[BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?

Tony Musgrove ardelm at optusnet.com.au
Tue Dec 29 04:34:40 CET 2009

At 01:38 PM 29/12/2009, you wrote:

>From: "Nigel Guthrie" <nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com>
>Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 8:22 PM
>To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
>Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?
> > [Sven Pran]
> > Responder (West)'s hand was S: 9 6 2 H: T 9 7 5 2 D: J 7 6 C: T 5
> > Dealer North, white against red, passed and thereafter the auction was
> > as I wrote in my OP. I doubt that this partnership here would open 1NT
> > with a six-card minor suit (or 5 in a major), and hardly ever with a
> > singleton anywhere. Is pass really an option after 1NT(15-17) - X - 2D
> > (alerted) - pass - pass - X?
> >
> > [Harald Skjæran]
> > If partner alerted my 2D and passed, I'd never even consider removing
> > to 2H with this hand. I'd pass 100% of the time without thinking of an
> > alternative contract at all. Just consider partner holding Kxx xx
> > AKQTx Axx. 2D plays far better than 2H.
> >
> > [Nigel]
> > IMO, Harald is right. In Sven's hypothetical auction, unless partner's
> > pass of 2D (X) is alerted, it is natural, suggesting a place to play.
> > You have already shown 5+ hearts, have no extra length, and no honour in
> > the suit. With 3 cards to an honour in diamonds, most players would pass
> > 2DX. Unfortunately, however, directors are loth to go against the spirit
> > of the 2007 laws. This leaves the law-abiding to suffer.
> >
> > A similar quandary is faced by victims of "Guessed-em". Ostensibly, the
> > law-breakers don't know what they're doing -- although they usually land
> > on their feet. Furthermore, the long-suffering victims must pussyfoot
> > around, avoiding actions that the director, in his wisdom, may consider
> > "wild and gambling", to retain any chance of redress.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Blml mailing list
> > Blml at rtflb.org
> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>I disagree fundamentally with most of the earlier posts here
>I've expressed an opinion with my 2D bid that 2H is a better contract than
>1NT x - if partner chooses to pass that it's his affair - perhaps he
>intended all along to bid 2H if 2D was doubled - it's simply not my business
>to interfere
>so he's never had six diamonds before never had a heart singleton so what.
>I understand that it's improper for me to discover what our methods are by
>the presence or absence of alert.
>IMHO I would have no hesitation in adjusting to 2Dx - and be quite happy if
>some player wanted to tell an appeal committee why he wasn't bound by UI to
>pass.  (Its ok to c***t if you can think of some good reasons)
>I'd certainly think of passing and would choose to do so at the table.
>Nigel seems to agree so we must be getting close to a Logical Alternative.
Thank you Mike, I thought I had begun to lose my reason.  This is
almost a canonical example and it happens to me quite frequently as
I have to play with left overs without proper system discussion,


Tony (Sydney)

More information about the Blml mailing list