[blml] personal Law 27 revisited

[Robert Frick]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:05:55 -0400, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:

> On Apr 13, 2008, at 2:45 AM, 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.
>>
>> (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.
>> 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.
>
> Forget the IB for a moment.  The auction goes 1C-P-.  3NT would
> absolutely deny a four-card  major, and you have one, but you decide
> for tactical reasons that you want to bid 3NT anyhow.  Do you call
> the director to ask permission?  Do you think that if you did it
> might be denied?  Do you not think that the director would explain
> your right to bid whatever you want, as conveyed by L40A3 subject to
> the constraints of L40C1?
>
> Where in L27 is there anything at all to suggest that it might
> nullify L40A3?


Hi Eric. Personal reply, I am trying not to post as much as I would like  
to BLML.

If the director allows the 3NT correction even with a 4-card major, and if  
the player knows that, then the 3NT bid is now given the extra meaning  
that the player might have a four-card major and selected 3NT anyway as  
the least of bad choices.

In the new laws, apparently this knowledge is treated as AI. Your example  
is difficult to construct a use of this AI, but what about this?

1C      3NT
4NT(1)  5S
6S

4NT is a quantitative invitation to slam. Partnership agreements might  
make it clear on the meaning of the 5S bid. If not, opener is more likely  
to interpret it as a spade suit if 3NT was a correction to the  
insufficient bid of 1C.

I am not saying that the 3NT correction should be disallowed, even though  
I would prefer that. I am actually very confused on that. Using the old  
laws, the opp in front of me opens 1C and I try to open 1C. Can I correct  
to 2C with a 3-card club suit? Then won't my partner take into account  
that I don't have a 5-card club suit? And if I can do it with the new  
laws, the problem is worse, because the change will be AI.

I am just saying that Law40A3 probably does not supply the support you are  
looking for.

Bob