[blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[John Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Grattan Endicott" <grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


>
> from Grattan Endicott
> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
> [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
> ****************************
> "The best words in the best order"
>                          ~ S T Coleridge.
> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
> To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 5:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>
>
>> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads
>> > Richard postulated
>> >
>> > > Except that it seems to me that a Law 25A
>> > > inadvertent call is not an irregularity.
>> >
>> > L18d: A bid that fails to supersede the
>> > immediately previous bid is an insufficient bid.
>> >
>> > No exceptions there for inadvertency.
>> >
>> > Tim
>>
>> A call that has been accepted under Law 25A
>> as an inadvertent call is considered null and void.
>> Consequently it has never been made, conveyed
>> no information and was no more an irregularity
>> than for instance a casual cough or sneeze would
>> be.

well, if LHO has called and that call is withdrawn, then there are UI 
considerations of course, but there is UI inherent in the call itself IMO; 
It was never made.  John
>>
>> Sven
>>
> +=+ Are you saying that, for the purposes of Law 16,
> no unauthorized information can result from what has
> occurred?  If so, when partner draws an inference and
> bases ensuing action upon it?
>                       ~ Grattan ~   +=+
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml