[blml] new L27

[Wayne Burrows]

On 06/03/2008, John (MadDog) Probst <john at asimere.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Geller" <geller at nifty.com>
> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 1:06 PM
> Subject: [blml] new L27
>
>
> Could've been better, could've been worse.
>
> The good news (IMO).
>   1. Most of the time we'll be dealing with an IB replaced by the lowest
> sufficient RB in the same denomination, and this will pose no problem for
> directors. as it's what they're useful.
>   2. A replacement call of RDBL is now also included in 27B1b
>
> The bad news (IMO)
>    1. The pernicious concept of "meaning of the IB" has been retained,
> although in a somewhat less toxic form than the original L27C of the
> 2007 Laws.
>    2. The mechanics of 27B1b will probably cause trouble for directors and
> players, not to mention RA's.   27B1a is clear to all.   But after the
> director
> explains 27B1b to an IBer at the table, the player will want to know
> ("can I call X without penalty"?).   How does the player actually do this?
> Does he ask the director in front of his pard?
>
> The TDs will explain what's allowed. It's part of the job. I'd not worry too
> much about that.  John
>

And these TDs they know everyone's system to make this determination?

Wayne