[blml] Law 27 - relay

[David Burn]

[SR]

>> I do not think that this scenario is possible. The IBer's partner must
>> assume that the 2H bid is according to system. So instead of 1H-2H-4H, the
>> auction is likely to go: 1H-2H-P.

[JP]

> s'ok Stef, next time I play with Burn I'll pull 1H over his 1H and correct
> to 2H. We shall see whether Burn thinks he's playing with Probst or a probst
> cheat :)

[DALB]

There is no question of cheating. The Law as presently constituted (and the
Law as constituted in the future) means that if I respond 1H to 1H having
meant to open 1H, I can correct to 2H and my partner may bid in the
knowledge that I intended to open.

If, however, I correct to 2H having thought I was responding to 1D, my
partner may bid in the knowledge that I have a raise to 2H.

The observant will have noticed that an assumption behind both of these
scenarios is that the reason for the IB is AI to the partner of the
insufficient bidder. There has been debate about whether this should be so,
or indeed whether it is so. But I remind you that I am talking here not
about the new Law 27, but about a Law that has existed for over a decade.

David Burn
London, England