[blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Tony Musgrove]

RHH:

>Three highly unusual Directors (highly unusual
>expertise) gave a seminar on the new Lawbook at
>the recently concluded Aussie Summer Festival
>of Bridge.
>
>Director in charge Laurie Kelso must have drawn
>the short straw, as he was the one tasked with
>explaining the 2007 Law 27C.
>
>Laurie was forced to draw Venn diagrams on the
>whiteboard in order to describe the official
>South Pacific Zone interpretation of the key
>Law 27C1 word "incorporates".  He stated that if
>the replacement call for an insufficient bid
>contained more information than the insufficient
>bid it would still be legal, provided that all
>the information given by the insufficient bid
>was included (and provided that the replacement
>call met the other criteria of Law 27C1).
>
>A matter for debate was Laurie's revelation that
>the withdrawn insufficient bid was authorised
>information for both sides.  A perceptive Little
>Old Lady posed this tricky scenario:
>
>WEST      NORTH     EAST
>1S        2C        1NT  = 6-9 hcp, replaced by
>                     Pass = 0-9 hcp
>
>The hcp range of the Pass "incorporates" the hcp
>range of the 1NT, but West now has authorised
>information that East is denying a yarborough,
>which might make it easier for West to choose a
>successful rebid of 4S.
>
>I suppose a solution to this scenario would be
>to interpret the Law 27C2 phrase "without
>assistance from the insufficient bid" as including
>"without assistance from any difference in
>meaning between the insufficient bid and its
>replacement call".
>
>In my opinion there is also a lacuna in Law 27C2.
>It caters for possible damage caused by the
>_contract_ being different, but not for possible
>damage caused by the partner of the insufficient
>bidder _defending_ like Zia.
>
>The official recommendation of the South Pacific
>Zone, as described by Laurie Kelso, was that if
>there was no other way for Directors to rectify
>damage then ANZAC TDs should use Law 12A1 to give
>indemnity to the non-offending side.
One has the impression that the new L27 was supposed to
ease several of the restrictions which made the old L27
so easy to administer and explain to the punters.  I had
not noticed that "pass" could be a legal change of call
which might allow partner to continue in the auction..I
suppose I have difficulty coming to grips with what "incorporates"
means.  There is no way I can explain what is permitted and
what is authorised to an offender.  I have been getting around
it by administering a very slack version of the old L27 and hoping
for the best.

  Whatever, it now seems that I should carefully examine
the final contract under L27C2 in each case.

Tony (Sydney)