[blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question

[Eric Landau]

On Feb 10, 2008, at 2:56 PM, Sven Pran wrote:

> 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.

L27C1 is pretty clear and straightforward.  The WBFLC may choose to  
interpret it a bit differently from the most straightforward reading  
(as by defining "incorporates" in some looser than literal sense),  
but I don't think that will cause problems.  It is L27C2 that is  
sufficiently non-specific as to require interpretation to be  
meaningful, as Sven suggests above.

> 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.

L27C2 applies when a player's replacement bid "passes the test" of  
L27C1, which depends entirely on the meanings of the insufficient and  
replacement bids.  I do not anticipate problems applying L27C2 in  
those cases where the actual hand held by the IBer conforms the  
systemic "L27C1-test-passing" meaning of the replacement bid.   
Unfortunately, however, I see a great deal of confusion and  
inconsistency in the prospective jurisprudence in those cases where  
it does not.  For starters, if a player chooses a misdescriptive call  
that "passes" the L27C1 test over a systemically mandated call that  
doesn't, do we measure the potential "assistance" relative to the  
latter, relative to a hypothetical auction in which there was no IB,  
or either way depending on "benefit of the doubt to the NOS"?  Is the  
IBer's partner entitled to "recognize" the possibility of the IBer  
having chosen a deliberate misdescription over a bid that would bar  
him from the auction, or does taking that into account constitute  
potential "assistance from the IB"?  How would that be affected by a  
regulation forbidding varying one's agreements due to an  
irregularity?  I could go on and on.

There is an awful lot of unexplored territory here, and I suspect we  
have yet to see the extent of it.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net