[blml] Correction to procedure statement - Law 27B1

[Jeff Easterson]

Hola Grattan!  I don't know if you are already aware of this or if it 
interests you.  Almost all of your blml postings arrive doubly.  That 
is, one is dated (the time) usually a minute or two after the other. 
That was true of the posting below as well.  May be a problem with your 
PC or you may be clicking "send" twice.  The same thing happens 
occasionally to others; there are occasional postings from others that 
arrive twice but yours have been doing so for at least the last month or 
two.
In this case the times given were 11:47 and 11:48.  Otherwise, greetings 
and I (as well as all others I amsure) do appreciate what you do in 
serving as liaison and source of info.  Thanks, JE

gesta at tiscali.co.uk schrieb:
> 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.)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml