[blml] Law 27

[Steve Willner]

SW> Consider 2NT-P-2H.  It might have been intended to show spades
SW> (transfer over 1NT) or hearts (some natural bid).

> From: Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net>
> Steve's very nice exposition has clarified exactly where it is that  
> we differ.  

Eric and I have had a useful offline correspondence, and I think we now 
agree that there are two reasonable approaches:

> My [Eric's] position is that "the meaning of the IB" refers to the  
> IBer's intent

This is certainly one basis on which one could rule.  The IB then has a 
definite meaning, and the TD has to decide whether a potential RC has a 
meaning at least as specific as the IB.

> in Steve's reading,  
> L27B1(b) would allow for not only bids that show hearts and bids that  
> show spades, but also bids that show both, and bids that promise one  
> or the other.

Indeed.  The alternative basis on which one could rule is that the 
"meaning of the IB" is what it would have meant in the _union_ of all 
reasonable prior auctions.  In practice, I would define "reasonable" as 
a single mistake by IBer and only on the latest round of the auction, 
but still there will in general be very many possibilities.  This means 
in general many RCs will be allowed without barring partner.

I think Eric and I agree that either interpretation is consistent with 
the text of L27B1b.  I think we further agree that either can be 
implemented in practice, though each has its specific difficulties, and 
the optimum procedures to be used are not clear.  We could discuss the 
difficulties and recommend procedures if the authorities would tell us 
which fundamental interpretation is to be used.  Absent official 
interpretation, each RA (or in the ACBL, probably each individual TD) 
will choose some idiosyncratic view.