[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.
>> 

[JP]

> Sure thing David, but if I did this playing with you, any competent TD would
> smack us both with 72B1. otherwise we can play silly buggers all night. The
> auction continues without penalty, fine; but we're still cheats. which is
> what 72B1 is for.  John

I am not referring to cases where a player deliberately breaks a Law. I am
referring to cases in which, a Law having inadvertently been broken, a
player must (in effect) communicate illegally with his partner in order not
to suffer from having broken it.

David Burn
London, England