[blml] Law 27

[raija]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Burn" <dalburn at btopenworld.com>
To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27


>> [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

I agree it would be better for TD not to ask why the IB was made.  However, 
the reason is typically volunteered by the IB'er before the TD comes,  *Oh, 
I didn't see he opened* or something in those lines, right after the bid was 
pointed out as insufficient; followed by a well-intentioned immediate other 
bid whether same denomination or not, or Pass, or Dbl.  As an opponent or 
the IBer's partner, it is difficult to stop this "train"...  I don't envy 
the job of a club or low level tournament director :)

Raija