[blml] Law 27

[David Burn]

[NG]
The meaning of an insufficient bid is at best nebulous, depending on what
the insufficient bidder imagines the auction to have been. IMO it can have
no meaning, as far as the law is concerned.

[DALB]

I am not sure I understand this. An insufficient bid of (say) 1S means
"there are some auctions in which I would have bid 1S with my hand". Whether
or not the partner of the bidder knows what those auctions are, the fact
that they exist at all ensures that the 1S bid is not devoid of meaning - it
conveys at least some information.

The new new Law 27 can be interpreted on this basis. If, say, South opens
1NT and North bids 1H, then he is allowed to bid 2D as a transfer in
response to 1NT (because 2D has the same meaning as, or a more precise
meaning than, "I have a hand in which I would have bid 1H in some
auctions"). It would be better, it seems to me, not to ask him why he bid 1H
(that is, not to have him volunteer the information that he was responding
to 1C, or opening the bidding, because that will constrain his partner in
terms of UI).

David Burn
London, England