[blml] Law 27 revisited

[Reg Busch]

Tony Musgrove wrote:

>At 12:52 PM 13/04/2008, you wrote:
>  
>
>> From Reg: I posed this problem:
>>    
>>
>
>cut a bit
>
>  
>
>>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)
>>    
>>
>
>amen.  As you know I have been trying out the 2007 and 2008 L27 for some 
>time.  Another little
>quirk I have discovered is in the case   1C (1S) 1H.   I have suggested 
>either neg. double or
>2H without penalty.  If you allow X, then you have to go to the hand 
>records and check
>to see whether the same number of tricks is made if the "wrong" player 
>declares in
>hearts.  It may not happen often, but presumably you need to check every 
>time.  This to
>my mind is the textbook example of an L27D correction.
>
>  
>
Reg: Tony, I disagree - that is, if my interpretation of 20D is correct 
. This is another rub of the green situation where by chance a different 
hand is playing the contract with a different lead. Surely we can't take 
away every good result the side get after an IB?

>(I vote firmly with Grattan on the example case, but presumably the 
>director has
>already suggested that 3NT is without penalty in that case.)   I would 
>never play a
>system where 1C (pass) 3NT absolutely denied a 4 card major, but if their 
>system
>notes say that a correction to 2 or 3 NT absolutely denies a 4 card major, 
>then in
>my opinion they cannot bid same with a 4 card major without barring partner.
>  
>
Reg: But under what Law?

>So they say to TD you, I want to deny my 4 card major, and bid 3NT anyway just
>so that partner can keep in the auction.  Say I,  you should have thought 
>of that
>when you werent watching the bidding.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Tony (Sydney)
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
>  
>