[blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion.

[Eric Landau]

On May 1, 2008, at 7:04 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:

> I take a middle position between Ton and David.  The 1H opener bids  
> on at
> their own risk.  The risk in this case is that the 1H undercaller  
> thought
> they were responding to a 1C opening bid, and the 2H replacement  
> call is
> systemic, thus causing 3H to fail by a trick.
>
> But if the 1H undercaller states, "Oh no, I thought I was dealer,"  
> then the
> remark is UI even though the undercall itself is not.  In that case  
> the 1H
> opener may not bid on after the 2H replacement call if pass is a  
> logical
> alternative.

Undercaller blurts.  1H opener bids on with a minimum.  4H is  
reached.  TD rules UI and adjusts the result back to 2H.  OS appeals.

Opener points out to the committee that he and his partner play  
transfer overcalls.  1C-1H or 1D-1H would show spades.  *Only* if his  
partner had intended to open 1H could 1H have been "incontrovertably  
not artificial".  If partner had said nothing, opener would still be  
100% certain that partner intended to open the bidding, *because  
otherwise he would be barred*.  He argues that the UI could have had  
absolutely no effect, because the *TD's ruling* would have left him  
with no logical alternative but to play partner for an opening bid  
and bid on "at his own risk".

Uphold or reverse?


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