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

Alain Gottcheiner agot at ulb.ac.be
Wed Jan 6 16:41:15 CET 2010


Grattan a écrit :
> Grattan Endicott<grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk
> ********************************
> "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time,
> Why should I strive to set the crooked straight?
> Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme
> Beats with light wing against the ivory gate
> Telling a tale not too importunate."
>                       [William Morris]
> "''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Herman De Wael" <Hermandw at skynet.be>
> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 2:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?
>
>
>   
>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote:
>>     
>>> FWIW, if I held said hand (xxx-J10xxx-xxx-xx) and partner passed 2D
>>> doubled, I would pass.
>>> In the same way as, if I made a Landy 2C, was doubled and partner
>>> passed, I would pass with the normal 4522 hand.
>>>
>>> Does it make 2D a LA ?
>>>
>>>       
>> No, because you did not re-state all the circumstances that David
>> started with: the fact that he had no agreements with this particular
>> partner - he knew it, his partner knew it, and he would "always" take
>> out the pass to 2H again.
>> Your statements above are true with a partner with whom you have
>> agreements, not with one with which you had not talked about what to do
>> when 1NT is doubled.
>>
>> Herman.
>>     
> <
> +=+ Meanwhile, Herman, these pesky opponents are claiming
> that David thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D and
> they are pointing to the evidence of the hand.  The Director has
> experience of many past occasions when a player claimed he
> "was always going to do" what he did, and of the regularity with
> which his scepticism invariably guided his ruling.  He recalls
> that "the Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-
> offending side". He may even have read my quotation some
> days ago of a stated desire of the Laws Drafting Committee to
> 'squelch' all arguments of that kind. 
AG : I don't like this. What about psyches ?

Say I open 2NT, natural and strong in our system (as shown on the CC), 
holding a weak one-suiter in clubs..
Suppose that partner wrongly alerts, because he (wrongly) thinks that a 
2NT bid that might include a 5-card major should be alerted, and 
responds 3C, asking for majors, and I pass.

Now, I tell you it's a psyche and of course 'I was always going to pass 
3C if partner happened to bid it'.
Do you squelch my argument ?



(well, in all honesty, you could squelch psyches forever too, and I 
wouldn't consider it outrageous. But that's not the point)


More information about the Blml mailing list