[blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Jesper Dybdal]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:36:14 +1100, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:

>Jesper Dybdal:
>
>>What should the TD do if the contract could not "well have been
>>different", but the non-offending side is damaged in the play?
>>- either because the same contract is reached in a different
>>way
>
>Richard Hills:
>
>Rub of the green?

Perhaps.  But then I wonder why a different contract is not also just
rub of the green.

>Jesper Dybdal:
>
>>or because the offending side becomes defenders and defend
>>better because of information from the insufficient bid.
>
>Richard Hills:
>
>Now _that_ is a paradox.  Law 27C2 only applies if Law 27C1 is
>used first.  And Law 27C1 says that the replacement call
>"incorporates" the information of the insufficient bid, so
>there is not any illegal information outstanding from the
>insufficient bid.

That is true if "incorporates" is interpreted quite literally.

I would prefer a loose interpretation of "incorporates" where the TD
could use L27C even if the replacement call does not completely
incorporate the meaning of the insufficient bid, if the TD judges that
there is an excellent chance of the board being playable with no
influence from the additional information from the insufficient bid.

I think that would allow many more boards to be played normally.  But it
is practicable only if there is an escape mechanism in case the
additional information should after all have an influence on the result
- and L27C2 is not good enough for that, since it only comes into effect
when the contract is different.

The missing possibility of adjusting for problems during play seems to
suggest that the lawmakers really did intend a very strict
interpretation of "incorporates" - with L27C2 in existence only to cater
for the case where the offender corrects to a call he would not normally
have made.  Though I admit that there is a certain pure logic in the
strict interpretation, I think it is a pity - it would be better to
allow more hands to be played normally, with a possibility of adjusted
score if something goes wrong.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:42:05 +0100, "Grattan Endicott"
<grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>+=+ I take the view that when unsure whether the replacement
>'incorporates' the meaning of the insufficient bid the Director may
>let the play continue and, if at the end of the hand it is evident to
>him that he should not have done so, fly to Law 27C2.
>                                    ~ Grattan ~   +=+ 

It seems to me that even Grattan's suggestion of using L27C when unsure
can lead to problems during the play that L27C2 cannot solve.

I would very much like to find some (not clearly illegal) excuse for
allowing a loose interpretation of "incorporates" with the possibility
of later adjustment, but I currently do not seem to be able to find such
an excuse.  If anybody else can, I'll be happy to hear about it.
-- 
Jesper Dybdal, Denmark.
http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).