[blml] Your call

[Karel]

>
>As I said, I would bid 6NT over 3H, but probably not over 2H corrected to
>3H. And anyway the normal proceeding is first to establish if there was
>UI, *then* if there was LA, not to find that a decision was quite unusual,
>and concluding that it should have been triggered by some kind of UI...

I find this extremely dangerous, as it allows (if I dare say) crooks to
make a "light 3H bid" by bidding 2H then 3H, and have their partner
understand it.


+++ Jacques has already replied to a similar thread I put forth and his
position as the laws currently stand is absolutely correct.  Whoever created
law 27B has basically balanced the amount of work involved in looking into
the UI in *every* IB case versus legalising the the UI in a special case of
a corrected bid to the next level in the same denomination.  They tried to
keep the game rolling and make the contract playable as Jacques has stated.
No problem with that.

But to argue that there is no UI in the first place is ridiculous.  There is
and always will be and no esp is required.  You can't create a law which
allows a player to use UI in a particular instance and thereafter say no UI
occured.  What I dislike is how this " legal UI cop out" has now twisted the
onus of proof onto the NOS.  The huge majority of players will correct their
bid to the next denomination REGARDLESS of merit because they know there are
no penalties involved in this action L27B.  Generally speaking the NOS will
now not question any subsequent bidding or implications.  Maybe they get a
good score, maybe the opps land on their feet - maybe the auction is normal
and the game proceeds as normal and L27B worked as it was intended.


But ... If a pair brings a case where the majority are strongly in favour of
some action, then as we know we have legalised the UI element in this
particular scenario, the onus should be heavily on the OS to prove their
minority action wasn't effected by the UI (consciously or otherwise)
available.  Infact we should give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS.  In
the case quoted - 80% is massive and is a clear indication of an anti
percentage action taken via an abnormal auction.  I feel at the very least
the contract level should have been adjusted.


You have a problem here guys and I hate to say this but if the word gets out
alot of cowboys will be distinguishing between to play, invitational &
forcing with IB's.

Karel