[blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure.

[Gampas at aol.com]

In a message dated 23/05/2008 10:50:44 GMT Standard Time,  
gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes:

That's why we say that in theory players come to the table with
a  knowledge of the laws.
 
[paul lamford]
There is a difference between knowledge and application. The person  
responding to 4NT with 4D usually knows that no-trumps ranks above diamonds. The  
person who thinks he is responding to Gerber with 4D also,  presumably, knows the 
laws.
 
You are extending the theory that players come to the table with a  knowledge 
of the laws to a theory that their misapplication of the laws is never  of a 
particular type.
 
Specifically, you conclude that they will never intentionally respond 1C to  
1H, therefore they must have been attempting to open the bidding. If our 
partner  overcalls 1NT with 1C we are allowed to guess that he intended to open  1C 
but if he overcalls 1NT with 1D we are not as he might have  thought the 
opening bid was 1C. 
 
Let's play Mastermind instead of Bridge. Our new deductive practice should  
be useful there.