[blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27

[Robert Frick]

On Sun, 04 May 2008 22:47:19 -0400, Stefanie Rohan  
<daisy_duck at btopenworld.com> wrote:

>
> --- Eric Landau wrote:
>
>> If you allow the RC to be chosen based on
>> some possible
>> "intention" which was not the actual one, you must
>> allow it based on
>> *any* such intention; you cannot limit the IBer to
>> only those that
>> sound "reasonable" to you.
>>
> Well, it does not seem to me that there is a choice,
> because there is nothing in the Law that says anything
> about the IBer's intention. So clearly his intention
> is not a matter of law, and it does not seem that he
> must be forced to disclose it to the director.

You have to determine the meaning of the bid. The question is whether you  
do it from the perspective of the insufficient bidder or from the table.

Suppose 2D is overcalled by 2C. In the old Law 27, and the new 27B1(a),  
wouldn't you allow a 3C correction (without barring partner) if 2C was  
intended to be an overcall and disallow it if 2C was intended to be a  
strong artifical opening? If so, this is taking into account the  
insufficent bidder's intention. From the table perspective, 2C could be  
artificial, hence a 27B1(a) correction to 3C would not be allowed.

The logic of L27B1(b) suggests that the meaning in the insufficient bid  
can and should be determined from the perspective of the table. If so, the  
director does not need to look in the player's hand.

However, it would be odd to use the insufficient bidder's intention to  
determine the meaning of a bid for 27B1(a) while using the table  
persective for 27B1(b). Which is to say, no one reading the laws would  
guess that "meaning" should be determined differently in 27B1(a) than in  
27B1(b).