[blml] The new L27C2

[Wayne Burrows]

On 11/02/2008, Stefanie Rohan <daisy_duck at btopenworld.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > But here I strongly disagree. Whenever I have a case of UI in progress or
> > a
> > Law 27C situation I inform the player receiving the UI or having a choice
> > of
> > call (and of course also the other players at the table) that it is his
> > responsibility alone to select an alternative that afterwards will pass
> > the
> > scrutiny of satisfying the conditions in the laws.
> >
> But the new Law is going to be very complicated, and the player will have
> difficulty figuring out whether the bid they choose will pass the scrutiny.
> It seems quite likely that the player will have to discuss a number of
> potential bids in order to see if there is an acceptable one. Surely this is
> best done away from the table!
>

The new law seems pretty simple to me.

My paraphrase is if you gain additional information from your
insufficient bid then the correct is not allowed without penalty.

To me this makes perfect sense.  I wish more laws were like this.

Wayne