[blml] The new L27C2

[Wayne Burrows]

On 22/02/2008, Robert Geller <geller at nifty.com> wrote:
> Wayne Burrows writes:
> >The information contain in 4+ is essentially "not 0-3". The
> >information contained in the replacement bid 5+ incorporates "not 0-3"
> >and includes the additional information "not exactly 4".  This sort of
> >relationship between the replacement bid and the insufficient bid is
> >what is allowed by the new law.
>
> Your conclusion is sensible from a bridge point of view, but the
> claim that this is supported by the current language of 27C is really
> grasping at straws.   The WBF should rewrite the law to obviate the
> need for specious arguments.
>
> Let's try it the other way.   The replacement bid (2H) shows 5+.
> The IB shows 4+.   Obviously there is a category (exactly 4) of
> hands that could have made the IB that is NOT included in
> the category of hands that could have made the replacement
> bid.   Thus the replacement bid 82H) does not incorporate the
> IB.   Full stop.
>
> Instead of our wasting time on this silly argument we should be
> instead be turning up the heat on the Lords of the Law to fix this
> wretchedly drafted law.....
>

The language of the law is "by a bid ... that incorporates the
information contained in the insufficient bid".

It is the information conveyed by they replacement bid not the
description of the replacement bid that has to incorporate the
information contained in the insufficient bid.

We need to appreciate that the more information that is conveyed by a
bid then the fewer hands that will make that bid and conversely that
the less information contained in a bid the more hands that will make
that bid.

A precision 1C that shows 16+ gives less information than a standard
2NT opening showing 20-21 hcp in a balanced hand.

The information in the 2NT opening 20-21 hcp balanced incorporates the
information in 1C 16+.  In addition to the information 16+ the 2NT
opening contains additional information that narrow the range of hands
to 20-21 hcp and limit the distribution to balanced hands.

To me this seems a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the words in the law.

Wayne