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

[John (MadDog) Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Barker" <Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion.


> From: John (MadDog) Probst
>> I think it is our standard practice. Why don't you like it?    John
>
> Not wishing to appear too trite:
>
> (1)  Ruling as if there is UI when the laws say there isn't.

Ever since the Rottweiller coup and probably before that we've been 
perfectly happy to use 72B1, which is the route I go. If you can't be 
botherd to watch the auction and do something stupid you darn well "could 
have known" etc. "Make the bid good or pot the final contract" seemes to 
have worked pretty well. Nonetheless the New law does now allow us to get 
back into a sane auction some of these times.  John
>
> (2)  Ruling the opponents were damaged by the IB when OS side would reach 
> 4H with or without the IB.
>
Of course they're not damaged, if we do our job properly. AGain I fail to 
understand. It's the offenders who have their options circumscribed.

> (3)  Ton taught me otherwise.

and I don't disagree with ton.  Honestly Robin, I don't see a problem with 
what we do now. Perhaps I'm being really thick.  John
>
> Robin
>