[BLML] What if I lied?

Steve Willner swillner at nhcc.net
Thu Dec 17 04:09:24 CET 2009

> From: PO Sundelin <posundelin at yahoo.se>
> Not vul against vul partner opens 1 heart promising 4+ and denying a 
> strong club.
> Next hand doubles and you try to muddle the waters by bidding 1NT 
> holding xxx,Txxx,xxx,xxx
> It goes 4spades, double, pass. Back to you.
> Well, partner broke tempo before doubling.
> It seems clear that your original plan was to return (run) to hearts if 
> you had to. How barred can you become by partner´s tempo break.

As others may have mentioned, what you intended is legally irrelevant. 
The questions now are "logical alternatives" and "suggested over 
another."  The slow double does, I think, suggest pulling, but of course 
my bridge judgment is nowhere near the same class as Mr. Sundelin's.

> Question 1
> Is this the kind of UI that forbids you to choose among logical 
> alternatives..? You have misled partner about points and heart length. 
> Should that be taken in account?

The prior auction and the actual hand held -- including the fact that it 
doesn't match the hand shown in the auction -- are relevant for 
determining logical alternatives.  (Here the main question seems to be 
whether pass is a LA or not.)

> Question 2
> Over your 5 hearts the 4spade bidder bid 5 spades (with Jxxxx,-,AKxxx, 
> Jxx) and went one down, then did not call the TD. But his partner did.

Who called the TD is irrelevant.

> 5 hearts was not in itself a winning decision as it would have been 
> doubled and gone for 800.

The first question is whether 5H was legal.  There may be a subsequent 
question about whether the 5S bid was "wild or gambling action," but 
that would only affect the score of the spade-bidding side.

From: Hans-Olof Hallén <hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se>
> 1. Opener did not deny a strong holding. They do not play strong club,
 > so opener could up to 21 points.

This seems to me to make a huge difference.  If these are the methods, 
why (except for the tempo break) couldn't opener have four solid tricks 
against 4S?

Mr. Hallen reported other facts that differ from the original post. 
Those would, of course, affect the various bridge judgments but not the 
legal principles.

More information about the Blml mailing list