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

[Eric Landau]

On May 2, 2008, at 5:39 PM, John ((MadDog)) Probst wrote:

>> Yes, I agree that the only sensible way to interpret the 2007 Law  
>> 27B1(a)
>> statement "Law 16D does not apply but see D following" is that Law  
>> 27D
>> replaces Law 16.  That is, rather than the test for an adjusted score
>> being
>> the severe Law 16 one of avoiding any demonstrably suggested logical
>> alternatives, the new test is the less severe Law 27D one of the  
>> probable
>> outcome had the insufficient bid (and its demonstrable suggestion)  
>> not
>> occurred.
>
> ok. I've once again concluded I do know how the new 27 works, and  
> happily
> have decided that DALB and I can't cheat like hell.  Good thing  
> too. My
> initial reaction to the first version was "Good idea". My reaction  
> to the
> reworded version is "Still good idea and a bit clearer".  Sufficiently
> clear.  John
>
>> 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.
>
> "Make it good dearie". I'll get opener if he treats it as anything  
> but 6-9
> ish  under 27D.

I don't think that you can on that basis alone.  L27D requires  
adjusting to "the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient  
bid not occurred".  Had the IB not occurred, nobody would have bid  
2H, so it shouldn't matter what it might have "meant" if someone  
had.  You can only adjust if the ultimate outcome would have been  
different.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net