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

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott
..................
> > 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.
> >
> > 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 ~   +=+

Yes, see for instance your own book: "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate
Contract Bridge", comment 25.3: "... everyone forgets the first call ever
happened".

However there is one piece of information (UI?) that still is present:
Partner has had a momentary slip of the tongue!

But whether any (useful) inference can possibly be drawn from such
information is another question.

Regards Sven