[blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure.

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*************************
"True luck consists not in holding
the best cards at the table,
 Luckiest he who knows just when
to rise and go home."  [John Hay ]
"*************************
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alain Gottcheiner" <agot at ulb.ac.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Cc: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure.


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.
>>
+=+True  However, it may matter if 27B1(a) applied. +=+