[blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns.

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Herman De Wael a écrit :
>
>> nor did the law give him a right to know what false 
>> impression had led the offender to make his IB. 
>>     
>
> I'm not so certain about that. The question never arose, since the 
> false impression was only mildly important. If the lowest correction 
> was conventional, there were no penalty-free options. If the lowest 
> correction was natural, it was most often clear if the IB could be 
> showing that same suit.
> So yes, maybe we did not tell the LHO what the offender's intention 
> were, but he knew those most of the time anyway.
>   
Indeed. So, as far as information content is concerned, we're in 
unchartered waters here, and we might as well argue "information about 
the intent, as before" as we might "information about the RB only, as 
before", because they were equivalent ... only, they are no more.
And I'm with Herman .about efficiency.

>
>   
>> The LHO has no right to 
>> information about the legal auction until it has occurred. 
>>
>>     
>
> Yes he has! He has the right to know in advance the meaning of every 
> single bid the player is legally entitled to make.
>
>   
Indeed, because this bid will conform to the opponents' system (no new 
conventions after infractions), and he is entitled to the opponents' 
full system before making his call, as always.

Best regards

   Alain