing replacement calls, and Max has been reported as saying that the original document is out of date and no longer valid.

[alphatango]

 RMB1, on 2011-June-23, 08:16, said:

I am sure that if we speak to offender away from the table, he will not say both that he intended to bid 2♥ on the auction 2♣-(P)-2♥ and that their agreement is that all hands bid 2♣-(P)-2♦.

Director: What relevant agreements do you have?
Player: We had five minutes to discuss system before the session, so our only agreement is that all hands have to bid 2♦ over 2♣.
Director: So why did you try to have the auction 2♣-(Pass)-2♥?
Player: Well, I found seven solid hearts and nothing else, and I thought I might have a better chance of convincing partner to play hearts if I got my first heart bid in before he bid spades (2♣-2♥-2♠-3♥-3♠-4♥, for example).
Director: But your agreement is that 2♥ has no meaning.
Player: True, but I was hoping he'd catch on eventually.

I hope no one will suggest that they have an implicit agreement to bid 2♥ on a hand with seven solid hearts...yet.

[blackshoe]

David, by "null set" do you mean "empty set"? (The empty set is a null set, but not all null sets are empty).

[RMB1]

In some branches of mathematics (e.g. set theory) "null set" means "empty set"; for instance in formulations of the axiom of the empty/null set. In some other branches of mathematics (e.g. measure theory) a "null set" means any set of negligible content (e.g. measure zero).

Given that bridge is an essentially discrete realm of discourse, "null set" in this context must mean "empty set".

[blackshoe]

If you say so, Robin.

[bluejak]

I meant empty set if there really is a difference [angels and pins come to mind].

I did not say that there is no such thing as a bid with no meaning, I said there is no such thing as an impossible bid. For example there was a sequence in London 1NT p 2♣ [Stayman] p 6♥. Now, I am not suggesting the pair had an agreement as to what 6♥ meant, but I dislike people calling bids like 6♥ impossible, because they are not, as proved by this one happening.

[aguahombre]

Is "improbable" o.k.?

[mycroft]

or, to give two examples from one tournament, 1♣ (nat, sound)-(1♦)-1NT; 4NT and 1♠-3♠; 7♠.