[blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1

[Jan Peach]

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steve Willner 
  To: blml at rtflb.org 
  Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 12:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1
  Snip

  In the approach I favor, the IBer (and for thet matter, other players 
  but especially IBer's partner) have to be asked for _all_ the reasonable 
  meanings of the IB.  No reason that can't be done at the table.  The TD 
  should be careful to caution IBer _not_ to reveal specifically what he 
  was thinking but rather to list all the possibilities.

  Snip
Several BLMLers have wondered how rank and file directors will interpret 27B1(b).

Into the cooking pot go all the components of all the realistically possible meanings of the IB. From that pot the IBer can select the bits he needs for the new call. Bits left in the pot make the new call more precise.

I had wondered whether the discussion about system could be done at thetable. Maybe it needs to be done away from the table to leave partner and the opponents to reach their own conslusions as to what the IB could mean. (Moving a player away from the table isn't always easy to do.) If the IBer does telegraph to the table what he intended his bid to mean then it is simply UI to partner. The director continues with "all realistically possible meanings". As director, I have no interest in what a bid meant, just what it possibly meant.

I think allowing a new call that turns out not to satisfy 27B1(b) is a director error not 27D.

Some questions about my cooking pot......

Can something that didn't go into the pot be taken out? I note that "more precise" has been interpreted by some to mean fewer possible hand types by showing a longer suit or by adding a suit that wasn't in any of the IB possibilities. 

If a new suit may be added (and I am not too happy about this), does the hand have to actually have it? May the new call be a psyche? 

I see he beauty in 27B1(b) as being able to allow auctions to continue normally when there has been a high level insufficient asking bid or insufficient response to an asking bid (and which are the intended bid. Intended bids not intended infractions.) Some sort of auction to 5NT (King Ask) followed by a 5D response. The world and his dog knows the information is "One King". These are the cruel situations under the 1997 laws when the offender is usually left to agonize over the final contract.

I'm not at all concerned that 27B1(b) may have few other applications.

I don't believe the director should approve the choice of sufficient call. Having fully explained the requirements of 27B1(b) (probably several times) do I rectify an unsuitable call under 27B2 or 27B3?
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080405/82ee5ab5/attachment.htm