[blml] Law 27 - relay

[Eric Landau]

On May 1, 2008, at 10:14 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote:

> 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.

If the conditions in L27B1(a) are satisfied, "the auction proceeds  
without further rectification.  Law 16D does not apply but see D  
following."

Imagine we were to replace those words with, "the auction proceeds  
without further rectification, but see Law 16D."  Would we not, if  
that were the case, apply L27B1(a) exactly as Stefanie describes  
above?  As she says, quite correctly, "This is the way other  
irregularities in the auction and play are dealt with...  It would be  
consistent to treat any extra information accompanying an IB the same  
way."

I merely assert that the words "Law 16D does not apply" were put  
there for a reason.


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