[BLML] committes! (day in the life)

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Fri Jan 22 08:28:12 CET 2010


On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:51:17 -0500, José Miguel  <jmmgc1 at hotmail.com>  
wrote:

> I'm agree with Colins, if the agreement is to play 2S like a bad hand  
> with S
>  there is mis-explanation, but if the agreement is 10 HCP, and South  
> bids 2S
> with this hand, there is no infraction at all. Well, may be there was no  
> way
> to prove the N-S system and the TD decided mis-explanation...
>
>
>
> On the other hand, I do not agree with the appelants and of course with  
> the
> Appeals Committee: the TD may change the score actually get at the table  
> for
> any other than he thinks is the correct score, in aplication of the law  
> 12,
> and, IMO, they have no merit for the appeal and they lose the deposit.
>
>
>
> The last is than, I dissagree with the decission. IMO the only way that  
> East
> is going to double is if he knows the hand. I'm sure than it won't be a  
> very
> popular opinion, but... I don't like this kind of players than claim when
> there is a small differece in the explanation of a call, and allways get  
> the
> rigth auction when there is in fact small diference. East has no more  
> than 4
> sure tricks, may be less and he is claiming than he is allways going to
> double this auction, and his partner, who has some points for sure, is
> silent, silent in the bidding, silent in the question, and silent in the
> claim, and East who is the player than, IMO, has no bridge reason for  
> double
>  allways is going to double... May be West has anything to claim, but not
> East. East claims is product of the impotence.


Hi Jose. I think you focus on an important problem. Right, I have seen  
players make claims that are impossible to believe. Myself, I usually get  
pissed off at the people who made the wrong explanation for putting me in  
this position and give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS. But I don't  
give them a license to claim whatever they want.

But I am not sure what you are saying. The opinion of the expert players  
at the club was that East was likely to double with that hand. (I am not  
trying to use "likely" in the same sense as the law.) Are you accepting  
this expert decision but still not allowing East to double just because no  
one else but East would double?

There is also the point that if South had corrected the misexplanation  
before the opening lead, then the auction would have been reopened and  
East would have had the option to actually double or not. But I digress  
into an actual consideration of the law.


More information about the Blml mailing list