[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 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] comments on 27 procedure


> 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
<<
(Grattan)
>        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.
<<                                 
 ( Herman DE WAEL)
 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.
<<
(Grattan) 
Well, until I see how things go at the weekend nothing is set 
in concrete. The above is how we left the discussion.
But 'We' - who are 'we'?
             ----------------------------