[blml] Your call

[Eric Landau]

At 07:58 PM 6/13/06, Karel wrote:

>I have to admit though to some disappointment to "the head in the sand"
>attitude of Law 27B1.  How can one suggest that correcting a bid passes no
>UI ??  It always does, whether it is a vibe, the knowledge that pd didnt
>mean to bid what they did and the implications of what the bid actually
>showed as opposed to the corrected bid, the "happiness" at correcting the
>bid (ie) yes they have values or don't, etc, etc.  There is always UI in
>some form.
>
>and ... even if you do say ok the call was corrected smoothly no UI 
>... what
>happens in the current case ...
>
>The evidence is quite strong that the OS acted on "the vibe".  You do 
>a poll
>and as suspected the majority bid on.  Of course the opps will never admit
>to this (considering their options etc etc will be their stance) knowing
>full well 27B1 covers them.  The OS may infact act completely in good 
>faith
>and yet still have acted unconciously on "the vibe" or UI.

I hope I have misunderstood this.  Karel seems to be saying that after 
a corrected IB, if the IBer's partner takes an unusual action, then 
"even if... the call was corrected smoothly no UI... the evidence is 
quite strong that the OS acted on 'the vibe'".  Is he really saying 
that in these situations we are to presume that the OS is psychic and 
that the bidder must have obtained UI via ESP?

L27B1 specifies only that the IB itself ("the irregularity") carries no 
penalty, and that L16C2 does not apply.  It does nothing to preclude 
the application of L16A if there is evidence that the IB and/or 
correction did convey UI which was subsequently acted upon.


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607