[blml] Law 27

[David Burn]

> [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).

[SR]

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.

[DALB]

New Law 27: "if... the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that
in the Director's opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise
meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained
within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds
without further rectification".

North bids 1H, which means "I would have bid 1H on this hand in some
auctions, if 1H were a sufficient bid."

Now, does 2D have the same meaning as this? Does it have a more precise
meaning than this? The answer to both questions in my opinion is "yes", and
the meaning of 2D is "contained within the possible meanings of 1H", so in
my opinion 2D should be permitted as the proposed Law is currently worded.

If North says "I thought it was my deal", or "I thought South opened 1C",
then this gives UI (Unincorporated Information) to South, who must not act
on it. This is why I think it may be better not to ask North why he made the
IB; just ask him what the RC means, and whether it is consistent with some
hand that would have made the IB if sufficient in some auctions.

David Burn
London, England