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

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion.
> ----- 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 ~   +=+
>
>
>