[blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question

[Robert Geller]

A 1C open promises opening bid strength, but may show only 3 (2) cards
in clubs.   OTH a 2C overcall of 1D should show at least a good 5 card suit,
but might be less than opening bid strength.  Thus it isn't clear to me that
when South changes his insufficient 1C (intended as an opener) to 2C
that the 2C call "incorporating the information
contained in the insufficient bid."   

I suppose we'll have to wait for the wisdom of the WBFLC on the
meaning of "incorporate."

-Bob 


Sven Pran writes:
>For a definite answer to your questions we hall better await the outcome of
>the discussions currently in progress within WBFLC.
>
>But the main intention with the new Law 27C was (as I have understood it) to
>allow a normal contract to be reached in spite of an insufficient bid during
>the auction provided the contract should be reached without any "assistance"
>from the insufficient bid.
>
>In your case the IB "probably" shows opening strength. Say that this is
>sufficient for partner to go for a game contract. 
>
>If South has available a legal call to replace his IB that eventually will
>allow the partnership to reach the same successful contract while
>disregarding all special information no longer available from the "opening
>bid" in 1C then reaching this contract should be permissible.
>
>One example that was initially presented is the auction:
>1C - 1S - 1H where the IB (1H) is replaced by a negative double. Both the IB
>and the replacement call essentially show four hearts and some values.
>
>Regards Sven
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]
>> On Behalf Of Robert Geller
>> Sent: 10. februar 2008 19:21
>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
>> Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question
>> 
>> Sorry, my bad.    I wasn't thinking or writing clearly.  What I should
>> have
>> said was,  if we change the circumstances of the actually example in
>> several ways it can (perhaps) serve as the basis for a hypothetical
>> question.   Please delete the previous example and let me start over
>> again.
>> 
>> 
>> IMPS, Dlr E, None Vul
>> 	South
>> 	S Kxxx
>> 	H KTxx
>> 	D x
>> 	CAQxx
>> Q1. Let's look only at the South cards for a moment,
>> Suppose East opens 1D and, not having seen it, South then makes
>> an insufficient bid of 1C, not accepted by West.   If he then changes this
>> to 2C, should the 2C call be regarded as "incorporating the information
>> contained in the insufficient bid" (1C)?
>> 
>> If the answer to Q1 is no presumably 27D1 then applies and we can stop
>> here.
>> But if the answer to Q1 is yes then presumably the auction is allowed
>> to continue for the moment.
>> 
>> Suppose the North hand is
>> 	North
>> 	S AQx
>> 	H 98x
>> 	D KTxx
>> 	C K9x.
>> Q2a. If West passes, North bids 2NT and South raises to 3NT, which happens
>> to make, should this result be rectified under 27C2?   Does the answer
>> depend on the quality of the EW defense?
>> 
>> Q2b. If West passes, North bids 2NT and South passes, and 2NT happens
>> to make, should this result be rectified under 27C2?   Does the answer
>> depend on the quality of the EW defense?
>> 
>> Q2c. If West passes, North bids 3NT and South passes, and 3NT happens
>> to make, should this result be rectified under 27C2?   Does the answer
>> depend on the quality of the EW defense?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>> Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller at nifty.com
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> blml mailing list
>> blml at amsterdamned.org
>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

-----------------------------------------------------
Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller at nifty.com