[blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion.

[David Burn]

[GE]

>> +=+ I quote from some current explorations of 27B:-
>> ......................................................................
>> .....................
>>        << When 27B1(a) does not apply 27B1(b) applies if
>>     (i) the RC has the same meaning as the IB, or
>>     (ii) the RC has a meaning fully contained within the
>>     meaning of the IB and is more precise in regard to
>>     what it shows and what it excludes.
>> 
>>     Partner of the offender must take the RC at face
>>     value. (The offender may misbid provided his partner
>>     has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than
>>     have opponents.) If partner's action is not consistent
>>     with the meaning of the RC adjust under 27D.>>
>> ......................................................................
>> .....................
>> These are not 'definitive' since the statements are still being
>> 'tested out', but they are worthy of perusal on that basis.

[EL]
 
> Excellent guideline.  We seem to be moving towards a workable notion
> of how to apply the new L27B1 at the table.

[DALB]

Pleased to hear it. But what is meant by "face value"?

It has been said that under the current Law 27 as much as under the future
Law 27, when North opens 1H and sees that South has already opened 1H and
West has passed, North may correct to a natural and forcing 2H. When South
opens 1H and North, thinking that South has opened 1D, responds 1H, North
may correct to a natural and non-forcing 2H. What has this to do with taking
the RC at "face value"?

David Burn
London, England