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

[John (MadDog) Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ton" <t.kooyman at worldonline.nl>
To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


>
>
>> Ton Kooijman:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>
> John:
> "Make it good dearie". I'll get opener if he treats it as anything but 6-9
> ish  under 27D.
>
>
> ton:
> Goodness, you really persist in not understanding what the laws want you 
> to
> do.
>
> Opener is entitled to guess what his partner meant to do. Partner is not
> entitled to tell what he thought he was doing. (this answers a question 
> from
> David). And if opener guesses right that not necessarily means that there
> was illegal communication.
>
> Take the following:    North 1S  East 1C. The guess is not that difficult
> anymore is it? Are you going to punish players depending on the position
> they are in when they commit this infraction?

the implicit values in this auction are similar, though I concede that the 
clubs may be a stretch. When my mother "makes it good" we're still in a 
sensible auction [1H (1C) -> (2C)].  1H (P) 1H leads to a different problem. 
As DALB points out, the correction to 2H is 6-9(+) if responder thought he 
was responding to 1D and 13+ GF if responder was "opening". In the first 
case, responder can bid 2H, no penalty, or 2nd case bash 4H (losing slam 
sequences, but we're agreed he's a plonker for bidding 1H in the first 
place)and therein is his equity restored. This has been the case since 1963. 
I'm happy indeed if the 1H call had been an intended opener then under the 
new law a 2N call may well be acceprable; this is "a good thing". In all 
cases I have recourse to 72B1 (or in the New laws: 27D and 23) if I feel 
that my probst cheat opener has used the insufficient bid to his side's 
advantage. I'm not intending to remove rub-of-the-green results. I am 
stopping advantage gained by the infraction. That _IS_ and _WAS_ what the 
Law says isn't it?  John

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