[blml] By the pricking of my thumbs

[Eric Landau]

At 06:35 PM 3/9/07, twm wrote:

>Eric wrote:
>
> > If it were possible for the withdrawn call to have provided any
> > useful information, unauthorized or otherwise, it could not have
> > satisfied the strict inadvertancy criterion of L25A.
>
>Why not?  In the sequence 1H-(X)- "oops I meant 1S not 1H" becoming
>"1s-(p)" the information inherent in the double is surely UI to the OS.
>That doesn't affect the genuine nature of the L25a correction.

I must have replied out of context, since by "the withdrawn call" I 
meant the 1H bid itself.  Clearly there can be secondary UI, e.g. from 
the manner in which the call was made (where the EI would be about the 
intended call), or from the opponents.

Question:  What happens if the opponents react inappropriately to the 
initial call, such as by showing obvious surprise?  Is this 
"information arising from [the original OS's] withdrawn action" (UI, 
L16C2) or information "arising" from the opponents action (usuable at 
the original OSs "own risk", L73D1)?


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607