[BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?
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.
More information about the Blml