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

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*************************
"True luck consists not in holding
the best cards at the table,
 Luckiest he who knows just when
to rise and go home."  [John Hay ]
"*************************
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stefanie Rohan" <daisy_duck at btopenworld.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion.


>
> So Grattan,
>
> I understand that your attachment indicates that in
> England, after 1H-1H/2H, the 2H must be treated as
> whatever 2H is in the OS's system, yes?
>
+=+ The attachment deals with cases in which the meaning
is changed in order to bring it within the scope of Law 27B1(b).
The case you cite is not such a case; it falls clearly within the
scope of Law 27B1(a).
        I quote the following exchange dealing with the subject
of Law 27B1(a):
..............................................................................................
[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).)

Information from the IB is AI to the opening 1H bidder. What is that
information? What he knows is that his partner was either responding
to 1m, overcalling RHO's 1m, or opening the bidding. Therefore he has
the information that partner has a hand suitable for one of these actions.
If the opening bidder bids a direct 4H he has a hand suitable for a rebid
of 4H after 1m - P - 1H - P; but he also knows that partner may have a
hand suitable for opening 1H and he is entitled to explore that possibility
with a trial or strength enquiry bid of some kind.

[DALB]
This appears to contain the suggestion that the offending side may modify
its trial bidding structure thus: after 1H-2H-2S (for example), responder
bids game with a maximum limit raise or a suitable spade holding; but after
1H-1H/2H-2S, responder bids game only if he would have opened 1H, finding
some other bid with a maximum limit raise or suitable spade holding (just in
case opener has a minimum opening bid). Of course, the offending side is now
varying its agreements consequent upon its own infraction, which it may or
may not be allowed to do.

Still, that is a minor difficulty by comparison with some of the problems we
have encountered so far. And it does seem to provide a procedure that may
work without the perpetrator of the IB having to disclose his reasons for
making it. I have been speaking to some English directors and  ......they 
are
all agreed that the reason for the IB should not be revealed and should be
treated as UI if it is revealed. Whereas 16D does not apply, 16B still does.
.........................................................................................................
[GE]
        I would say it may or may not require the offending side to vary
its understandings, depending on what they are. If, following partner's
raise to 2H in a normal auction, a rebid of (say) 2S indicates an
interest in game and requests partner to evaluate his hand to that
purpose, is there a variation of meaning in the DALB example above?
If there is doubt, the question becomes one of bridge judgement for
the Director and the Appeals Committee.
......................................................................................................
                                               ~ Grattan ~   +=+