[blml] 27B1(b) cases and misbids.

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*************************
"Loquacity storms the ear, but
 modesty takes the heart."
                - Thomas Fuller.

*************************
+=+ My further discussion with Max Bavin has led to
the following position. If anyone wishes to comment on
this please send to me and NOT to Max who has a very
busy schedule.       ~ Grattan ~ +=+
...............................................................................

[Max]
I'm relieved to say that I now agree that we cannot go via
Law 16 in 27B1(b) cases; the score adjustment (if any) is
via 27D.

Curiously, though, the effect is similar either way i.e. the
circumstances in which we consider adjusting are the same.
It's the adjustment itself which is different (27D is to a
normal bridge result prior to the IB; 16D would have been
for an obligation for a player to make/not make a particular
bid or play after the IB/RC).

To summarise, mis-bidding is OK (i.e. it does not cause the
TD to examine whether the side have gained any assistance
through the infraction), but catering for it is not (i.e. it does
cause the TD to examine whether the side have gained any
assistance through the infraction).

Just to double check that we are now in total agreement. 2D
opening - 1H undercall. 1H is artificial showing a balanced
13-17. Replaced with 2NT showing a balanced 15-17
(assume this is OK for the sake of the example).

i) responder raises to game with his 10 count. Game makes.
The overcaller has only 13 points. Outcome; they've got lucky
- score stands.

ii) responder passes with his 10 count. Game doesn't make.
Outcome; regardless of whether the overcaller has his bid or
not, the score is adjusted to game going off.

When I come to writing up my notes for the Zone 1 lecture,
I'm hoping beyond hope that everyone already understands
27B1(a) as this is effectively the same as the old 1997 law.
However, from some things I've read of late from other parts
of the world, I'm not entirely convinced that such is the case.
Of course we never discuss these things at International
tournaments because we have screens so the situation never
arises.
.................................................................................................
[Grattan]
+=+ I agree. If you would let me have your notes for the seminar
I will pass them on to a number of places around the world where
they would very much like to read them. (I am also copying this
message to a wider audience, on the understanding that any reaction
should come to me as you will not have time to deal with responses.)
       One thing I feel it would be right to look at is the situation with
screens if, as I believe, Law 80B2(e) tells us that rectification for
actions transmitted through screens is not open to variation and such
actions are to be dealt with in accordance with the normal law.
.................................................................................................
[I should add to the above that a pattern of repeated
infractions could well be considered under Law 72B1
                                                             ~ G ~ ]