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

[Eric Landau]

On May 4, 2008, at 7:41 AM, <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>  
<gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> From: "Reg Busch" <rbusch at ozemail.com.au>
>
>> 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
>
> +=+  When a player has options the Director must
> explain all the options to him. (Law 10C1). So you
> are right to point to all the possibilities.
>          After receiving the explanation the player
> selects his call. If it is the lowest sufficient bid in the
> same denomination Law 27B1(a) applies. If it is not
> the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination
> then either 27B1(b) or 27B2, or 27B3, or 27B4 will
> apply. So it is also right that when 27B1(a) applies to
> his selected option you never go to 27B1(b), nor to
> any of 27B2, 27B3, 27B4.

JFTR, if the RC is the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination  
(LSBSD) *and in the Director’s opinion both the insufficient bid and  
the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial* Law 27B1(a)  
applies.  When L27B1(a) does not apply because the RC fails the  
"incontrovertably not artificial" test, we may then apply L27B1(b) to  
the LSBSD.


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