[blml] Law 27

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Eric Landau a écrit :
>  if the replacement call (RC) meets the (presumed  
> interpretation of) the "more precise meaning" test in the new-new  
> L27B1(b), knowing what the original bid was intended to mean will not  
> provide any information about the bidder's hand not available from  
> the RC (hence no UI). 	If we are allowing the call under L27B1(a),  
> OTOH, we must have ascertained that the intended meaning was not  
> artificial, so that information will be perforce imparted to the  
> table -- but that's the same as under the 1997 laws.
>
>   
Notice that such ascertaining includes the consideration of the bidder's 
hand. In fact, it will very often be the strongest argument.

South opens 2S. North, according to the regulations in use in that part 
of the World, annonces "standard weak". Now West, for some reason, 
thinks it is a weak NT and bids 2D. If he tells you he intended his 2D 
as a (transfer) overcall of 1NT, his /bona fide/ will be obvious from 
his holding. Now you won't allow a 3D overcall (old L27) but you could, 
subject to some checks but quite probably, allow a 3H or 4H bid (or even 
a 2-suited 4C/D) according to the new part.

Of course, this will often means you'll need to check EW's convention 
card or system notes. That's what they're for. And if it takes too much 
time, you may always accept their version, investigate later, and 
penalize them heavily if they took you in.

All in all, I see few problems with this law, except that the 
player-in-the-street will find it difficult to understand. But then he 
does any other law.

Best regards

   Alain