[blml] Today's L27C question

[Wayne Burrows]

On 27/02/2008, Robert Geller <geller at nifty.com> wrote:
> Alain Gottcheiner writes:
> >6. I open 1H. They tell me they opened 1S. Unless I'm playing very, very
> >sound overcalls, neither 2H nor 3H nor double would be allowed, so I'm
> >fixed.
> >
> >7. The same, but 3rd in hand. If I can prove we routninely open light
> >1H/S on a fair suit, I'd say I'm allowed to change this to 2H.
>
> Yes, but suppose you play strictly 5 card majors in 1st/2nd hand, but
> allow the occasional 4 card major opener in 3rd/4th hand.  Then
> 2H would be unallowable if the 1H IB was meant as a 1H opener.
>

Why?

I think you have the logic around the wrong way here.

> If on the other hand the IB-er thought the opener was 1C and he
> was making a 1H overcall then the "meaning of the 1B" is more
> likely to be 5 cards in hearts (but 4 card overcalls are not unknown
> at the 1 level).
>
> So it seems questionable whether a replacement bid of 2H should be
> allowed.
>

And again here.

> What a can of worms....    I question the wisdom of a law that depends
> on the concept of the meaning of the IB in determining whether or
> not the RB should be allowed....
>

This certainly seems to be causing problems and as i just said i think
is far more restrictive than was intended.

Wayne