[blml] The new L27C2

[Wayne Burrows]

On 14/02/2008, Tony Musgrove <ardelm at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> At 11:26 PM 12/02/2008, you wrote:
> >On 14/02/2008, Tony Musgrove <ardelm at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > At 10:47 PM 12/02/2008, you wrote:
> > > >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.
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Warren:
> > >
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > Yes but that is the change that is allowed under some circumstances
> > > by the current rules.  I think the new L27 is supposed to by a slacker
> > > version of the old L27 (MS)
> > >
> >
> >If this is really intended then I think it is open to much abuse.
> >
> >Hence I doubt this was intended.  Of course someone might tell me that
> >this really was the intention.
> >
> >If so it seems that a good strategy is to always bid 1C when you
> >intend to overcall 2C with a sound overcall as you might get an
> >undectable advantage and the worst that can happen is that you is that
> >you will be allowed to make your 2C overcall.
>
> Aha, that is what I call cheating.  I always tell my punters that if they
> make an insufficient bid in order to silence partner I will be assembling
> the firing squad even as we speak.  I think I could make up the same spiel
> under your scenario.
>

Sure but prove it.

It would be much easier to not allow th advantage in the first instance.

Wayne