[blml] comments on 27 procedure

[John (MadDog) Probst]

>>> 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 IB is only withdrawn after LHO decides not to accept it.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.

clearly this is so. "You may accept the call but I'm not going to tell you 
the details of the Law". The regulation as promulgated is flawed. <sigh> 
another row with Max. A player cannot be asked to accept the call until he 
knows RHO's options. Not that RHO has options, but actually what the options 
are in a legal context rather than a bridge context.  John
>
> -- 
> Herman DE WAEL
> Antwerpen Belgium
> http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml