[blml] Law 27

[David Burn]

[EL]

"Incorporates the information" admittedly caused considerable confusion.
Many, even on BLML, where parsing bridge law is what we do, mistook the
incorporation of the information from a call for the incorporation of the
definition of a call, which works oppositely, and so attempted to apply the
criterion backwards; we've seen several posters getting this wrong

[DALB]

I seem to recall some post in which Eric said that I had got Xs and Ys the
wrong way round and then applied a criterion backwards. If I had in fact
done that, my conclusion at least would have been correct. An old joke may
have some topicality where Eric lives; rising to her feet to make her
opening speech in a political debate, a candidate says:

"My opponent's reasoning has been impeccable, but his premises are wrong, so
his conclusions are bound to be wrong. Now, my premises are just as likely
to be wrong as his. But I intend to make some mistakes in my reasoning, so
my conclusions have some chance of being correct, whereas his have none.
Therefore, you should vote for me."

What Eric and I said then is bridge under the water. Now we have a new Law,
and I have sent a few example scenarios to some members of the DSC. I post
them here in order to help our understanding. Answer on one side of the
monitor only.

[1] South opens 1NT; North bids 1H. Is he allowed to bid 2D to show 5+
hearts (and nothing else about his hand)? Does it matter why he bid 1H?
 
[2] South opens 1NT; North bids 1S. He did this because he thought South
opened 1C, and his 1S response to that showed diamonds. Is he allowed to bid
2NT to show diamonds?
 
[3] As [2]; but 1S showed either a balanced hand with no major, or long
diamonds. Is North now allowed to bid 2NT to show diamonds?
 
[4] West opens 2S; North bids 1NT. He did this because he did not see the
opening bid. Luckily for him, he plays a strong no trump and 2NT over 2S
also shows a strong no trump, so this seems to be a 271(a) case. But is
North allowed to bid 2NT without a spade guard? If so, is South allowed to
know that North might have done this, and to act accordingly? Are
North-South permitted to have methods in this position whereby South can ask
North for a spade guard?

David Burn
London, England