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

Alain Gottcheiner agot at ulb.ac.be
Wed Jan 6 17:33:09 CET 2010


Eric Landau a écrit :
> On Jan 6, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Grattan wrote:
>
>   
>> From: "Herman De Wael" <Hermandw at skynet.be>
>>
>>     
>>> 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.
>>>       
>> +=+ 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.  I doubt if a mere assertion
>> by a player, even one of the great and the good, will stand in
>> the way of the Director's doing what he has to do.
>>     
>
> What the director "has to do" is determine the preponderance of the  
> evidence between David's self-serving mere assertion that "he was  
> always going to" bid 2H and "the evidence of the hand" that David  
> "thought he had an agreement when he bid 2D" that it was a transfer.
>
> As the former has practically no weight, it would be up to David to  
> convince the director that the latter has literally no weight.  It is  
> obvious that if David thought 2D was a transfer by agreement, he  
> would have bid 2D 100% of the time.  To counter this, David must show  
> that if he knew that 2D was in fact systemically ambiguous, and  
> assumed that partner knew that 2D was in fact systemically ambiguous,  
> he would still have bid 2D 100% of the time.  If he can do that (and  
> he has, IMO, made a pretty good case for it in this forum), then "the  
> evidence of the hand" no longer suggests that he had an agreement  
> that it was a transfer, and absent any additional evidence that he  
> might have, his 2H bid should stand.
>
>   
AG : perhaps I can offer a better case.

In our system, 1NT(weak)-pass-2C is an asking bid, mainly directed at 
hearts (2D : at spades, as you surely have guessed). We're allowed to do 
it on any positive hand with 4+ hearts, on some strong hands, and on 
weak hands with 5+D and 3+H, because there are only two answers.
But they double 1NT.
If I was unsure whether, after a double (or after this particular 
meaning of double), we played 'system on' or 'transfer', I'd surely bid 
2C with xx - Kxx - Q10xxxx - xx and would surely pass partner's 2D bid 
whatever he might tell to my opponents.
Once again, covering all cases isn't disallowed absent UI.

Surely I would have a strong case telling the TD that there was no 
alternative to bidding 2C and passing 2D even if there was some 
ambiguity about 2C.

Best regards

  Alain



More information about the Blml mailing list