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

[Reg Busch]

gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote:

>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).)
>>
>>    
>>
I hope I have misunderstood this. Are you saying that, if 27B1(a) 
applies, then we always rule under this, and never go on to 27B1(b)?  If 
this pair were playing 4 card mjors, I would offer the IBer his rights 
under B1(a), and also suggest he may have alternative actions available 
under B1(b) e.g. some sort of artificial game forcing bid which conveys 
the same meaning..
Reg

> 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
>  
>