[blml] Law 27 revisited

[Reg Busch]

 From Reg: I posed this problem:

Eric and others: Applying 27D as you see it, take a situation much like the current one but a littlle different. The bidding goes 1C - 1C corrected after consulting the TD to 3NT. Again South bids 6NT. As it happens this time the IB has prevented NS from finding their spade fit. 6NT makes but at the other table (and most of the field) 6S fails on a 5/0 spade break. EW claim damage. 17 imps hang on your decision. Do you adjust?

Two exprienced TDs (Eric and John) would adjust. Grattan wouldn't. I wouldn't. I see this as analogous to the 1997 situation where you bar partner by an insufficient conventional bid, and have a bash at 3NT, a terrible contract you would not have reached in a normal auction. But it makes via a magic lie of the cards. This is rub of the green. The offenders have blundered into a good spot and are entitled to their results.It seems to me that the approach of Eric and John would take away any good result the offenders happen to get.But doesn't the fact that very experienced TDs can reach different conclusions suggest that we need more guidelines?

Let me presume to state what I see as the rationale underlying Law 27. Start with 27A1(a) e.g. 1H - 1H (corrected to 2H). Under 16D, the 1H call is UI. But Law 27 specifically exempts this from 16D. Why? Because,if 16D applied,it would make the subsequent auction a farce. But opponents are protected under 27D.If the IB even though it is AI enables offenders to find a better spot than they might have, the TD will adjust. For example, bot sides know after the IB that they are going to game. If the extra room allowed them to bid to a slam they may not have found in a normal auction, the TD will adjust.


On to 27B1(b). The same rationale. It is only if the information frm the IB itself helps the offenders to a good score that the TD will adjust under 27D. In an earlier submission, I raised the question of whether the IB replaced under 27B1(b) was UI. Richard suggested that it wasn't by virtue of the TD's ruling that the RC had the same meaning. But I still contend that, while it may not be important in practice, by definition it is UI under 16D, and hasn't been exempted by law as has the IB in 27B1(a).

I have directed at all levels in Australia for 30 years, and I'm having difficulty in fully understanding the new Law 27. And the evidence above shows that very experienced TDs can take opposing viewpoints,I feel sorry for the playing club directors when they are called for this quite common infraction. The ABF plan to adopt the 2007 Laws on June 1st. Perhaps unwisely I have agreed to conduct an unofficial seminar for club directors in my non-metropolitan area, with several medium sized clubs all with playing directors. I'm still not sure how to explain the new Law 27 to them. I console myself with the thought that we'll probably have lots of wrong ru;lings, but the players won't understand the Law either so there may not be too many ructions,

Top of my wishlist is this: That the WBF urgently issue some specific and detailed guidelines on the intent and the practical application of Law 27, with lots of examples. Some of the things I wish to see are: (others may have more)
1. For a RC under Law 27B1(b), does the hand have to be consistent with the partnership agreement? For example: with  a 1C - 1C (promising only three clubs) can the IB be replaced with a 3NT bid systemically promising four clubs?

2. If that is not a requirement, are the opponents protected by 27D if they are damaged by the misbid? (As I see it, they are not at present).If the TD allows the non-systemic 3NT, should he advise opponents that the bid is now not necessarily systemic?

3. Is 27D to be applied only in the narrow sense that I have already mentioned, or does it have a more wide-ranging meaning?

4. Is the IB replaced under 27B1(b) UI or AI?

If the WBF does not issue such guidelines, does the local RA have the right to do so/ I don;t believe that this is so - as I see it, only the WBF can issue interpretations of its own laws.

Reg