[blml] The new L27C2

[David Burn]

[EL]

>From the first time I read it, I found L27C1 clear, unamibiguous and  not at
all troublesome (at least through "continues", but that's the portion we're
talking about).  But so many people have had so much  difficulty
understanding it that I have become convinced that there must be a serious
problem with the language that I do not see.

[DALB]

It's not so much that there is a problem with the language, but there is a
problem with whether the language reflects the intent of the Lawmakers.

Simpliciter: if all Xs are Ys, then the information "this is a Y"
incorporates the information "this is an X". If some Ys are not Xs, the
information "this is an X" does not incorporate the information "this is a
Y". 

Law 27C as currently written says:

If the insufficient bid is replaced by a bid at the lowest legal level or
double or pass that incorporates the information contained in the
insufficient bid, the auction and play continues with the information
arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides.

We define: hands that would make the insufficient bid (IB) as Xs; hands that
would make the replacement call (RC) as Ys; RCs that permit the auction to
continue as "allowed". And we answer Robert Geller's question thus:

N	E	S	E
1C	2H	1S	DIRECTOR!

Question: what replacement calls are allowed?

(1) Can South make an allowed RC of "double"? Yes, if the RC (which means
"my hand is a Y") would be made on all hands that would make the IB of "one
spade" (which means "my hand is an X"). No, otherwise (or not necessarily,
otherwise - see below).

(2) Can South make an allowed RC of "two spades"? Yes, if the RC (which
means "my hand is a Y") would be made on all hands that would make the IB of
"one spade" (which means "my hand is an X"). No, otherwise.

For the most part, this means that we do not need to know what South thought
the auction was; all we need to know is what South's methods are (and we
expect him to answer this question truthfully if we ask it). This is not to
say that all difficulties are eliminated, including the difficulty to which
Robert refers. For example; if South has:

Qxxx  x  AJxxxx  xx

then if North opened 1C and East passed, South might bid 1S or 1D according
to whether or not he was playing Walsh. If, however, East overcalled 1H,
South would double unless this denied spades, in which case he would
presumably bid 1S. Whether or not a South not playing Walsh, or playing
double to deny spades, is allowed "double" as a RC over 2H (and doubtless he
would double if in full possession of his faculties) may depend on whether
he thought East bid 1H or whether he thought East passed. Again, this is a
question to which we expect him to respond truthfully, though it is possible
that he may see some advantage in not doing so.

In correspondence with some members of the WBF DSC on this topic a few weeks
ago, I remarked of the desire to allow corrections without penalty of
insufficient bids that:

I assume it is the normal barmy Kaplanesque stuff: no one at a high level
should be penalized for an "obviously mechanical" error like passing a cue
bid, so you peasants at low levels can have a mish-mash of rules and argue
among yourselves whether what you did was because you're clumsy or because
you're stupid. We Rosenbergs and Martels only play the game with our brains,
and if they become detached from time to time from our fingers, that's not
our fault. Good thing we don't play tennis, or some other actual sport in
which what you do remains what you did, whether you meant to do it or not.

A month or so later, I see no reason to disagree with myself.

David Burn
London, England