[blml] Law 27 revisited

[Reg Busch]

Stefanie Rohan wrote:

>GE:
>
>  
>
>>+=+ Is partner unaware of the false description of the hand?
>>    
>>
>
>I doubt it. If a false description in order to be awarded a penalty-free 
>correction is a permitted strategy, partner will think that there is a good 
>chance a player has used such a strategy. Especially when the call is 
>changed from 1C to something as different as 3NT.
>
>I don't imagine, however, that such a correction would ever be allowed 
>without penalty anyway. But there will be realistic cases where the 
>misdescription get-out will cause problems. I truly hope that misdescribing 
>one's hand in any way does not end up being permitted. If it is legal and a 
>pair prfits therefrom, their opponents will be outraged. And rightly so.
>
>GE:
>
>  
>
>>If so
>>does not the principle apply which is set down in Law 40A3?
>>    
>>
>
>N/A
>
>Stefanie Rohan
>London, England 
>
>Reg:
>  
>
A bridge call has no intrinsic meaning. The only meaning it has is in 
the context of the agreed system. Thus an opening Pass can mean 'I don't 
have an opening hand' or 'I do have an opening hand' according to the 
system in use. As I would like Law 27 to be applied (and that for all I 
know may have been the intention) is for me to say to the IBer 'If you 
have an alternative  systemic call that describes the hand you hold, and 
conveys the same or a more precise meaning than the IB, then you may use 
that as a RC'.The 1C bid says 'I have at least 3 clubs'. Those who 
defend the right to a RC of 3NT which shows systemically four clubs see 
it as 'more precise'. I see it differently. The 1C says also that 'I may 
have as few as 3 clubs. The RC says I don't have as few as 3 clubs.' I 
see this as a different meaning, not a more precise one.

I see Law 40A3 as something of a red herring. You have committed an 
infraction, and law 27 gives you some (limited) options  to rescue your 
side from a difficult situation. Intentionally misbidding your hand is 
not one of your options. If you insist on your undoubted Law 40 right to 
misbid your hand, certainly you may, but Law 27 now says that this falls 
under 27B3, and the TD will bar partner.

We need clarification on two crucial issues. Are you entitled to 
intentionally misbid your hand under 27B1(b)? And, if you are, are the 
opponents entitled to redress under 27D? To me, it is not at all clear 
that they are. They were damaged by the nisbid (not the IB), and 27D 
allows redress only for damage from the IB.
Reg

>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
>  
>