[blml] comments on 27 procedure

[Eric Landau]

On May 27, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Herman De Wael wrote:

> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote:
>
>> +=+ 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 IB is only withdrawn after LHO decides not to accept it.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.
>
> 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.

Exactly.  Under the 1997 law, the IBer's LHO has always been allowed  
to decide to accept the IB only if the IBer has a penalty-free RC  
available and not otherwise.  By denying him this ability -- as  
Grattan's interpretation would -- we open the door to the OS gaining  
considerable advantage by virtue of the combination of their  
infraction and the NOS's poor choice of subsequent action.  The  
director is responsible for informing the non-offending LHO of his  
options [L10C1], and he is entitled to select the one most to his  
advantage [L10C3].  A "Probst cheat" would be able to "try on" IBs  
hoping to gain advantage from a bad choice made in ignorance of its  
consequences by his LHO.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net