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

[David Burn]

[GE]

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.

[DALB]

This appears to contain the suggestion that the offending side may modify
its trial bidding structure thus: after 1H-2H-2S (for example), responder
bids game with a maximum limit raise or a suitable spade holding; but after
1H-1H/2H-2S, responder bids game only if he would have opened 1H, finding
some other bid with a maximum limit raise or suitable spade holding (just in
case opener has a minimum opening bid). Of course, the offending side is now
varying its agreements consequent upon its own infraction, which it may or
may not be allowed to do.

Still, that is a minor difficulty by comparison with some of the problems we
have encountered so far. And it does seem to provide a procedure that may
work without the perpetrator of the IB having to disclose his reasons for
making it. I have been speaking to some English directors at the Spring
Foursomes this weekend, and whereas not all of them agree with the Kooijman
Interpretation in its entirety, they are all agreed that the reason for the
IB should not be revealed and should be treated as UI if it is revealed.
Whereas 16D does not apply, 16B still does.

David Burn
London, England