[blml] Law 27 - relay

[Stefanie Rohan]

>> DALB:
>>
>>> I am not referring to cases where a player deliberately breaks a
>>> Law. I am
>>> referring to cases in which, a Law having inadvertently been
>>> broken, a
>>> player must (in effect) communicate illegally with his partner in
>>> order
>>> not
>>> to suffer from having broken it.
>>>
>>> ton:
>>> I know you as using your words very carefully, so please tell me
>>> why a
>>> player must communicate ilegally after having made an insufficient
>>> bid? (I
>>> know that by making the insufficient bid he communicates illegally.)


SR:

>> Isn't it obvious? After 1H-1H, corrected to 2H, the IBer must
>> communicate
>> illegally in order to let him know whether this bid is a minimum
>> raise to 2
>> or a game-forcing raise.

EL;

> Stefanie again assumes her conclusion.  It is "obvious" that "the
> IBer must communicate", but whether he does so "illegally" is
> precisely the question being examined.

Well, there is nothing in the Laws to indicate that this type of 
communication is legal in this case. In any case, when it is stated as 
baldly as above I think we can all agree that it is undesirable.

Stefanie Rohan
London, England