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

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*************************
"we that live to please
  must please to live"
        ~ Dr Samuel Johnson
*************************
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ton" <t.kooyman at worldonline.nl>
To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion.


> This is 19th century talking, England-USA being the only powers meaning
> something.
>
> What I know is that in my country, in all lectures given in the EBL for
> many
> years (or wherever by myself) 'my' interpretation is the one broadcasted.
>
> Though David's interpretation is not unbelievable when just reading the
> words, it doesn't make sense at all when knowing the aim of present
> L27B1a.
> I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) the
> 1H bidder  with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have to ask
> Max.
>
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
+=+ I do not think it matters now what the TD would have done under
the 1997 laws. Let us concentrate on the 2007 Law 27. Here is my
stance on the subject.
.............................................................................................................
Case 1.
1H-P-1H(2H)-P :  Law 27B1(a) applies. (We only go to 27B1(b) after
we have tried to apply 27B1(a).)
Information from the IB is AI to the opening 1H bidder. What is that
information? What he knows is that his partner was either responding
to 1m, overcalling RHO's 1m, or opening the bidding. Therefore he has
the information that partner has a hand suitable for one of these actions.
If the opening bidder bids a direct 4H he has a hand suitable for a rebid
of 4H after 1m - P - 1H - P; but he also knows that partner may have a
hand suitable for opening 1H and he is entitled to explore that possibility
with a trial or strength enquiry bid of some kind.
.................................................................................................................
Case 2
2S - 1NT(2NT) - P -?
Here the possibility is that the 1NT insufficient bid was either an opening
bid or an overcall of his RHO's 1-suit.  The opening 1NT is 14-16; 2NT
in defence to the weak 2S is 17-19. 1NT overcall of opponent's 1-suit is
17-19.  The partner of the insufficient bidder has AI that his partner has
either 14-16 or 17-19. He may bid his hand accordingly on the same
principles as above.
..................................................................................................................
27D
Law 27D will kick in if the IB has enabled the offending side to reach
a contract that it could not/would not reach by its agreed methods and
obtain a favourable result thereby. So in Case 2 if the offending side's
methods in defence to weak 2S include, say,  'Double' to show 14-16
balanced there is no problem with case 2; nor indeed if he has 17-19
and would clearly have bid 2NT. If with 14-16 balanced the partnership
method is to pass and protect,  the score will be adjusted if the partner
does not have a hand on which it is clear he would have balanced the
auction; where Law 12C1(c) is available the adjustment may be a
weighted score if the Director is of the opinion that the probability is
that some but not all of players would have balanced the auction with
the hand the partner holds. (A 27D adjustment seeks "to recover as
nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the
insufficient bid not occurred".)
                                                         ~ Grattan ~   +=+