[blml] comments on 27 procedure

[Peter Eidt]

From: "John \(MadDog\) Probst" 
> From: "vitoldbr" 
> > Hi all?
> > Thx all for interesting discussion.
> > But there was a question that remained almost unnoticeable. It was
> > raised by Robert Frick and answered by Swen Pran. As it was not
> > cleared up I'd like to repeat the problem:
> > My LHO opened 1Heart, partner passed and RHO bid 1Heart.
> > The TD was summoned and he said that it was my turn to make
> > decision: to accept or not to accept.
> > But it is bridge decision and I need more information before making
> > it - for executing my rights in accordance with L10C3. This decision
> > will depend not only on my hand and meaning of the IB. I will need
> > to get to know possible options from L27. I am trying to resolve the
> > problem as a player: I am not puppet to say accept or not accept
> > without re-think the matter with all needed facts.
> > By the way - when dealing with (for example) L54 - declarer is
> > usually informed about every options before  he decides to accept
> > (or not to accept) lead out of turn.
> > And in IB case I got the problem with same kind of difficulty. So my
> > questions:
> > 1. Have I (IB's LHO) rights to get to know intended meaning of IB?
> > (OK - it is TD's problem to keep this information 100%-secretly for
> > IB's partner).
> > 2. Have I (IB's LHO) rights to get to know in advance (before making
> > my decision) IB's options after my decision?
> > For my opinion negative answers for these questions may destroy
> > player's rights (as IB's LHO).
> > Sincerely,
> > Vitold
> > 
> > 
> It's a very good question Vitold (Hi, Long time no speak). If it is a
> given that one cannot reasonably (or legally) have an agreement about
> ones own sides' infractions, then the meaning of the IB is "no
> agreement". We know full well that all we are entitled to is the
> partnership agreement, not the player's thought process. Therefore you
> are absolutely NOT allowed to get an explanation other than "no
> agreements as they would be illegal" . 

Yes

> However I would expect a player
> to provide past history of similar accidents. "Last time he made an IB
> it was because he didn't see the auction to date" since this is part
> of partnership experience, and the TD should so instruct.

No, John, please

Next time a player passes out of turn you want his partner
to explain "Last time he did so, he had 6 points, thereby 
holding 1 ace" ??

As long as irregularities are unintended they do not form
a part of partnership experience IMO.


And regarding Vitold's 2nd question:
Yes, you (IB's LHO) have the right to get all the 
possibilities explained, but in a form of
1. If IBer replaces with the next legal bid in the
IB's denomination (and they both are not artificial)
there will be no rectification;
2. If IBer replaces with a bid which has the
same or more precise meaning as the IB, 
there will be no rectification;
3. If IBer replaces with anything different, partner
will be barred for the remainder of the auction.
4. If I (the TD) will come the conclusion (after play
ceases) that the IB's side will have found a contract
they otherwise would not have found without the help
of the IB, I will adjust the score afterwards.

But, you will not be told, whether 1. will be in order
nor which call(s) are consistent with 2. (if any).

Peter

> 
> John
>