[blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Lawsand 2007Laws - Part Two

[Adam Beneschan]

Eric wrote:

> > But what if the opponents were always getting to 5D?  Now 27C2 doesn't
> > apply.  Plus, you've given partner helpful information for the defense
> > that you wouldn't have been able to give him otherwise---the
> > information that you have long clubs---and according to 27C1, this
> > information is authorized for him.
> >
> > Can this be right?
> 
> Sort of.  But it overlooks that the substituted 4C, even though it  
> incorporates the meaning of 3C (which shows clubs), shows clubs *and  
> spades* (and so also shows clubs).  It doesn't make the meaning of 4C  
> morph into the meaning of 3C (unless you're cheating; see above), so  
> partner must play you for clubs and spades; he may not infer from the  
> IB that you might not have spades.  The reference to L16D is  
> parenthesized; it is a useful reminder that L16D does not negate the  
> "authorizedness" of the incorporated information even though L16D  
> might be (mis-) read to say that it does, but does not affect the  
> meaning of the unparenthesized portion.

Hmmm...  

The only way that you can say "he may not infer", with reference to
your partner, is if *something* about the situation is unauthorized;
if there were no UI involved then partner could infer anything.  So it
sounds like the "correct" interpretation of this part of the sentence
is that "the information from the withdrawn call that is incorporated
into the meaning of the corrected call is authorized, but other
information from the withdrawn call is still unauthorized, and the
parenthesized clause that Law 16D does not apply applies only to this
incorporated information and not to other information."

That makes sense.  Unfortunately, if that's what 27C1 really means,
then it's not worded in a way that is conducive to someone figuring
out the real meaning.  This Law just says "Law 16D does not apply",
and "the information from the withdrawn call is authorized"; how is
anyone supposed to figure out that some of the information involved is
still unauthorized and that Law 16D *does* apply?  I suspect there
will be trouble (i.e. a spate of wrong rulings) unless somebody
publishes a clarifying explanation.

                                -- Adam