[blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Jesper Dybdal]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:31:14 +1100, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:

>(1) Informal sources of ideas can be more useful
>than formal sources.  One might argue that blml
>is a particularly useful source of ideas, since
>a bad idea by one blmler is quickly refuted by
>other blmlers.  So, for example, the 1997 Law
>25B would have been stillborn if it had been
>subject to blml forensic scrutiny in 1996 

Yes, indeed.

>(if
>blml had existed back then).

BLML did actually exist - its was born 1996-04-24.

>(4) Given that Grattan has previously advised
>that the EBU is deferring printing the 2007
>Lawbook, is it possible that the new Laws are
>not set in stone and a footnote will be added
>to Law 27C?

The deferred printing of the EBU edition does not help much in countries
where the book was printed in early December and has been in use since
January 1 - e.g., Denmark.

However, if the WBFLC comes up with improvements for L27, I'm sure we
will find a way to handle them.

I appreciate the DSC showing a draft to the NBOs, but I think it would
have been a good idea to also let the public in general, and BLML in
particular, see and discuss a very-close-to-final draft.  Among all the
noise it would generate, there would undoubtedly have been a few points
that would be interesting to the DSC.

We had a L27 ruling in our club Tuesday, which caused us to discover an
aspect of L27 that we had not noticed before:

North opens 1D.  East passes.  South "opens" 1C.  West calls the TD, but
before the TD arrives, South replaces 1C by 2C.

The TD rules that 2C does not incorporate all the information from 1C
(that decision is not the point here).  L27E then tells us that the
correction stands, and the TD applies L27D, silencing North for the rest
of the auction.  South, who believed he was making a forcing call, is
now forced to play 2C and does not get a good score.

There are two points here:
* It seems a bit hard that South is not allowed to choose his final call
after being informed that partner will be silenced.
* Even in cases where there is no premature correction, an offending
player will need to know before changing his call whether it will result
in a L27C or a L27D ruling.  I.e., he will need to ask the TD something
like "If I bid 2C now, will you allow that as a L27C case, or should I
make a guess at a final contract instead?".

Both of these points could be solved if the offender was allowed to
change his call again to choose the final call *after* the TD had ruled
L27D.
-- 
Jesper Dybdal, Denmark.
http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).