[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.
>

Ton:
>
> You ask whether it isn't obvious? Not to me. Are you trying to say that
> players will arrange illegal communication to tell partner what the 
> meaning
> of the IB was?

Not "arrange".

Ton:

>Or are you saying that the only way to tell partner what the
> meaning is, is by illegal means?

Can you suggest a legal way?

Stefanie Rohan
London, England