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

[Robert Frick]

Hi. Small, hopefully irrelevant point below. (I currently have a 24-hour  
delay in receiving blml messages, so I cannot know if anyone else has  
addressed this.)

>
> 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.

This is phrased as a Law 16 adjustment. You have to add that they  
might/would have gotten to 3NT without assistance from the insufficient  
bid. (In other words, if the field is in 2NT, there is no basis for  
adjustment in Law 27D.) I realize that this could be something that goes  
without saying, but it seemed like the wrong context for doing that.

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