[blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C

[Wayne Burrows]

On 01/02/2008, Jerry Fusselman <jfusselman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2008 8:49 AM, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
> >
> > It sounds like the perceptive LOL misunderstood Mr. Kelso's
> > explanation.  That East holds at least 6 HCP is certainly
> > "information", it was "given" by the 1NT IB, and it is not "included"
> > in the replacement pass.  The pass should not be allowed without
> > penalty.
> >
> > Imagine (very silly example, but it works) that 1NT showed 0-9 and
> > pass showed 6-9.  Now it would be allowed without penalty.  Note the
> > difference.  Keep in mind the axiom that if A incorporates B and B
> > incorporates A, then A and B must be identical.
> >
>
> This analysis appeals.  I wonder if another way I thought of looking
> at it always gives the right answer:
>
> If the insufficient bid and the corrected call together give the same
> information as the corrected call would by itself, then allow the
> correction without penalty.
>
> or maybe this way
>
> If the original insufficient bid provides no extra information about
> the hand when the corrected call replaces it, then allow the
> correction without penalty.
>
> or maybe this this way
>
> If in terms of information, A + B = B, then allow the correction of
> insufficient bid A to call B without penalty.
>
> Maybe it is my dyslexia, but I find the way the law uses the word
> "incorporates" almost permanently confusing.  What Venn diagram
> symbolizes "incorporating information"?  I don't think an information
> theorist would be sure what is meant, so a rewording or a
> clarification is in order.

I too initially found the law confusing but that has been clarified in
my mind on a second or third or fourth or tenth reading.

Laurie Kelso summarized it well.  "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 ..."

The example given which I thought was also Kelso's though is wrong.  A
placement pass does not contain more information than the insufficient
bid 1NT.

Seemingly noone at the seminar picked up on this error as Richard
proposes alternative solutions to this perceived problem "I suppose a
solution to this scenario would be to interpret the Law 27C2 phrase
..."

>
> Then there is the question of how perfect the incorporation must be.
> Absolutely perfect A + B = B is probably quite rare, but the law
> makers gave us a glimpse of their intention (a few weeks ago) that the
> new law should allow more corrections than the old law. (That kind of
> glimpse is both rare and helpful.)  This apparently means that A + B =
> B is not a strict requirement.  Again, a rewording or a clarification
> is in order.
>

I think the law (and Kelso's summary) require that all of the
information contained in the insufficient bid is contained in the
replacement bid.  If there is any hand that would make the replacement
bid but not the insufficient bid then there is an advantage from
making the insufficient bid and the criteria have not been met.  On
the other hand if there are hands that would make the insufficient bid
but not the replacement bid then we have no additional information
from the insufficient bid and this is allowed.

In terms of Venn diagrams I think that if A is the set of hands that
would make the insufficient bid and B is the set of hands that would
make the replacement bid then B must be contained wholely within A so
that there is no additional information from the insufficient bid.

That is A intersect B must be equal to B.

Wayne