[blml] Law 27 revisitedd

[Jerry Fusselman]

Wonderful questions, Reg!  I too am eager to hear an authoritative
answer.  I am no authority, but I have opinions anyway.  My answers
would be as follows:

1.  No, he is not allowed to systemically misdescribe his hand to keep
partner in the auction. Furthermore, I don't think that he should be
allowed to bend the partnership agreements to correct with a
zero-penalty bid. I would even put the burden of proof that on the
partnership that no stretching is going on.

I believe I am in the minority here, but this is my reasoning:  We
should not allow a two-tiered system where a player bids sufficiently
when his hand perfectly meets the criteria for a bid and he bids
insufficiently when he must stretch to meet the criteria.  I admit
there are other ways to handle this.

2.  Same answer as #1.

3.  Even if my answers above are deemed wrong, it seems clear that EW
have a good case for damage.

Jerry Fusselman
3.