[blml] New L27 (again)

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*****************************
One of the great joys in later life is 
not to be faced with hikes in mortgage 
repayments when  the last repayment 
has been made.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tony Musgrove" <ardelm at optusnet.com.au>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:12 PM
Subject: [blml] New L27 (again)


> 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
> 
+=+ Dear Tony, 
                  In the spirit of the pioneer you are seeking to walk 
where none but the gods have walked before. It is a little early 
to ask for a map. I do know of one or two intentions to switch 
to the 2007 laws on January 1st - the earliest date authorized. 
Others plan to follow later - some as late as September 2008. 
        It happens that Law 27C is one of the first that we have 
been discussing for treatment in the planned Appendix. There 
are two reasons that inhibit revelation of what the Appendix 
will say about it.  First, we are not yet consensually agreed on 
every aspect of 27C. Second, opinion is split in the drafting 
committee as to whether we should wait until (substantially) the 
whole appendix has been agreed or whether we should make 
each item available as we reach agreement on it. 
         To be helpful if I can, it is the case that there is core 
agreement that the offending side should not gain advantage 
out of information from the withdrawn bid that is not contained 
within the meaning of the substituted call. There is also a thought, 
not yet agreed, that if the Director is of the opinion that the 
substituted call so very nearly meets the requirements of this law 
as to be unlikely to affect the outcome of the hand he should 
allow it - but use Law 27C2  if it eventually appears the margin 
may indeed have affected the outcome. I do not foresee where 
we will arrive with this.        
                                    ~ Grattan ~   +=+