[blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure.

[Alain Gottcheiner]

gesta at tiscali.co.uk a écrit :
> +=+ Where the basis of the IBer's bid has alternative
> possibilities the partner is not entitled to guess which 
> of them is the true explanation. His knowledge of the 
> game will tell him what the alternative possibilities are 
> and this is Law 16A1(d) information. If he is told 
> that he is free to participate in the auction following 
> the offender's choice of RC, and it is not the minimum 
> legal bid in the same denomination as the IB he will 
> know that the meaning of the RC is contained within  
> the meaning of the IB and the auction continues under 
> 27B1(b).  If the denomination of the RC is the same 
> as that of the IB at the lowest sufficient level he knows 
> that the auction is continuing under Law 27B1(a). 
>      This is all AI for the partner. What is not AI is the
> information he derives from knowledge *which* of the 
> alternative possibilities was the basis of offender's IB. 
>   
True, but if L27B1(b) was correctly applied, this knowledge doesn't 
bring any more information than the bid itself brings, whence there will 
be no suspicion of UI use.

Best regards

   Alain