[blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C?

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*****************************
One of the great joys in later life is 
not to be faced with hikes in mortgage 
repayments when  the loan has been 
fully repaid. 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Eidt" <PeterEidt at t-online.de>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C?


From: "Jerry Fusselman" 
> [Law 29C]
> 
> If a call out of rotation is artificial, the provisions of Laws
> 30, 31 and 32 apply to the denomination(s) specified, rather
> than the denomination named.
>  
> Here is my main question: Which denominations are in 
> effect for laws 30, 31, and 32? Currently, I think we have 
> no way of knowing what denominations are to be applied 
> to the provisions of laws 30, 31, and 32. This uncertainty
> looks like a problem to me.
>
+=+ Uncertainty is usually source of a problem. Let us see 
if we can grope our way onto firmer ground.
       'specify' = "to refer to specifically"
       'specifically' = "explicitly, particularly, definitely"
Questions we have to ask, therefore, in applying Laws 30, 
31, 32, are:
1. Is the call out of rotation an artificial call, i.e. does it convey 
information other than a willingness to play in the denomination 
named or last named? Is it a pass that promises more than a 
specified amount of strength or promises or denies values other 
than in the last suit named?
2. If yes, does it refer explicitly, particularly, or definitely, to 
one or more denominations other than the one named or last 
named? 
3. How is 'conveys information' to be interpreted in the definition 
of 'artificial call'.?   [Here the matter to be determined is whether 
the meaning is confined to positive information about the caller's 
hand, or does it extend to include presumptive information (that 
in some partnerships may be denied subsequently in the later 
auction) such as an inference that the caller is interested in a 
particular suit or suits?   The definition is open ended and I have 
failed this far to identify what in the 2007 Laws might exclude 
such presumptive information. Is it not information on which 
partner may eventually rely in the absence of contrary indications? 
Is it not true that every bid is technically an offer to contract for 
the number of tricks specified in the denomination named, with 
information about the hand deriving secondarily from inference 
or from partnership understanding?] 





_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml at amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml