[blml] comments on 27 procedure

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*************************
"A full cup must be carried steadily."
                      [English proverb ]
"*************************
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] comments on 27 procedure


> John (MadDog) Probst wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>> 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" . 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.
>>
>> John
>
> That is not a helpful answer, John.
>
> The question is not "what does 1He pass 1He show?" because we all know
> that this cannot have any answer.
>
> The real table question is twofold:
> one: "what does pass 1He show?; what does 1He pass 2He show?" which
> has to be answered; and
> two: "what was your mistake? did you not see the 1He or did you think
> you were bidding high enough?" which is the real important issue here.
>
> My answer is that the Director needs to know the answer to that
> question. It determines his decision. Furthermore, that decision needs
> to be told to opponent before he needs to decide on accepting the IB
> (not perfectly clear, but my firm opinion in this case). Finally, the
> director's decision, in combination with a detailed knowledge of the
> laws (to which an opponent should be entitled), and in combination
> with the full system description (to which the opponent is certainly
> entitled) means that opponent can most (IMO 99%) of the time deduce
> what the intent was.
> My conclusion is that it is best for the whole table to allow the
> Director to reveal the original intent to the table.
>
+=+ Until offender has a choice of options the Director has no
decision to make concerning the application of Law 27B and
does not enquire what the offender thought he was doing. The
IB is only withdrawn after LHO decides not to accept it.
        For the purpose of selecting his option LHO is entitled to
know what his options are, and what the law says about the
consequences of his choice. At this time the Director has no
information to give him about the effect in this particular case
of applying 27B.
                                ~ Grattan ~  +=+