[blml] Correction to procedure statement - Law 27B1

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*************************
"A full cup must be carried steadily."
                      [English proverb ]
"*************************

+=+ Apology.
Law 27B1(b)
In my 'procedure' statement the correct statement 
is that the information from the replacement call 
must be identical to or more precise than the 
information from the IB. The information from 
the former may thus be greater. It is the meaning 
of the call that must be fully contained within the 
meaning of the IB. It is so very easy to get the 
terminology wrong. Extra definition conveys 
more information.
Thankyou to the correspondent who nudged me.
                            ~ Grattan ~   +=+
Corrected version: 
Director's suggested procedure:
1. He should ask the offender to say nothing, explaining that
anything he says or indicates may create UI for his partner.
2. He should tell the LHO that he may accept or reject the IB,
going on to tell him that if he rejects the IB the offender will
have options:
    If the offender makes the lowest legal bid in the same
denomination (and neither bid is artificial) the auction will 
continue. If the offender makes a call that conveys no meaning 
outside of the meaning of the IB the auction will continue. (A 
more precise call conveys, of course, more information since 
it defines the hand more closely. ) If he selects any other call 
it will silence his partner for the remainder of the auction.
3. He should answer any question the LHO raises but should
maintain the stance that he does not know what the offender
thought he was doing when he made the IB and should not
discuss options the offender may have if the IB is rejected.
The LHO may examine his opponent's system card or make 
enquiries about opponent's system before choosing his option. 
4. If the IB is rejected the Director needs to ascertain what
the offender was thinking when he made the IB. The other
three players are not entitled to know this so he should be 
asked away from the table.
5. The Director should amplify the explanation of Law 27B
without disclosing the basis of the offence. The IB is not part
of the legal auction.
6. The AI is twofold
    (i) the meaning of the replacement call (LHO may ask, or
RHO may at his turn);
    (ii) the knowledge, lawful under Law 16A1(d), that the
offender may have been responding to a call from partner,
overcalling a bid by opponent, or opening the bidding. The
offender's partner may use this information and in the
subsequent auction may explore, to the extent that his hand
justifies it, the possibilities of the hand. He is not entitled to
'guess' and act upon his guess. (In some situations one
- ? more than one - of the said possible causes of the IB
may be eliminated by circumstances.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~