[blml] Law 27 - relay

[Eric Landau]

On Apr 30, 2008, at 6:57 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote:

>>> 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.

ISTM that that very explicit "L16D does not apply" is *something*.   
It is, as we are demonstrating here, open to interpretation, but to  
say that there is "nothing... to indicate that [it] is legal" is  
rather an overbid.

I and others have pointed out that to accept Stefanie's  
interpretation would reverse 45 years or more of precedent and  
practice.  I, for one, would not find leaving the accepted  
interpretation undisturbed undesirable.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net