[BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Marvin French mfrench1 at san.rr.com
Sat May 22 18:58:46 CEST 2010

Richard Hills wrote:

> Daylight Stratified Open Pairs
> Dlr: North
> Vul: North-South
> The bidding has gone:
> WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
> ---       1D        Pass      ?
> You, South, hold:
> T52
> QT96543
> 983
> ---
> So you, South, elect to respond with a weak jump to 2H.
> The bidding continued:
> WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
> ---       1D        Pass      2H (1)
> Pass      3H        Pass(2)   ?
> (1) Your 2H was initially not alerted by partner.
> (2) East foolishly enquired about the meaning of 2H.
>    Partner responded that 2H was natural and game-forcing.
>    But then partner noticed that she had not opened 1S,
>    but had rather opened 1D.  So partner now explained
>    that your 2H jump response promised 5 spades, 4 hearts
>    and 5-9 hcp (which in fact is the convention written on
>    your partnership's System Cards).
> You have multiple UI from partner.
> UI demonstrably suggesting that bidding is correct is that
> partner believed at the time her 3H bid was forcing.
> UI demonstrably suggesting that passing is correct is that
> partner now thinks you hold 5 spades, so raising to 4H may
> see partner converting to a ridiculous 4S in a non-fit.
> What is your legal logical alternative?


The first UI is irrelevant after partner changes her explanation.

I didn't hear the second UI behind the virtual screen and I would 
normally accept the game try in hearts because of the diamond "fit." 
However, with passing suggested by the second UI I do not take that 
LA (not an LA for me,  but for a substantial number of my peers).

There is a popular belief out there that you should just pass 3H and 
let the TD/AC decide the matter. That violates L16B1(a), which says 
you should adjudicate the matter yourself before acting.

Marvin L French
San Diego, CA

More information about the Blml mailing list