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

[Tony Musgrove]

[RJH}

CUT

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).

In the olden days before the 1997 Laws, the
Australian NA promulgated its interpretation
of the old L27.  We were invited to believe that
in a sequence such as 4NT(Blackwood)  4D (
insuffiicient), that since there was no conventional
meaning for the insufficient bid, a correction to 5D
(1 Ace) was allowed without penalty.
I trust that there is no loophole in the new L27 for
an argument like "we have no agreement about
insufficient bids, so partner's bid had zero
information content"

Just a thought

Tony (Sydney)
nfo
that