[blml] Consult the people.

[Robert Frick]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 13:57:42 -0400, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:

> On May 20, 2008, at 12:04 PM, <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>
> <gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 7. To complete this scenario I need to find an example case
>> in which it transpires that the additional (lawful) information
>> actually proves beneficial to the offending side to the extent
>> that they are able to obtain a result which (probably/possibly)
>> could not have been obtained without such assistance (as
>> distinct from blind luck).    In other words I am seeking an
>> example adjustment under Law 27D, and to what more fertile
>> population than inhabits this place could I address an invitation
>> to produce one?
>
> Player holding 3-4-3-3 with opening values attempts to open 1H
> (promising 4+), and is informed that the auction has gone 1S-P-.  1H
> is not accepted, and he chooses to bid a non-systemic 2H, which shows
> a game force with 5+ hearts.  The auction (opponents silent) proceeds
> 1S-2H-3H-3S-4H-P.  IBer's normal call over 1S would be 2C (game force
> with 4+ clubs or exactly 3-4-3-3), in which case the (systemic)
> auction would most likely have been 1S-2C-2D-2S-4S, but IBer could
> not bid 2C here, as his partner would have been barred.  4H, in the
> 4-3 fit, turns out to be a superior contract to 4S in the 5-3 fit
> due, and duly makes an extra trick.  L27D would have us adjust the
> contract to the normal 4S, with the normal (one trick less than 4H)
> result.

Is this an example? It seems to be that if they thought they were getting  
to a 5-3 fit, but ended up in a 4-3 fit that just happened to work better,  
that seems to be rub of the green. (If the insufficient bid allowed them  
to intelligently find the 4-3 fit, that would probably be different.)

To return to the old example of 1C - P - 1C/3NT, missing a 4-4 spade fit,  
I thought the consensus was to allow rub of the green if 4S did worse  
because of a bad spade break. Wouldn't it also be rub of the green if it  
just happened to be one of those hands where 3NT played better than 4S for  
a different reason, like duplicate distribution?

I thought 27D would kick in only when there was use of AI from the  
insufficient bid. This would be easy if anyone was allowed to construct  
conventions following an insufficient bid.

Perhaps other examples can be constructed starting with the 1S - 1C/2C  
auction, where partner of the insufficient bidder knows that the  
insufficient bidder has at least an opening hand and may not have clubs.  
Maybe partner will be more likely to shoot out a 2NT contract. Maybe no  
action would have been possible over 1S without the insufficient bid.