[blml] Law 27

[Stefanie Rohan]

> [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).

But doesn't a 1H bid indicate, at the very least, a hand with the values to 
respond 1H at the one level? It may also exclude hands that would have 
opened some larger number of hearts. So I think that this example is one 
that would not be allowed.

Stefanie Rohan
London, England