[blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C

[Wayne Burrows]

On 03/02/2008, Tony Musgrove <ardelm at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> At 04:43 PM 1/02/2008, you wrote:
>
> >Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
> >[following address discontinued:
> >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
> >*******************************
> >"Continuing to do the same thing
> >  hoping for a different outcome."
> >            Einstein: definition of madness.
> >  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
> >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:44 PM
> >Subject: Re: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C
> >
> >
> > >> 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.
> > >
> >+=+ In my discussions of Law 27C currently I introduced
> >Wayne's comment. Here is a response I received from the
> >WBF CTD:
> >"In drawing his Venn diagrmans, I assume Laurie Kelso began
> >with a fairly small circle for the information 'I have 0-12 points',
> >(or whatever the example was) as this doesn't really contain
> >very much information at all. Then he drew a larger circle around
> >it for the information 'I have 5-9 points', as this contains quite a
> >lot of additional information.
> >
> >Then he drew a huge circle around both of these to represent
> >the information 'I have 6 points', as this contains all the information
> >in the universe as far as point count is concerned.
> >
> >The little old lady you describe below would not then have
> >followed her confused line of logic, and would have seen
> >that it is 5-9 which incorporates 0-12, and not the other
> >way round."
>
> Aha, I think I've got it (why I am confused I mean)
>
> They bid    1C (1S) 1H (insufficient).
>
> I find out that the 1H bidder did not see the intermediate 1S.
> The previous correction to 2H would show 10+ points and
> 5+hearts, so I do not allow it (it gives more information than
> the 1H would have).  However, I can offer the perpetrator
> a negative double if it means (in their system) 'I would have
> bid 1H).  On the other hand, if I find the 1H bidder did not
> see the two previous bids, and was opening the bidding
> (albeit OOT), I allow the 2H change without penalty.  What
> could be easier
>

Wrong I think.

More information is fine.  Less information is bad.

1C (1S) 1H - intended as a response to 1C

This shows 4+ hearts and 5+hcp or something similar.

Both X showing four hearts and 2H showing 5+ hearts are (well at least
could be) subsets of the hands that responder would bid 1H on
therefore potential either call could be allowed as a correction.
There is a possibility that one of these calls contains some hands
that would not respond 1H to an opening bid and so the 1H insufficient
bid gives some extra information and so would not be allowed.

For example maybe you would bid 1C (Pass) 2H with a six-count and six
hearts but after 1C (1S) you would have to double with this hand
intending to later bid hearts.  Now the insufficient 1H conveys
additional information that would not be conveyed by a negative
double.

Wayne