[blml] Law 27 - relay

[Eric Landau]

On May 1, 2008, at 9:57 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote:

> Eric Landau:
>
>> The thread example we have been discussing is 1H-P-1H, corrected to
>> 2H (both "incontrovertibly not artificial").  There is nothing new
>> here; the relevant portion of the law is the same whether we use TFLB
>> from 1963, 1975, 1987, 1997 or 2008.  And Stefanie apparently found
>> this example "'misdescriptive and anti-systemic'" by enough to cause
>> her to assert that "we can all agree that it is undesirable" (a
>> rather strong assertion, since disproven).
>
> What is new is that now it is thought by some that the RC 2H bid  
> can be
> natural an non-forcing, game forcing, or who knows what else  
> depending on
> the "meaning" of the IB. I had thought that when such a RC as this  
> was made,
> partner had to treat it as a systemic call.

It is quite clear that 2008 L27B1(a) is, and was intended to be,  
identical in its effect to 1997 L27B1(a) and similar portions of  
older L27s.  Rulings under L27B1(a) must work exactly as they did  
before.

What we learn from this thread is that we do not have settled law as  
to how those rulings worked before.

Is it possible that there is no right answer, except for "continue  
whatever the current practice in your jurisdiction is"?


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