[blml] comments on 27 procedure

[Herman De Wael]

gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote:
> 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 ~  +=+
> 

Within this whole discussion, this is the part I find most strange and 
disagree with the strongest.
We have always ruled IB in such a way that the LHO only needed to 
decide on whether to accept AFTER the TD told that IB could or could 
not escape "unpunished" by bidding some aprticular bid.
I don't see why this should change in the new laws, where only the 
number of acceptable changes has altered, nothing else.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html