[blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Stefanie Rohan]

RJH:

> Ergo, it seems to me that the Zone 7 LC interpretation
> of Law 27 is that only the TD and the undercaller are
> _entitled_ to know the undercaller's intent, with any
> extra information blurted out by the undercaller at the
> table being UI to the undercaller's partner (and AI to
> the opponents).

This is a very sensible approach, which should work well. There is one thing 
that is not clear to me, however. Is the IBer to be "stuck with" his 
intended meaning? I know that my examples are not great because they always 
seem to involve the same denomination at a higher level, but ignoring the 
fact that if both calls are natural, imagine this:

1S-(2H)-2C. The director discovers that the IBer meant to open 2C, 
precision. A 3C bid would now have a wider meaning. But compared to a 
response of 2C to 1S, the 3C bid would, presumably, have a narrower meaning, 
in that it would be game-forcing instead of 10+ or whatever the 2C would 
have been (ignoring upper limits for the sake of the example). Would 3C be 
permitted?

Stefanie Rohan
London, England