[blml] Law 27 - relay

[Robert Frick]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:38:30 -0400, <Gampas at aol.com> wrote:

> [Stefanie Rohan]
> Isn't it obvious? After 1H-1H, corrected to 2H, the  IBer must  
> communicate
> illegally in order to let (his partner) know  whether this bid is a  
> minimum
> raise to 2
> or a game-forcing raise.
> [David Burn]
> Any illegal call that is not accepted must, at the player's turn to  
> call,  be
> replaced by a legal call. Any information arising from the illegal call   
> is
> unauthorised to the offending side, but authorised to the  non-offending
> side.
>
> [paul lamford]
> I wholeheartedly agree with both Stefanie and David. Indeed I can see
> nothing in the laws which allows for the person making the insufficient  
> bid to  make
> any statement at all such as:
> a) I thought I was dealer
> b) I did not see the overcall
> c) Hey, I am new to this game, by next week I should know the order of  
> the
> suits.
> As far as I can see the director tells the IBer the law, and the  latter
> makes a correction without giving a speech first. I don't see why  the  
> director
> needs to find out what the IBer thought, giving UI to the rest of  the  
> table. He
> just quotes the law and lets the IBer get on with it. If the IBer  makes  
> a
> bid that silences his partner, then there are laws to cover that.
> As Ton says, "Why don't you all just follow the laws instead of trying to
> formulate new ones." Indeed, where is the one which says that the IBer  
> announces
>  what he thought the auction was?
> We can of course just be happy if the responder is allowed to tell the   
> world
> and his dog what mishap occurred. I can imagine the auction going:
> 1H - (Pass) - 1H (Player announces he did not see the 1H bid by his  
> partner
> and corrects to 2H which is alerted). Next player: "Yes?". After the   
> IB, we
> play that as showing a Jacoby 2NT. Auction continues: 3H (alerted).   
> "Yes?"
> from the next chap. "A singleton spade". "And what would 2S have  
> shown?"  "We
> have agreed not to use 2S and 2NT in this sequence to avoid a 27d  
> adjusted
> score."
> Fine, if this is the way you want to play your  bridge.

Even in the old law, the director needed to know what the insufficient bid  
"meant". For example, a 2C bid over 2D could be corrected to 3C if it was  
meant to be a natural club overcall, but not if it was meant as a strong  
2C opening. (I assume.)

So the director has to determine the meaning of the insufficient bid. In  
Law 27, the director has to make this decision to know whether or not  
partner is barred. That means making this decision at least after the bid  
is made. I was planning on making it before so that the insufficient  
bidder knows if the planned RC will bar partner.

To me, if the insufficient bidder says "I thought I was opening the  
bidding", that is UI to partner. As director, I would not announce the  
intended meaning of the insufficient bid. (I think Eric plans to announce  
this.) That means either looking at the hand of the insufficient bidder or  
talking to the insufficient bidder away from the table.

Bob