[blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

David Burn:

[snip]

>>The reference to 16C2 (or 16D in the new code) is mildly perplexing. 16C2
>>says:
>>
>>For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action
>>and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised. A
>>player of the offending side may not choose from among logical
>>alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested
>>over another by the unauthorised information.
>>
>>Now, what does it mean to say "this does not apply"? Does it mean "the
>>converse of this does apply"? (in which case all information arising from
>>withdrawn actions is authorised, including the reason for taking the
>>withdrawn action in the first place). Or does it mean "this does not
apply,
>>so the rest of the Laws relating to UI must be used to determine whether
>>this particular kind of I is U or not"? In that case, a player may not
base
>>his actions on his partner's insufficient bids, because they are not
legal
>>calls.
>>
>>In order to do what it wants to do (and in order to shorten and simplify
the
>>Lawbook considerably), the WBFLC should say:
>>
>>Any illegal call that is not accepted must, at the player's turn to call,
be
>>replaced by a legal call. Any information arising from the illegal call
is
>>unauthorised to the offending side, but authorised to the non-offending
>>side.

Ton Kooijman:

[snip]

>Though David's interpretation is not unbelievable when just reading the
>words, it doesn't make sense at all when knowing the aim of present
L27B1a.

Richard Hills:

Yes, I agree that the only sensible way to interpret the 2007 Law 27B1(a)
statement "Law 16D does not apply but see D following" is that Law 27D
replaces Law 16.  That is, rather than the test for an adjusted score being
the severe Law 16 one of avoiding any demonstrably suggested logical
alternatives, the new test is the less severe Law 27D one of the probable
outcome had the insufficient bid (and its demonstrable suggestion) not
occurred.

Ton Kooijman:

>I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) the
>1H bidder  with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have to ask
Max.

Richard Hills:

I take a middle position between Ton and David.  The 1H opener bids on at
their own risk.  The risk in this case is that the 1H undercaller thought
they were responding to a 1C opening bid, and the 2H replacement call is
systemic, thus causing 3H to fail by a trick.

But if the 1H undercaller states, "Oh no, I thought I was dealer," then the
remark is UI even though the undercall itself is not.  In that case the 1H
opener may not bid on after the 2H replacement call if pass is a logical
alternative.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills
Graduates and Developmental Training Section
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Telephone: 02 6223 9067
Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm