[blml] comments on 27 procedure

[Eric Landau]

On May 27, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote:

> Herman De Wael a écrit :
>
>> 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 IB is only withdrawn after LHO decides not to accept it.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.
>
> There is in fact one difference.
>
> In TOFLB, when there was a way to escape without penalty, the mere  
> fact
> that there was a possible substitution told which one. : 1 more in the
> same denomination was the only possibility. So I could decide  
> whether to
> accept the bid withtout needing any more information.
>
> In TNFLB, this is no more sure ; before I decide whether to accept the
> IB, I'd like to know what the SB would be, so that I could estimate my
> chances of describing my hand. For example, if the only bid to replace
> 1H was 3C (example : 3C = game-forcing raise of 1H opening), I  
> could be
> prone to accept it in order to double it for the lead. Something that
> would never have happened under TOFLB. While if it was 2NT, I might
> decide to allow the 1H bid and bid my lead-director 2C instead.
>
> So, (old) "there is" = "this is". But new "there is" is different from
> "this is". Which of those two informations shall be kept ? I claim  
> it's
> the latter, in order to apply L72B2 ar full strength.

It goes beyond that.  Consider that if we were to apply Grattan's  
interpretation to TOFLB, "the mere fact that there was a possible  
substitution" would no longer be information to which LHO was  
entitled.  That is true for the new FLB as well.  I do not believe  
that the lawmakers intended to take even that away (how is poor LHO,  
without even that much, to have any clue what's to his best  
advantage?), and question Grattan's interpretation on that basis.


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