[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: "Alain Gottcheiner" <agot at ulb.ac.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C?


gesta at tiscali.co.uk a écrit :
> 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)
AG : Even if the call only refers to one specific suit, there might be a
problem.

Kxx
xx
xxx
Q10xxx

The unobstructed sequence would be, with some of my former partners : 1C
(strong) - 1D (weak) - 1S (4+ cards) - 2C (exactly 3 spades, at least a
little something, and passable with longer clubs than spades). Now they
tell me RHO has bid 2D over 1S. I'd like to bid 2S, but partner might
think -wrongly- that I hold 4 of them. A TO double isn't a good idea
with only 2 hearts and a non-maximum.
But the new rules tell me I'm allowed to bid 2S without penalty
(referring only to spades, too) and partner will be remembered I could
do it on a 3-card in a pinch.
This looks like L23 craning its neck once again, never a good idea.

Best regards

   Alain
....................................................................................

+=+ You are saying something about Law 29 and
linking your comments to an example concerning
an insufficient bid. Please clarify what is your point.
        If we look at your example in the light of Law
27C1 we will discover that the law does not use the
phrase 'without penalty' or the like; instead it says
the auction and play "continues with the information
arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both
sides" - but subject to a 27C2 adjustment if the
Director "judges that without assistance from the
withdrawn bid the contract could well have been
different and the non-offending side is damaged".
This applies if the contract could well have been
different if the partner did not have the knowledge
that the 2S may be only three cards (It may also be
relevant on occasion that offender knows his partner
has that information).
                                    ~ Grattan ~    +=+