[blml] The new L27C2

[Wayne Burrows]

On 14/02/2008, Tony Musgrove <ardelm at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> At 12:54 AM 12/02/2008, you wrote:
> >John Probst writes:
> > >Me too, I think it'll take us a few years to get it under control. In the
> > >interim, mayhem :)  John
> >
> >Yes, how is it actually supposed to work at the table?
>
> Had another one today.  I must say to see their looks of incredulity
> as I allow an insufficient reply to Blackwood to be corrected without
> penalty is worth the price of admission.  But I digress
>
> 1D (1C)  I didn't see her opening bid.  I know from Wayne's
> analysis that there are doubles that are too strong to be incorporated
> in 1C, but I am a free spirit.  If your 1C just means you have sorted
> your hand and don't have a 5 card major, I will allow a double.  If
> you really have clubs, you can bid 2C also without penalty.  I
> say "if you get a really good result out of this, call me back and I
> will have to examine the entrails".  I know that this is what the
> law makers intend and that it is good for bridge.  I would like
> to call this interpretation the Musgrove school (MS), but if Grattan
> should say "Musgrove is wrong", I promise to immediately recant.
> At present I am awaiting the official intent of the lawmakers from
> the DWS.
>

I find it hard to believe that the law makers would have thought you
can get an advantage from your insufficient bid.

Such an advantage comes from exchanging a 1C opening for a 2C
overcall.  Now partner knows that your 2C overcall is based on sound
opening values and not marginal competitive values as it might have
been without the insufficient bid.  This advantage is real even when
it does not translate into a really good result.  I may get a normal
result rather than the really bad result I was destined for without
the aid of the insufficient bid.  It could be very hard to determine
this advantage.  It is much easier to disallow the free change to a
call that has a meaning that is enhanced by the insufficient bid.

Wayne