Re: New Laws 27D
- From: blackshoe <blackshoe@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 05:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 4, 11:00 pm, "henrysun...@xxxxxxxxx" <henrysun...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Aug 4, 4:22 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(j) Under Law 40B3 (d) a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement,
its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an
irregularity by either side, except that following its own
insufficient
bid a partnership may not change by prior agreement the meaning of a
replacement call so that it is brought within the criteria of Law 27B1
(b).
***********
I wonder if the ACBL has adopted a similar approach.
Henrysun909
The ACBL's Law 40B3 election is "A partnership, by prior agreement,
may not vary its understanding during the auction or play following a
question asked, a response to a question or any irregularity."
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: New Laws 27D
- From: Dave Flower
- Re: New Laws 27D
- References:
- Re: New Laws 27D
- From: David Stevenson
- Re: New Laws 27D
- From: henrysun909@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: New Laws 27D
- Prev by Date: Re: Safety plays: are there any general principles or guidelines?
- Next by Date: Re: Another grand slam question
- Previous by thread: Re: New Laws 27D
- Next by thread: Re: New Laws 27D
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|