[blml] Law 27C and mind reading the information content of the IB

[Wayne Burrows]

On 11/02/2008, Jerry Fusselman <jfusselman at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is another part of law 27C that I find endlessly confusing.  Suppose
> North is dealer and opens 1NT.  Suppose East now bids 1D, insufficient.
> What is the information content?
>
> Did East mean to open 1D?
>
> Did East mean to overcall 1D thinking that 1C was what North opened?
>
> Did East mean to overcall 2D showing diamonds and forgot the system over
> 1NT?
>
> Did East mean to overcall 2D showing the majors based on his convention
> card?
>
> Did East mean to overcall 2D showing diamonds and a major based on his
> partner's convention card?
>
> Did East think that West was the one who had opened 1NT and meant to
> transfer to hearts?
>
> How does the director decide the information content of a mistake, when the
> mistake might have happened in several different ways?  Indeed, who has
> agreements as to what 1D shows when it is an overcall after 1NT?
>
> And how does the director decide if the information content of the IB is the
> same for everyone at the table?  Does he even care?
>
> And how does he explain the situation to East assuming law 27C might come
> into play?
>
> Oh, and if law 27D comes into play, what are the lead penalties?
>
> If that's too many questions, just go with one:  How does the director
> decide the information content of a mistake, when the mistake might have
> happened in several different ways?
>

A novel approach you could try asking the bidder.

Wayne