[BLML] misinformation to ops?
lali808 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 26 20:06:34 CET 2010
As it has been said... the wrong SC on the table should have no bearing on
this case. The only question is the hidden information that 1m-2m could
have as much as a limit hand dependent on further bidding rather than being
given the information that it is a weak bid. The fact that the opener tried
to put away the bidding cards before the last bidder could bid also seems
suspect to further bid on her part after her partner raises to 3C?
Appreciate all the feedback folks!
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Alain Gottcheiner <agot at ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> Harald Skjæran a écrit :
> > 2010/1/25 Nigel Guthrie <nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com>:
> >> [Lali]
> >> In a KO game. LHO opens 1C, pass, RHO 2C, pass; LHO quickly starts
> >> putting bidding cards back in box. The passout seat halts proceedings
> >> to ask what the 2C means. Opps are playing 2/1. Partner asks what the 2C
> >> means and is told it is weak. Holding 4-4 in the majors, partner thinks
> >> that the points are evenly split and balances with a double. RHO jumps
> >> up with 3C, pass, LHO thinks and bids 3NT. RHO shows up with 5C and a
> >> limit raise containing 2 aces. 3N makes 3NT bidder has 14hcp. Director
> >> is called. LHO card on table shows inverted minors but RHO says that it
> >> is the wrong card. RHO has no card. The right card is produced and does
> >> not show inverted. Director asks what 1C- 3C would mean and is told
> >> weak. When asked how they can show a limit raise in Clubs he is told
> >> they bid something else and then bid again or something.... with no
> >> specific way to show a limit. Director takes case under advisement and
> >> later allows the 3N bid to stand. Was the ruling correct?
> >> [Nige1]
> >> IMO, on the facts as given, the director ruled incorrectly. LHO
> >> presented a system card to you; it should describe their system. Hence
> >> LHO misinformed you; leading to your damage. The other facts are
> >> consistent with this; with the possible exception of the other card;
> >> even that is ambiguous in the light of the fact that they say 1C-3C is
> > Huh? You might be correct that the TD ruled wrong, but your basis for
> > this is not.
> > Why should a SC that opponents didn't use (look at), and which appears
> > to be the wrong card, influense the ruling?
> > On the facts given, it seems quite clear that it was the wrong SC. Not
> > only did RHO state that it was the wrong SC, they were able to produce
> > the correct card. The wrong card probably didn't have RHOs name on it,
> > but that's not clear from the OP.
> AG : I agree with Harald. You should be told what their system is, not
> what a random sheet of paper on the table says. The "other" SC had as
> much relevance as the wine list, unless of course it misinformed you,
> but that seems not to be the case.
> Not long ago, I had the wrong SC on the table for a whole 20-deal match
> ; it transpired when opponents debriefed and tried to understand a
> bidding sequence using the SC left on the table. Of course, our
> explanations were consistent with the system, not with the random sheet
> of paper and no MI problem arised.
> > It seems like they have a hole in their system, and this should have
> > been explained. Then balancing would be less obvious, maybe even odds
> > against - hard to say, with no hand presented. And the ruling should
> > be based on this.
> Their system is, in fact, that they bid 2C with a hand worth 3C and then
> they hope for you to balance. This should have been stated.
> This isn't illegal per se ; after all, Standard American and its
> variants use 1-bids that can be so heavy that you'd think thrice before
> Best regards
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Blml