[blml] Law 27 - relay

[Stefanie Rohan]

EL:

> The problem with [the "meaning" of the IB being UI] is that
> sometimes the information from the
> call, along with the L27 ruling, will be sufficient to allow the
> players to infer what the call was intended to mean.  That makes the
> intended meaning AI, since neither the call nor the ruling can be
> UI.  Whether or not this is the case depends on factors that have
> nothing to do with the irregularity having occured (it is essentially
> a function of the OS's regular agreements).

Information that is available by inference is not necessarily information 
that the players are entitled to. In any case, it is probable that a, say, 
2H replacement bid cannot be game-forcing; ie, that the partner of the IBer 
must treat it as a "normal" 2H bid. Ton says otherwise, but I do not really 
know how the Law can sanely be applied otherwise.

> Identical rulings in
> identical situations could cause it to be AI at some tables and UI at
> others.  That seems like something to be avoided, and the obvious
> way  to avoid it is for the intended meaning to be AI regardless.

I think it should be UI. If, in some cases, the players are able to infer 
the "meaning" of the IB, it should still be forbidden for partner to base 
his bidding or play on any such information unless it is also available by 
way of the legal auction. This is the way other irregularities in the 
auction and play are dealt with.
>
> There is also the practical issue that if it is always AI, it will be
> much easier, and far more transparent (always a benefit to the
> customers), to deal with those cases in which the IBer's immediate
> instinctive reaction to having the IB pointed out gave the
> information to the table.  IME, this happens more often than not.

It should not be too tough. I think that a player who made such an 
instinctive reaction tends to think that he has given UI. This is not 
difficult to deal with. Directors know how to instruct the players when UI 
has been made available.

Suppose RHO has opened 1S, and our hero says, "Oh dear, I had hoped to open 
1H but now I can't", and then proceeds to make a legal call. This is UI, is 
it not? It would be consistent to treat any extra information accompanying 
an IB the same way.


Stefanie Rohan
London, England