[blml] Hills comments on 27 procedure.

[Alain Gottcheiner]

John (MadDog) Probst a écrit :
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 3:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [blml] Hills comments on 27 procedure.
>
>
>   
>> On May 23, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Therefore, after a correct application of Law 27B1(b) there
>>>> may be some residual UI that the insufficient bid itself
>>>> brings.
>>>>         
>>> Not if the hand suits the replacement bid.
>>> But of course that is not necessarily so.
>>>
>>> Do we allow this:
>>>
>>> 1S - 1H (Acol, 4 cards, 13+)
>>> replaced by
>>> 1S - 2H (5 cards, 13+ ;supposing that is what they play)
>>> if it is done with only 4 cards?
>>>       
>> Of course we do.  We always have.  And L27D does indeed apply.  Just
>> as previous versions (e.g. 1997 L27B1(b)) did.
>>
>>     
>
> Yes I think this is a good case for 27D if, for example, they play a Moysian 
> game when the "normal" auction might well have led to 3N down 1. I'd adjust 
> in this case. Can I get to 12C3, I wonder? i think i can.  john
>   
AG : I wouldn't adjust. The provision of L27D is for avoiding the 
creation of an otherwise "impossible" bid, not for disallowing players 
being lucky (and opener to be perfectly correct in bidding as if partner 
had 5 hearts). When a player is badly placed as a sequel of his 
infraction, and this results in a good score for him for some 
serendipitous reason, don't shoot him.

Best regards

  lain.