[blml] new L27

[Alain Gottcheiner]

richard willey a écrit :
> At this point in the auction, there is some set of hands that John Doe
> could conceivably hold.  Let's call this set A
>
> John Doe has just made a 1H bid.  The 1H bid defines a set of possible
> hands.  Let's call this set B.  Furthermore, 1H denies some other set
> of hands.  (A 1H overcall is inconsistent with 13 Spades).  Let' call
> this set C.
>
> A = The Union of B and C
>
> Here's the catch:  The definition of the 1H bid simultaneously
> provides information about both B and C.  Suppose that I wanted to
> substitute a 2D call for the insufficient 1H call.  2D shows a subset
> of set B.  Lets call this set D.
>
> By my understanding, this wouldn't be legal because the set A – D is
> not a subset of C.  (I have access to additional information about the
> set of hands excluded by the 2D call)
>
> The way that I read things, the only way that I can substitute some
> new call is if this new call draws precisely the same boundary as the
> original 1H call.  Each and every hand included in set B must be in
> set D.  Each and every hand in set C must be in (A – D).
>
> In all honesty, I'd be shocked if anyone can find and example that
> would meet this stringent a test.
>
> I suspect that either
>
> 1. My reading of the Law is incorrect, in which case I'd appreciate it
> if someone picked apart my logic
>
> 2. The new Law 27 is drafted poorly
>
>   
AG : not necessarily. Whenever D in a subset of B,  non-B (that is, C) 
is a subset of non-D, whence no supplementary information from the 1H 
bid, whence no damage from the infraction. That's the acid test for 
letting it go unpenalized.

Best regards

    Alain