[blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Wayne Burrows]

On 31/01/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:
>
> Three highly unusual Directors (highly unusual
> expertise) gave a seminar on the new Lawbook at
> the recently concluded Aussie Summer Festival
> of Bridge.
>
> Director in charge Laurie Kelso must have drawn
> the short straw, as he was the one tasked with
> explaining the 2007 Law 27C.
>
> Laurie was forced to draw Venn diagrams on the
> whiteboard in order to describe the official
> South Pacific Zone interpretation of the key
> Law 27C1 word "incorporates".  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 (and provided that the replacement
> call met the other criteria of Law 27C1).
>
> A matter for debate was Laurie's revelation that
> the withdrawn insufficient bid was authorised
> information for both sides.  A perceptive Little
> Old Lady posed this tricky scenario:
>
> WEST      NORTH     EAST
> 1S        2C        1NT  = 6-9 hcp, replaced by
>                    Pass = 0-9 hcp
>
> The hcp range of the Pass "incorporates" the hcp
> range of the 1NT, but West now has authorised
> information that East is denying a yarborough,
> which might make it easier for West to choose a
> successful rebid of 4S.
>
> I suppose a solution to this scenario would be
> to interpret the Law 27C2 phrase "without
> assistance from the insufficient bid" as including
> "without assistance from any difference in
> meaning between the insufficient bid and its
> replacement call".
>
> In my opinion there is also a lacuna in Law 27C2.
> It caters for possible damage caused by the
> _contract_ being different, but not for possible
> damage caused by the partner of the insufficient
> bidder _defending_ like Zia.
>
> The official recommendation of the South Pacific
> Zone, as described by Laurie Kelso, was that if
> there was no other way for Directors to rectify
> damage then ANZAC TDs should use Law 12A1 to give
> indemnity to the non-offending side.
>

As usual I have no idea what the intention of this law was but it
would seem to me that if the replaced bid or call gave more specific
information then there was no advantage to the offending side whereas
if it gave less specific information then there would be an advantage.

This appears to be completely opposite to the example given by Laurie
Kelso but as I stated earlier concurs with the idea of more
information being allowed in the replacement bid.

Another way to see the fallacy is to describe the bids in the example
as both less than 10 hcp the first (insufficient) bid contains the
additional information not 0-5 hcp.  The replacement bid does not
contain that additional information.

What the law actually says is :

"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
(Law 16D does not apply), but see 2 following."

I would think that a replacement bid that showed 7-8 hcp should be
allowed. It incorporates all of the information in the original (6-9
hcp) bid - less then 10 hcp and not 0-5 hcp and it includes additional
information that it is not a six count and is not a nine count.  The
consequence is that there is no additional information in the
replacement bid.

Wayne