[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: "David Burn" <dalburn at btopenworld.com>
To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion.


> [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
>
(GE)
+=+ I would say it may or may not require the offending side to vary
its understandings, depending on what they are. If, following partner's
raise to 2H in a normal auction, a rebid of (say) 2S indicates an
interest in game and requests partner to evaluate his hand to that
purpose, is there a variation of meaning in the DALB example above?
If there is doubt, the question becomes one of bridge judgement for
the Director and the Appeals Committee.
    And by the way, I am broadly in agreement with the fundamentals
of Ton's opinion in the matter but have felt they need some refinement.
                                               ~ Grattan ~   +=+