[blml] New L27 (again)

[Tony Musgrove]

At 01:55 AM 3/12/2007, you wrote:
>Tony Musgrove a écrit :
> > As I have mentioned previously, I am now using the new
> > laws and trying to get my spiels right.
> >
> > I never had any trouble with the old L27, although some
> > players were probably excecuted who would now get off
> > under the new rules.  For example:
> >
> > I was playing today as a fill in.  I opened 1NT (strong) and
> > LHO bid 1C, immediately saying, "Oh, I didn't see you bid",
> > and replaced the 1C by double before I could say anything.
> > My partner rejected the 1C insufficient bid, so under the old
> > rules I would have barred the 1C's partner, since 1C is of the
> > form:   could be a short as 2.
> > Upon reflection, I allowed the alteration to double in the case
> > in question, since their system calls a double of 1NT as "optional".
> > I suppose that means that it incorporates all the meaning of
> > 1C (I can open the bidding partner).  I am a bit uneasy about
> > this ruling since I would not have offered the chance of doubling
> > had I been called to the table under normal circumstances.
> >
> > Still awaiting some definitive ruling on this and other previous
> > cases

jpr:

>i think you were wrong to allow the alteration to double. the condition
>   for the replacement call to incorporate the information inbedded in
>the initial bid, means that the set of hands compatible with the
>replacement call is a subset of the set of hands compatible with the
>initial call. i think it was not the case here, rather the opposite. for
>example AK2,Q4,KJ975,J106 may be a double of 1NT and not a 1C opening.

Indeed, I would be more than happy never to offer the chance to replace a bid
by a double.  Now I am worried about my 1st case again:

1C (1S) 1H.  The offer of a change to 2H would certainly not be a subset
of hands which could respond 1H to 1C.

Cheers,

Tony (Sydney)