[blml] Law 27 - relay

[Robert Frick]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:08:21 -0400, David Burn <dalburn at btopenworld.com>  
wrote:

> [TM]
>
>> This is so confusing.  In the olden days, 2H was always allowed without
>> penalty provided not conventional.  So the IBer with an opening hand
>> would have probably bid 4H and barred partner, rather than risking his
>> passing.  Now there seems to be a thought, that provided partner
>> knows that the the IBer does in fact have an opening bid, he can
>> change to 2H under 27B1 (a), without any UI worries.  So a bidding
>> edifice might be structured starting at 2H instead of 2NT according
>> to DALB. As you say, surely this cannot be??  Please?
>
> Not only can it be, it already is. Even under the 1997 Laws, it is
> apparently possible to play inverted major suit raises - that is, to play
> 1H-2H as natural and forcing - by the simple expedient of first  
> responding
> 1H. With a normal raise to 2H, one simply responds 2H.
>
> One cannot, of course, play these methods very often, otherwise it will  
> be
> suspected that one is deliberately making insufficient bids, contrary to  
> Law
> 72B1.

It is pointless to play a system to try to benefit from an IB. If you get  
to the same contract as everyone else, you have wasted your time. If you  
get to a good contract that many people are not getting to, it had better  
be VERY obvious that you did not use the information in your IB, or else  
the director will rectify you (27D), and doubtful decisions will not go in  
your favor.

In other words, a system after insufficient bids (if you can have one)  
should be designed to recover from the IB, and only that.