[blml] The new L27C2

[Jesper Dybdal]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:47:07 -0500, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net>
wrote:

>On Feb 7, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
>> 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?".
>
>IMHO, South got exactly what he deserved.  In our introduction to  
>duplicate for social bridge players, the first thing taught on the  
>first day is the "rule that trumps all other rules":  If anything  
>irregular happens, call the director at once and do nothing until he  
>arrives.  South failed to obey this "prime directive", and I see no  
>reason why he shouldn't pay the full price.

Though I find the penalty for the actual South unreasonably hard, that
is not my main worry - hard penalties in situations that could easily
have been avoided are not a serious problem.

My main worry is the other point.  If I, as offender, wait patiently for
the TD to tell me what L27 says, then I will need to know exactly which
calls the TD will  allow under L27C.  If this information is to be given
to the offender at the table without lots of UI being given, the TD will
have to tell the offender which specific calls he will allow - and in
order to do that, the TD will have to know a lot about the offender's
system.  Alternatively, it seems to me that the TD will have to inform
the offender away from the table, where the offender can ask questions
like "Can I under L27C bid 2C, which shows ..., now?" without giving his
partner UI.
-- 
Jesper Dybdal, Denmark.
http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).